Indigenous land restitution and traditional occupation in Mexico's Lacandonia

Abstract

The central argument of this article is that international (inter-American) human rights law upholds the land rights of the Lacandon Community (Comunidad Zona Lacandona). This argument relates to the issue of the recognition and protection of indigenous land rights on the basis of traditional tenure by international human rights law. The article contributes to the empirical understanding not only of the case study but also of the concepts of traditional occupation and land restitution in the context of the Inter-American Human Rights System. This article is based on data obtained from agrarian archives, interviews and a revision of the literature on the case study and the inter-American norms and jurisprudence.

Keywords:

• land restitution
• traditional occupation
• Inter-American Human Rights System
• land reform
• Lacandon community
• Mexico

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Mexico's CONACYT for funding this research and Alexandra Tomaselli for her valuable comments.

Notes

1. These data have been interpreted in the light of a revision of the literature on the community's land restitution and the inter-American norms and jurisprudence on land restitution and traditional occupation.

2. Some studies on the Lacandons are E. Thompson. 1970. Maya History and Religion; F. Scholes and R. Roys. 1948. The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel; N. Pons Saez. 1997. La Conquista del Lacandon; and D. Boremanse. 1998. Hach Winik. The Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Southern Mexico.

3. Mexico's Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution established tenure principles for different land-based communities: ejido, agrarian colonies and agrarian communities (recipients of land restitution actions).

4. El Cedro, Lacanjá, Miramar, El Ocotal, Santa Clara, Petjá, Itzanocú, La Maroma and Metzabok.

5. Biosphere reserves (Montes Azules and Lacant-Tún) and protected natural areas (Chan-Kin, Najá, Metzabok, Yaxchilán and Bonampak).

6. See IACtHR H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay. 2010; IACtHR H.R., Case of the Saramaka People vs. Suriname.2007; IACtHR H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay.2006; IACtHR H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay. 2005; IACtHR H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua. 2001.

7. Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, Suriname, Venezuela.

8. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay.

9. Also see International Court of Justice, Western Sahara case, ICJ Reports 1975.

10. The Lacandons refer to themselves as the Hach Winik, meaning the Real Men in their language.

11. The Indians of Yucum and Petenacte were spotted in 1700 in Lacandonia (De Vos 1980, p. 230).

12. Peljá, Metzabok, Arena, Santo Domingo, Chocolja, Lacanjá, Laguna Chan, El Cedro, El Desempeño and San Quintín.

13. Miramar Lagoon, Sic Rum and Ya'rirXa'n.

14. La Arena, Yukman Babar, Pasa Macho, Santo Domingo and Ilusión, also Najá, Het-já and Río Perlas located between Het-já and Tenosique.

15. Peljá, Metzabok, Arena, Santo Domingo, Chocoljá, Lacanjá, Laguna Chan, El Cedro, El Desempeño and San Quintín (Villa Rojas 1967).

16. For a discussion on the presence of the EZLN in Lacandonia, see Legorreta (1998) and Orive and Torres (2010).

17. There has been Lacandon presence since at least 1786 (De Vos 1980); there are also accounts of the existence of scattered settlements in the nineteenth century (Tozzer 1907, Duby 1944, Villa Rojas 1967b, Baer and Merrifield 1971, Blom and Duby 2006).

18. A group of 25 Lacandons from ‘Puerto Bello Metzaboc’ were granted 10,600,000 hectares of national lands through a Decree dated on 26 August 1967 – enforced until 1975 (AGA. Puerto Bello Mexaboc).

19. See the cases Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua and Saramaka People vs. Suriname.