Political participation, the International Labour Organization, and Indigenous Peoples: Convention 169 ‘participatory’ rights

ABSTRACT

Indigenous Peoples are constantly denied a meaningful say in their domestic arenas despite centuries of political struggle. While a considerable part of academia has (fairly) focused on the two crucial Indigenous rights of consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), it has discussed less the requirements, content, and operationalisation of the full and effective political participation of Indigenous Peoples despite appeals made by many United Nations (UN) bodies. Against this background, this article focuses on what will be called the ‘participatory’ rights of Indigenous Peoples in the frame of the International Labour Office (ILO) Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries No. 169 of 1989 (ILO Convention 169). It suggests a fourfold categorisation of such rights but with no intention to reduce the scope of the right (or rights) to Indigenous full and effective political participation, but rather to highlight those participatory measures that ILO Convention 169 includes but that have been so far neglected attention. The article ultimately highlights that ILO Convention 169 also may contribute to safeguarding Indigenous political participation in its different forms and exercises beyond consultation (and FPIC), which remain of utmost importance.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous Peoples
• political participation
• participatory rights
• ILO Convention 169
• representations under article 24 of the ILO Constitution

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Alexandra Tomaselli (PhD in Law) is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Minority Rights of the European Academy of Bozen-Bolzano, Eurac Research (Italy), and a member of the International Law Association (ILA) and of its Committee on the Implementation of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Alexandra wishes to thank both Jeremie Gilbert and Peter B. Larsen for their invaluable efforts in editing this special issue, as well as the peer reviewers for their input. Needless to say, all errors remain with the author.

Notes

1 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General Recommendation XXIII, Indigenous Peoples, 1997, A/52/18, annex V.

2 United Nations (UN), General Assembly, Draft Programme of Action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, 2005, A/60/270.

3 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 21, Right of Everyone to Take Part in Cultural Life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 2009, E/C.12/GC/21.

4 Human Rights Committee (HRC), Ángela Poma Poma v. Peru, Communication No. 1457/2006, 27 March 2009, CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006.

5 Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), Progress Report on the Study on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-Making, 2010, A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2; Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), Final Study on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-Making, 2011, A/HRC/EMRIP/2011/2.

6 United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), §Principles of good governance consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: articles 3 to 6 and 46§, May 12–23, 2014, https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/unpfii-sessions-2/thirteenth-session-of-the-unpfii.html (accessed August 12, 2019).

7 Among the most recent literature, see, inter alia, in alphabetical and chronological order: Deborah Delgado-Pugley, ‘Contesting the Limits of Consultation in the Amazon Region: On Indigenous Peoples’ Demands for Free, Prior and Informed Consent in Bolivia and Peru’, Revue Générale de Droit 43 (2013): 151–81; Cathal M. Doyle and Jill Cariño, Making Free, Prior & Informed Consent a Reality. Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive Sector (London: Indigenous Peoples Links-PIPLinks, Middlesex University School of Law, The Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility), https://www.piplinks.org/system/files/Consortium+FPIC+report+-+May+2103+-+web+version.pdf (accessed August 12, 2019); Almut Schilling-Vacaflor, ‘Prior Consultations in Plurinational Bolivia: Democracy, Rights and Real Life Experiences’, Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 8, no. 2 (2013): 202–20; Almut Schilling-Vacaflor, ‘Rethinking the Link between Consultation and Conflict: Lessons from Bolivia’s Gas Sector’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D’Études du Développement 35, no. 4 (2014): 503–21; Gloria Amparo Rodriguez, De la Consulta Previa al Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado a Pueblos Indígenas en Colombia (Bogotá: Grupo Editorial Ibáñez, 2014); Sebastiaan J. Rombouts, Having a Say. Indigenous Peoples, International Law and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publisher, 2014); Alexandra Tomaselli, ‘El Derecho a la Consulta de los Pueblos Indígenas en Chile: Avances y Desafíos’, Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 43, no. 1–2 (2014): 113–42; Cathal M. Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources. The Transformative Role of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (London: Routledge, 2015); Yu Kanosue, ‘When Land is Taken Away: States Obligations under International Human Law Concerning Large-Scale Projects Impacting Local Communities’, Human Rights Law Review 15, no. 4 (2015): 643–67; Silvia Gabriela Ruiz Cervantes, ‘El Derecho es el Consentimiento, la Consulta un Procedimiento: Reflexiones desde América Latina sobre el Derecho a la Consulta’, Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos 26, no. 1 (2015): 59–75; Almut Schilling-Vacaflor and Riccarda Flemmer, ‘Conflict Transformation through Prior Consultation? Lessons from Peru’, Journal of Latin American Studies 47, no. 4 (2015): 811–39; Lorenza B. Fontana and Jean Grugel, ‘The Politics of Indigenous Participation Through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: Reflections from the Bolivian Case’, World Development 77 (2016): 249–61; José Parra, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in International Human Rights Law: The Constitutional Court of Colombia and Free, Prior and Informed Consent’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 23, no. 3 (2016): 355–81; Roger Merino, ‘Law and Politics of Indigenous Self-determination: The Meaning of the Right to Prior Consultation’, in Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law, ed. Irene Watson (London, New York: Routledge, 2017), 120–40; Cathal M. Doyle, ‘Free Prior and Informed Consent, Development and Mining on Bougainville: Choice and the Pursuit of Self-Determined Development’, in Growing Bougainville’s Future. Choices for an Island and Its Peoples, ed. Christina Hill and Luke Fletcher (Sidney: Jubilee Australia Research Centre, 2018); Juliana Porsani and Rickard Lalander, ‘Why Does Deliberative Community Consultation in Large-Scale Land Acquisitions Fail? A Critical Analysis of Mozambican Experiences’, Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies 7, no. 2 (2018): 164–93; Charlotte Schumann, Framing Prior Consultation in Brazil. Ethnographic Perspectives on Limits of Participation and Multicultural Politics (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2018); Claire Wright and Alexandra Tomaselli, eds., The Prior Consultation of Indigenous Peoples in Latin America. Inside the Implementation Gap (London: Routledge, 2019).

8 Prosper Nobirabo Musafiri, ‘Right to Self-Determination in International Law: Towards Theorization of the Concept of Indigenous Peoples/National Minority?’ International Journal of Minority and Group Rights 19, no. 4 (2012): 481–532; Alexandra Tomaselli, Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Political Participation. International Law Standards and their application in Latin America (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2016); Alexandra Tomaselli, ‘The Right to Political Participation of Indigenous Peoples: A Holistic Approach’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 24, no. 4 (2017): 390–427; Roger Merino, ‘Re-politicizing Participation or Reframing Environmental Governance? Beyond Indigenous’ Prior Consultation and Citizen Participation’, World Development 111 (2018): 75–83.

9 Oleh Protsyk, ‘The Representation of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in Parliament. A Global Overview’ (2010), Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), https://www.ipu.org/splz-e/chiapas10/overview.pdf (accessed August 12, 2019), 23.

10 Alexandra Xanthaki and Dominic O’Sullivan, ‘Indigenous Participation in Elective Bodies: The Maori in New Zealand’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 16, no. (2009): 181–207.

11 Protsyk, ‘Representation of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples’, 20–2; Nobirabo Musafiri, ‘Right to Self-Determination’, 527–28.

12 Secretariat of the United Nations (UN) Permanent Forum of Indigenous Issues, ‘Examination of the situation of indigenous peoples and their participation in democracies and electoral processes in Latin America under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, 2014, E/C.19/2014/6, 11.

13 Kenneth A. Bollen, ‘Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984’, Human Rights Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1986): 567–91, 568; Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl am Rhein: N.P. Engel Publishers, 1993), 84; Sarah Joseph, Jennifer Schultz, and Melissa Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 495.

14 Yash Ghai, Public Participation of Minorities (London: Minority Rights Group International, 2003), 3.

15 Nobirabo Musafiri, ‘Right to Self-determination’, 527–28.

16 Luis Rodríguez Piñero-Royo, ‘Political Participation Systems Applicable to Indigenous Peoples’, in Political Participation of Minorities: A Commentary on International Standards and Practice, ed. Marc Weller and Katherine Nobbs (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 308–42, 309.

17 Xanthaki and O’Sullivan, ‘Indigenous Participation’, 183. This is also evidenced by as the jurisprudence of HRC under art 27. On this, see the recent overview by Fergus Mackay, Indigenous Peoples and United Nations Human Rights Bodies. A Compilation of UN Treaty Body Jurisprudence, the Recommendations of the Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures, and the Advice of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Volume VII, 2015–2016 (Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Programme, 2017), https://www.forestpeoples.org/en/legal-human-rights-human-rights-mechanisms-un-human-rights-system-guides-human-rights-mechanisms (accessed August 12, 2019).

18 Catherine J. Iorns Magallanes, ‘Dedicated Parliamentary Seats for Indigenous Peoples: Political Representation as an Element of Indigenous Self-determination’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 10, no. 4 (2003), https://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/iorns104nf.html (accessed August 12, 2019), par. 72.

19 Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Mexico’, 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.109, par. 19.

20 Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia, 2000, CCPR/CO/69/AUS, par. 506; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Sweden’, 2002, CCPR/CO/74/SWE, par. 15; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: United States’, 2006, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, par. 37; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Argentina’, 2011, E/C.12/ARG/CO/3, par. 10; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Finland’, 2013, CCPR/C/FIN/CO/6, par. 16; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Nepal’, 2014, E/C.12/NPL/CO/3, par. 9.

21 Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Panama’, 2008, CCPR/C/PAN/CO/3, par. 21.

22 Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Chile’, 2007, CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, par. 19; Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Panama, par. 21.

23 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Russian Federation, 2003, E/C.12/1/Add.94, par. 11; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Brazil’, 2005, CCPR/C/BRA/CO/2, par. 6; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Chile’, par. 19; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Sweden’, 2008, E/C.12/SWE/CO/5, par. 15; Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Panama, par. 21; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Cambodia’, 2009, E/C.12/KHM/CO/1, par. 16; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Democratic Republic of Congo’, 2009, E/C.12/COD/CO/4, par. 15; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Argentina’, 2011, E/C.12/ARG/CO/3, par. 9; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations on the combined third, fourth and fifth periodic reports of El Salvador’, 2014, E/C.12/SLV/CO/3-5, par. 27; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Guatemala’, 2014, E/C.12/GTM/CO/3, par. 7; Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Chile’, 2014, CCPR/C/CHL/CO/6, par. 10; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Paraguay’, 2015, E/C.12/PRY/CO/4, par. 6.

24 Inter alia, see James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Pekka Aikio and Martin Scheinin, eds., Operationalizing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Self-determination (Saarijärvi: Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2000); Lorie M. Graham, ‘Resolving Indigenous Claims to Self-determination’, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 10, no. 2 (2004): 385–420; Jeremie Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law. From Victims to Actors (Ardesley, NY: Transnational Publisher, 2006); Marco Aparicio-Wilhelmi, ‘El Derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas a la Libre Determinación’, in Pueblos Indígenas y Derechos Humanos, ed. Mikel Berraondo (Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto, 2006), 399–421; Siegfried Wiessner, ‘Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41 (2008): 1141–76; Joshua Castellino, ‘Territorial Integrity and the ‘Right’ to Self-determination: An examination of the Conceptual Tools’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 33, no. 2 (2008): 503–68; Cathal M. Doyle and Jeremie Gilbert, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Globalisation: From “Development Agression” to “Self-determinted Development”’, European Yearbook of Minority Issues 8 (2011): 219–67; Rombouts, Having a Say; Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources; Doyle, ‘Free Prior and Informed Consent, Development and Mining on Bougainville’.

25 Inter alia, see Caroline E. Foster, ‘Articulating Self-determination in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, European Journal of International Law 12, no. 1 (2001): 141–57; Paul J. Magnarella, ‘The Evolving Right of Self-determination of Indigenous Peoples’, Saint Thomas Law Review 14, no. 2 (2002): 425–47; Federico Lenzerini, ‘Sovereignty Revisited: International Law and Parallel Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples’, Texas International Law Journal 42, no. 155 (2006): 155–89; Alexandra Xanthaki, Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards Self-determination, Culture and Land (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Mauro Barelli, ‘Shaping Indigenous Self-determination: Promising or Unsatisfactory Solutions?’ International Community Law Review 13, no. 3 (2011): 413–36; Nobirabo Musafiri, ‘Right to Self-determination’; and Stacy J. Kosko, ‘Agency Vulnerability, Participation, and the Self-determination of Indigenous Peoples’, Journal of Global Ethics 9, no. 3 (2013): 293–310.

26 Tomaselli, Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Political Participation, 172.

27 As it does not focus on autonomy or self-government only by restricting the understanding of art 4 of the UNDRIP. On this, see Alexandra Tomaselli, ‘Exploring Indigenous Self-governments and Forms of Autonomies’, in Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, ed. Corinne Lennox and Damien Short (London, New York: Routledge), 83–100.

28 Human Rights Committee (HRC), Ángela Poma Poma v. Peru.

29 This declaration, however, affirms the right to full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples also in its arts 14.1 and 2, 23, 29.3, 31.2, 33, and 34, and to consultation and FPIC in its arts 13.2, 18.3 and 4, 20.4, 23.2, and 29.4.

30 Tomaselli, ‘A Holistic Approach’.

31 Tomaselli, Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Political Participation; Tomaselli, ‘A Holistic Approach’. This may also refer to the application of indigenous customary law. This is a vital component of and for indigenous autonomy systems that, however, has to fully respect the individual human rights of all indigenous members. Alexandra Tomaselli, ‘Autonomía Indígena Originaria Campesina in Bolivia: Realizing the indigenous autonomy?’ European Diversity and Autonomy Papers 1 (2012): 1–56, https://www.eurac.edu/edap (accessed August 12, 2019), 20–21.

32 This is except the complaint of Representation that was filed by the Nepal Telecom Employees’ Union (NTEU) and alleges the non-observance by Nepal of ILO Convention 169. This Representation was deemed receivable by the ILO Governing Body in June 2018; a tripartite committee to examine it has been set up but its evaluation is still to be concluded. ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Nepal of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Nepal Telecom Employees’ Union (NTEU), 2018, GB.333/INS/8/2, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:3956940,en:NO (accessed August 1, 2019).

33 Rodríguez Piñero-Royo, ‘Political Participation Systems’, 313; Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Progress Report, 6.

34 For a regional analysis, see Wright and Tomaselli, The Prior Consultation of Indigenous Peoples.

35 The other two are the ‘Complaints of non-observance’ under art 26 of the ILO Constitution, and the Freedom of Association cases analysed by the homonymous Committee. For the latter, see ILO, ‘Special procedures for the examination in the International Labour Organization of complaints alleging violations of freedom of association – Annex 1’, [1950] 2002, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:62:0::NO:62:P62_LIST_ENTRIE_ID:2565060:NO (accessed August 12, 2019).

36 In short, for each case, the ILO Governing Body sets up a tripartite committee, which elaborates a report. The ILO Governing Body subsequently analyses, and generally, adopts and publishes it. State parties are involved in the whole procedure, and they usually receive a number of recommendations once the procedure of the case of Representation closes. ILO, ‘Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, [1932] 2004, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/meetingdocument/wcm_041899.pdf (accessed August 12, 2019).

37 The cases are 19 in total (plus one pending, see endnote 32), but four against Mexico of 2004 have been merged into a unique decision. ILO, ‘Representations (Art. 24)’, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50010:::NO:50010:P50010_ARTICLE_NO:24 (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by nine workers' organisations’, 2004, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507439,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019).

38 Xanthaki and O’Sullivan, ‘Indigenous Participation’, 185; Peter B. Larsen, ‘“The ‘New Jungle Law”: Development, Indigenous Rights and ILO Convention 169 in Latin America’, International Development Policy | Revue Internationale de Politique de Développement [Online] 7, no. 1 (2016), par. 41.

39 In its 2010 report, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) has identified only the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making and it has defined it as follows:

The right to participation (art 2, 5–7, 15, 22, 23); […] The State’s obligation to cooperate with indigenous peoples (art 7, 20, 22, 25, 27, 33); Indigenous peoples’ right to decide their own priorities (art 7); The obligation to refrain from taking measures contrary to the freely expressed wishes of indigenous peoples (art 4); […] Indigenous peoples’ right to exercise control over their own development (art 7); [and] Indigenous peoples’ right to effective representation (art 6 and 16).

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Progress Report, 7–8. Other references were made to arts 6 and 16 on the rights to consultation and FPIC.

40 ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Trade Union Delegation, D-III-57, section XI of the National Trade Union of Education Workers (SNTE), Radio Education, GB.270/16/3; GB.272/7/2 (1998), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2506985,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Central Unitary Workers’ Union (CUT), GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3 (2001), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507143,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Confederación Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres (CEOSL), GB.277/18/4; GB.282/14/2 (2001), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507223,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Denmark of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Greenland (Sulinermik Inuussutissarsiuteqartut Kattuffiat-SIK) (SIK)’, GB.277/18/3; GB.280/18/5 (2001), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507219,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Central Unitary Workers’ Union (CUT) and the Colombian Medical Trade Union Association’, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4 (2001), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507239,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by nine workers’ organisations’ (2004), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507439,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Union of Metal, Steel, Iron and Allied Workers (STIMAHCS)’, GB.286/20/1; GB.296/5/3 (2006), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507302,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Federation of Country and City Workers (FTCC)’, GB.294/17/1; GB.299/6/1 (2007), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507321,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Education Workers Union of Río Negro (UNTER), local section affiliated to the Confederation of Education Workers of Argentina (CTERA)’, GB.295/17; GB.304/14/7 (2008), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507187,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Union of Engineers of the Federal District (SENGE/DF)’ (2009), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507317,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by the Government of Peru of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA) and the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP)’, GB.323/INS/12/1 (2014), https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_489534.pdf (accessed August 12, 2019).

41 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador, par. 31, reiterated in ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 44.

42 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador, par. 32, reiterated in ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4, par. 59.

43 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador, par. 36.

44 ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico 2004, par. 133 and 136.

45 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala, par. 53 and 59.

46 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 44.

47 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico GB.286/20/1; GB.296/5/3, par. 44.

48 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 43.

49 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3, par. 79.

50 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 91.

51 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 55 and 62, letter d.

52 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 98, 99 and 100, letter c.

53 Tomaselli, Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Political Participation, 195 and 227 ff.

54 ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Peru of the Indigenous and Tribal People's Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP)’, GB.270/16/4; GB.273/14/4 (1998), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507207,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Associated Workers’, GB.273/15/6; GB.276/16/3 (1999), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507203,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4; ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico 2004; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina; and ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil.

55 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador par. 44, reiterated in ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina par. 75.

56 ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico 2004 par. 102, reiterated in ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 75.

57 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 75.

58 ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico 2004, par. 102, reiterated in ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 76.

59 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 78.

60 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 70 and 81.

61 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 58.

62 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4, par. 63 and 68, letter b.

63 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3, par. 94.

64 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala, par. 60, and ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 58.

65 ILO, Representation alleging non-observance by Mexico 2004, par. 92 and 94; see also par. 103; and ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina, par. 76.

66 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Peru, GB.270/16/4; GB.273/14/4 ; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico GB.286/20/1; GB.296/5/3; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Argentina; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil; ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Peru of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), GB.307/17/4; GB.313/INS/12/5, 03/2012 ([2009] 2012), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507473,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); and ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by the Government of Chile of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the First Inter-Enterprise Trade Union of Mapuche Bakers of Santiago, GB.320/INS/15/3; GB.326/INS/15/5’ (2014), https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_462783.pdf (accessed August 12, 2019).

67 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 44.

68 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador, par. 44 and 45, letter a.

69 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico, GB.286/20/1; GB.296/5/3, par., 44.

70 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 57.

71 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala, par. 51.

72 ILO, ‘Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Bolivia of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), GB.272/8/1; GB.274/16/7 (1999), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50012:0::NO:50012:P50012_COMPLAINT_PROCEDURE_ID,P50012_LANG_CODE:2507170,en:NO (accessed August 12, 2019); ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.277/18/1; GB.282/14/4; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil; and ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by the Government of Peru, GB.323/INS/12/1.

73 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala, par. 48.

74 ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Colombia, GB.276/17/1; GB.282/14/3, par. 91; ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala, par. 48 and 51; and ILO, Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil, par. 50 and 58.

75 See endnote 32.

76 Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Progress Report; Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Final Study; Nobirabo Musafiri, ‘Right to Self-determination’.

77 Xanthaki and O’Sullivan, ‘Indigenous Participation’; Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAtHR), YATAMA v. Nicaragua, 23 June 2005, Serie C. no. 127.

78 Doyle and Gilbert, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Globalisation’; Doyle, ‘Development and mining on Bougainville’.

79 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAtHR), Saramaka People v. Suriname, 28 November 2007, Serie C. no. 172.

80 Larsen, ‘The ‘New Jungle Law’, par. 44.

81 Tomaselli, Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Political Participation; Tomaselli, ‘A Holistic Approach’.