Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Abstract
The right of indigenous peoples to consent to – or to withhold consent from – the development of extractable resources located on or under ancestral lands is hotly contested by those in the extractive industries, governments, and even some development theorists. Those who support such a right argue that it is a logical progression of the well-established right to meaningful prior consultation, as well as being integral to the right to self-determination of peoples whose relationship to the land is often inextricably intertwined with their identity and way of life. On the other side are industries seeking valuable resources and promising lucrative returns to governments, as well as some development analysts who point to extractive projects as important anti-poverty measures. The international financial institutions continue to advocate for mineral, water, oil, and gas projects and private investment while purporting to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples through “participatory” programming and other non-binding initiatives. The Symposium papers included in this volume were developed in response to a topic defined as the “right of indigenous peoples to meaningful consent in extractive industry projects.” This brief introductory comment will consider the key elements in the title that are examined by the articles included in the Symposium. One of the main elements at issue is the “right” we are discussing – something we have described as a right to “meaningful consent” in order to invoke the important debates that have been taking place concerning the exact contours of the right. A number of formulations are in use in relation to extractive industries today. Here are a few examples of the way the right is described: the right to “free, prior and informed consent;” the right to “participation” in decisions about natural resource development; and the right to “prior informed consultation.” Each of these formulations – which have been used variously by international financial institutions, U.N. development agencies, human rights bodies, environmental organizations, and indigenous advocates – has a different texture and content, as well as a different provenance in the human rights legal framework. The choice of term, therefore, often has profound consequences for the rights of indigenous peoples.
First Page
1
Volume
22
Publication Date
2005
Recommended Citation
Margaret L. Satterthwaite & Deena Hurwitz,
The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Meaningful Consent in Extractive Industry Projects: Symposium Introduction,
22
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
1
(2005).
Available at:
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-articles/1006
