ABSTRACT
This special issue of the journal is about one of the most significant, yet largely overlooked, international rights instruments concerning indigenous peoples: the ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. It offers a highly needed critical perspective bringing together practitioners, institutional actors, indigenous leaders and academics in an attempt to take stock of nearly 30 years of its existence.
Whereas the ILO is mainly known for its role in terms of labour rights, amongst indigenous peoples, it is well known for its Convention 169 which covers several keys areas of their rights under international law. Nonetheless, despite being the only international binding treaty on indigenous peoples’ rights, it usually receives much less attention then the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). While adopted in the same year as the virtually universally ratified, Convention on the rights of the child, the implications and practice of ILO 169 remains largely unexplored in academic literature. This special issue fills the gap by building on an on-going global dialogue to understand and problematise the Convention nearly 30 years down the line. It offers both a retrospective and forward looking perspective, addressing major development issues and challenges of our times.
1. Why a special issue dedicated to ILO Convention 169?
The Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Convention No. 169, adopted 30 years ago in 1989, is in many ways a unique and visionary instrument, which seeks to ensure that indigenous and tribal peoples enjoy human rights without discrimination, exercise control over their own development and participate in decision-making processes that affect their lives. While a large body of legal norms, doctrine and jurisprudence has since then emerged under the process of the United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and regional human rights processes, the Convention remains the only legally-binding international instrument open for ratification that is exclusively dedicated to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.
ILO estimates that indigenous and tribal peoples constitute 5% of the world’s population totalling some 370 million people worldwide in 70 different countries. Such figures, however, disguise dramatic differences in terms of levels of legal recognition, social and political realities. Indeed, the diversity of coverage is an important hallmark of the Convention including both subjective and objective criteria for identifying indigenous and tribal peoples. On the one hand, coverage as indigenous peoples concern those descending from
populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
This special issue of the journal offers a critical approach to ILO Convention 169 (hereafter listed as C169 or the Convention) and its implementation. In doing so, we wish to move the debate from the normative discussions of what indigenous peoples’ rights should ideally look like towards a discussion about how international rights are practiced and grounded legally, politically as well as institutionally. Therefore, it does not offer a general introduction to international standards provided for by C169. Such introductions for indigenous and wider audiences are readily available, not least through guidance material offered by the ILO itself.Footnote1
The critical approach proposed here, in turn, is not one of adhering to grand narratives of ‘failed implementation’ or rehearsing arm-chair critical theory, but rather seeking to think critically about implementation in a comprehensive sense. The critical voices included in the volume are diverse reflecting a vibrant community of practice challenging how the Convention is approached and put into practice. Articles are informed by hands-on experience of using and making the Convention work at both global and local levels. More generally, this special issue comes as part of a reflection amongst international indigenous activists, international institutional mandate holders, civil society actors, and academics on the need for more analysis about the role of C169 as the only binding treaty in the overall international legal framework on indigenous peoples’ rights. The special issue of the journal wishes to celebrate the 30 years of achievement, but also ask questions about the future role of the Convention in the global quest for strengthening international legal frameworks.
2. The ILO C169 at a crossroad: anniversaries and beyond
In 2019, the double anniversary of the International Labour Organization (ILO) turning 100 and the ILO Convention 169 turning 30, calls for reflection about the fate and effects of the Convention as an international standard and for a discussion about its institutional host, the ILO, and the contribution of its tripartite constituents to support indigenous rights in their broader quest for social justice. Already at the 25th anniversary of the Convention, in 2014, there were clear signs from indigenous representatives and States alike about the urgency of revisiting the role of the Convention (see Larsen and Nolle, this volume). Less mentioned, 2019, is also the 60th anniversary of when Convention 107, the predecessor of C169, entered into force. If the latter is considered outdated, at times even forgotten, it nonetheless remains in force in several countries that have large indigenous peoples’ constituencies. India with an estimated 104 million indigenous and tribal peoples or Bangladesh with some 1.5 million indigenous peoples, are two such examples of countries that have ratified C107. Anniversaries are not only moments to celebrate achievements, but also a window of opportunity to reflect upon with what is working, identify outstanding challenges and what needs reform. It is also a moment to shed light on important, if rarely highlighted, changes taking places in the normative framework.
A few snapshots from 2018 are illustrative of the changing times and normative dynamics. 2018 saw the so-called abrogation of several outdated ‘indigenous worker’ related ILO Conventions from the 1930s, while reiterating the Governing Body recommendation to ratify C169. It was also the first year after the ILO’s revised Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration) included C169 in its list of relevant Conventions. 2018 also saw ILO Governing Body discussions about its ‘Follow-up to the Strategy for indigenous peoples’ rights for inclusive and sustainable development’ (see later discussion).
If the 100 years of the ILO has seen massive gains in terms of normative standards on workers’ conditions, poverty reduction and economic growth, social inequalities and ecological pressures are deepening, and the (post)-colonial legacy of Indigenous-State relationships are far from resolved. There are still significant debates and controversies on the recognition of indigenous rights in many post-colonial States across Africa and Asia. This is equally true in Latin America despite a longer history of decolonisationFootnote2 blurring the boundaries between internal and external forms of colonisation. Land encroachment, marginalisation and displacement of indigenous peoples is even intensifying in many places, just as pressures on indigenous voices are caught in the crossfire of global crackdowns on civil society.Footnote3 If C169 is largely promoted as a reconciliatory tool, a central concern of the special issue is to analyse how this is playing out.
The emphasis of C169 on equality, inclusion and mainstreaming, on the one hand, and distinct collective rights, on the other, constitute fundamental principles. While one strand of fairly uncommon critique sees the Convention as another form of assimilation and colonialism,Footnote4 other indigenous movements and organisations not least in Latin America have retained C169 as a basis for their political priorities and proposed development alternatives. The difference is significant and has, at times, left the global indigenous movement divided about the relevance of the Convention. Several articles address this divide. Dorough and Malezer, for example, highlight the changing relevance and importance of the Convention in conjunction with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One of the strengths of the C169 is its encompassing and holistic approach to rights including also economic rights such as decent work conditions, development and economic empowerment. Indigenous communities across the globe suffer from extreme economic marginalisation, severe poverty and social exclusion making the ILO human rights approach of linking such economic rights to questions of land, resources and development rights particularly relevant.
Across the globe, indigenous peoples suffer from what has been labelled as ‘development aggression’, referring to top down and imposed forms of development connected to the extraction of natural resources located on their territories.Footnote5 Such ‘aggression’ in the name of development is particularly acute when it comes to large-scale developmental projects taking place on indigenous peoples’ territories and is often synonymous with forced displacement, land dispossession and environmental degradation, and the resulting cultural disruption, with scant attention to rights. This has not only amplified social and environmental impacts, but equally augmented the levels of socio-environmental conflicts, the frequency of violence and the break-down of constructive dialogue. Indeed, one needs not spend a lot of time with indigenous organisations to get a sense of the intense pressures and dilemmas they face on a wide range of topics from forestry, extractive industries to infrastructure development. Overworked, underrepresented and under massive pressure in a context of intense investments, volatile politics and transformative projects, the relevance of an internationally grounded human rights framework effectively working on the ground is clear. On the one hand, the rise of populism and readiness to overthrow indigenous rights frameworks in countries such as Brazil remind us of the importance of international safeguard frameworks. On the other hand, growing violence against indigenous rights defenders equally prompts urgent attention from the international human rights community.
Especially in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Indigenous leaders and community members voicing opposition to development or investment projects are often subjected to criminalisation, harassment, threats, violent attacks and killings. A report on human rights defenders killed worldwide in 2017, which documents murders of 312 human rights defenders in 27 countries, shows that 67% of the persons killed were engaged in the defence of land, environmental and indigenous peoples’ rights and nearly always in the context of mega projects, extractive industry and big business.Footnote6
Contentious investment projects and so-called socio-environmental conflicts in Latin America have revealed the potential centrality of C169 in mediating the encounter between private sector investors and indigenous communities. As the director of the ILO office in Lima noted when closing a regional meeting on the topic, ‘the Convention has gone from protest to proposal and channelled social conflictivity to a certain degree’.Footnote7 How then is social conflictivity being understood and how is it being channelled?
As highlighted in many articles of this special issue, paradoxically, there is inadequate attention to the wide range of practical challenges, dilemmas and opportunities emerging from working with C169 as a rights-based development framework. Since the adoption of the Convention, there has been an upsurge in targeted development support by both ILO and other international and national development agencies leading participatory development initiatives,Footnote8 tailored support schemesFootnote9 and the inclusion of indigenous priorities in rural, health and education planning. On the other hand, the indigenous development challenge is about much more than extending and adapting outreach programmes (indeed, the premise for integrationist thinking in C107). With regards to specific working conditions, ILO has, for example, spearheaded analytical work on the presence of forced labour, child labour and discrimination among indigenous peoples tying the C169 mandate to ILO’s core focus on labour standards. This has also led to numerous work-oriented observations by the ILO in international settings. As noted in the statement made by the ILO during the 2018 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues:
Indigenous women and men work in a wide range of sectors, as construction workers, street vendors, on plantations, in natural reserves, the tourism industry, in the services sectors or as domestic workers. Often however, opportunities for indigenous women and men are limited to the informal economy, where working conditions are poor and violations of fundamental rights at work are more likely to occur. In this context, indigenous women in particular are vulnerable to exploitation, and face rampant discrimination because they are women and because they are indigenous.
Another concern of the special issue is to evaluate and assess the role of the ILO as a particular institutional arena for the promotion and realisation of indigenous peoples’ rights. An important change in the last 30 years is how indigenous peoples have (finally) been recognised as actors and not only subjects or victims of international law.Footnote10 Arguably, this has led to a more direct and central place for indigenous peoples in the international forums concerning their rights, although several articles of this volume point to an ‘ILO deficit’ in this respect. The participation of indigenous peoples in the making of international law is of essential importance to ensure a much more direct and participatory role for indigenous peoples. Hence, a central concern of the collection of papers is to offer some reflections on the role that the ILO can offer for supporting the direct and active participation of indigenous peoples in law-making, and wider standard-setting process.
If the ILO is the institutional host of the only binding international instrument, other agencies have largely bypassed the ILO in terms of adopting institutionalised ways of engaging with indigenous representatives in their international processes. From historically having occupied a quite unique role as being the main international institution to have supported indigenous rights, the ILO today finds itself as one amongst many other global and regional institutions with an indigenous focus, some of which are increasingly engaging with and using C169 as part of their normative framework. This being said, international institutions and mechanisms dedicated to indigenous issues such as the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII), the Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples and the work of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples have different roles and complementary terrains. Other specialised agencies such as the FAO and UNESCO are also actively supporting and integrating indigenous peoples’ rights in their activities. Several articles of the special issue reflect on this shared terrain and explore the role of C169.
3. Structure and content of the journal
The special issue of the journal is divided into three distinct but complementary parts with the aim of offering critical reflections on (1) international key cross-thematic issues concerning C169, (2) national experiences with implementation, (3) reflections from usually unheard voices, including trade unions, employers and indigenous peoples themselves. Treatment is by no means comprehensive, yet articles cover several of the key issues that are at the heart of the ILO C169 practice in different global and national arenas.
The first part offers a set of global cross-cutting perspectives. To complement global introductions to the normative principles of C169,Footnote11 we have sought to nurture a debate about C169 as a rights-based framework, linking questions of supervision and technical cooperation to discussions about the significance of the Convention and its articles.
The first article by Peter Bille Larsen offers a critical appraisal of the dual challenge of promoting ratification and enhancing implementation. Despite relatively low ratification numbers, the relevance and global reach of the Convention has been growing not least through its incorporation in a wide range of complementary standards and jurisprudence. Still, ratification processes have slowed down prompting more careful attention to processes of non-ratification including the common challenge of questioning indigeneity as a category as such. Politics of recognition, albeit in a slightly different manner, play an equally important role when implementing the Convention, which the article seeks to further contextualise through a discussion of interpretation matters, unpacking the institutional black-box of the ILO and wider standard-setting. In particular, the article seeks to unpack the somewhat contentious nature of consultation provisions. It concludes by reaffirming C169 as an instrument of social justice at the core of ILO’s mandate with a call for a comprehensive ratification and implementation campaign as well as stepping up systematic engagement with indigenous peoples.
A cornerstone of C169 practice, in contrast to the UNDRIP, involves the supervisory mechanisms and practice. As Lee Swepston notes this concerns whether international law is properly applied, and help points out both problems and improvements. Governments are to report at intervals of six years, and the supervisory bodies can require more frequent reports when needed. Reports are examined by the independent Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, and may result in a government being summoned before the ILO Conference. Also, the ILO has complaints procedures, the most relevant of which is representations (article 24 of the Constitution) frequently mobilised in the context of Convention 169. The system has resulted in real advances in indigenous rights, Swepston argues. Yet, more can be done not least in terms of training national lawyers on international standards.
The article by Jennifer Hays and Jakob Kronik offers a critical analysis of the ILO technical cooperation programme to Promote ILO Convention No. 169 (PRO 169). C169 is not only an international treaty open to ratification, but equally a framework for ILO technical cooperation and dialogue on the topics of indigenous rights and development. Since the 1950s, ILO technical cooperation on indigenous issues has represented a crucial avenue of engagement with countries. This article offers critical reflections based on analysis of support provided in Latin America and Southern Africa. The authors argue that technical cooperation has played an instrumental role in nurturing national debates, yet also faces constraints such as short-term donor support. More technical cooperation is called for by both states and indigenous organisations faced with growing pressures, leading the authors to recommend more institutional support and core-funding from the ILO.
The issues of participation, consultation and consent are at the heart of the Convention and constitute quintessential cross-cutting issues. Indeed, questions of participation, consultation and consent are touched upon in every single article of the special issue. Two of the articles in part 1 are specifically dedicated to the topics of participation and consultation. The article by Alexandra Tomaselli examines how C169 can support the political participation, an issue which is often neglected despite the shocking rate of poor political participation of indigenous peoples across the globe. In her article, Tomaselli not only offers a compelling review of the standards on political participation but also analyses how indigenous political participation rights may complement the intertwined rights to consultation and free, prior and informed consent.
The second part of the special issue focusses on the application of the ILO Convention in local, national and regional contexts. Several articles are written from the perspective of advocates and peoples who have used the Convention in practice, with the aim of providing an analysis of the C169 from the field.
Isabel Madariaga, in her article, explores the significance of C169 in the Inter-American Human Rights system with a particular focus on the right to consultation and consent. From 2000 to 2013 she worked at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) coordinating the Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Mesoamerica Region and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. While noting the importance of C169, she stresses the huge gap between norms and reality calling for systematic application of free, prior and informed consent as a minimum principle in all consultation processes.
In their article, Pia Marchegiani, Elisa Morgera and Louisa Parks explore the role of C169 in the context of the development of lithium mining projects in Argentina. The article focuses on two specific situations of mining projects to illustrate the implementation challenges arising from the Convention obligations on environmental impact assessment, free prior informed consent and benefit-sharing for the protection of indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over natural resources pertaining to their lands. The cases also point to areas where improvements in implementation are needed in light of indigenous peoples’ demands that are reflected in international guidance on human rights and the environment.
Stefania Errico, in her article, offers a comprehensive overview of the progress and challenges concerning the implementation and ratification of C169 across Asia. The article notably highlights how despite the extreme diversity of the situations faced by indigenous peoples across the continent, they often face similar challenges notably in terms of the lack of recognition of their fundamental rights to land and natural resources. The article goes beyond the issue of ratification (as only Nepal has ratified the treaty in the Asian region), to explore how other ILO Conventions, notably the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), one of the ILO eight fundamental Conventions, and the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) have played a role in supporting indigenous rights in their local settings.
Following the same line of argument, Fergus MacKay explores how indigenous peoples could use ILO Convention 111 when they live in a country that has not ratified C169. In looking at the current situation faced by the Batak Toba in Indonesia, MacKay analyses how C111 can be used to protect the right to freely engage in their traditional economic activities. This underlines the importance for indigenous peoples living in countries that have not ratified C169 to engage with other ILO Conventions.
Staying in Asia, the following article moves to the situation in the Philippines, an interesting situation since the national law concerning indigenous rights is often used as an example of positive national legislation, notably concerning the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In his article, Cathal Doyle contrasts the Philippines’ Constitutional and legislative recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights with the provisions of ILO Convention 169. In doing so the article adopts a critical review of the historical emergence of indigenous rights in the country and explores the consequences of colonial history in the contemporary recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, and the related requirement to obtain their FPIC. The analysis explores how an eventual ratification of C169 and engagement with the ILO supervisory bodies could be of benefit to the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.
The special issue then moves on to Africa, trying to explore how the C169 has been operating in the only country that has ratified it, namely the Central African Republic. In his article, Jérémie Gilbert explores how despite the extreme level of violence and the conflict that has marked the country since 2012, indigenous peoples’ organisations have nonetheless used the momentum created by the ratification of the Convention to push for changes in the national legislation. The article offers a reflection how C169 can be used as a benchmark to push for national changes in a country that has been plagued by extreme levels of discrimination against its indigenous population.
Bringing readership to Europe, Tanja Joona subsequently sheds light on the complex dynamics and embedded politics surrounding possible ratification of C169 in Finland. Whereas moments of ratification are often celebrated, the preceding debates often go undocumented. The article analyses how parliamentary considerations in 2015, yet to materialise into actual ratification, were tied together with a process of renewing the Finnish Sámi Act. The article points to a range of complexities including questions of coverage, conditionality and domestic politics in shaping possible ratification decisions.
Finally, the third and last part of the special issue is offering a reflection based on the tripartite nature of the ILO by including comments from the representatives of the employers, trade unions and also indigenous peoples’ representatives. The aim is to gather views on the future of the Convention, but also of the ILO specific tripartite approach to support indigenous peoples’ rights. To do so we have gathered voices from both ILO constituents namely employers’ organisations and trade unions, but also indigenous peoples.
Carlos Ledesma’s article offers a perspective from the trade union movement of the Americas on the rights of indigenous peoples and C169. Considering both unions and indigenous movements as social forces aiming to achieve a fair and environmentally sustainable development, Ledesma underlines the importance of alliance building and coordinating agendas. The article describes the wide range of national and international trade union activities both historically in drafting the Convention as well as involvement in its implementation and supervision. In practice, such alliance building varies considerably across different national contexts and Ledesma calls for a systematic and coherent approach.
Writing from the perspective of the International Organization of Employers, Roberto Suarez-Santos underlines the ‘just demands’ raised in C169, yet also the challenges experienced in the Latin American countries that have sought to apply its principles. From a business perspective, he raises common regulatory failures, poor involvement of employer’s organisations as well as questioning regional and national jurisprudence. The burden is largely placed on businesses, he argues, in a context of limited capacity and a tendency of States to transfer the costs of consultation to the private sector. A major argument raised in the article concerns how consultation principles are being interpreted. Suarez-Santos questions using the UNDRIP as a legal basis for interpreting C169 principles thus fuelling a debate equally raised by other contributors. The need for dialogue is clear.
Lastly, the special issue ends by giving more space and voice to indigenous peoples’ representatives. In this section dedicated to the tripartite vision of the ILO we felt that it was key to give the last word to some of the indigenous representatives who have worked and advocated for changes in international law to support indigenous rights such as Dalee Dorough, President of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and a previous chair of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Her perspective underlines the importance of the Convention in the Arctic in general and for the Inuit in particular. Rather than separating the Convention and the Declaration, she stresses the importance of reading the two instruments together as both compatible and mutually reinforcing. Dorough, however, expresses concern that the legal relevance of this connection is sometimes minimised. The perspective provided by Les Malezer illustrates the long-standing political questioning of C169 normativity by parts of the indigenous movement considering it does not affirm the indigenous right to self-determination. While he qualifies this a ‘fatal failure’ at the time of formulating the Convention, he nonetheless emphasises relevance of the Convention particularly when seen together with the UNDRIP. Seen together, ratification of C169 he argues ‘would be effective to establish the rights of Indigenous Peoples in domestic law, provide for independent monitoring of the achievement of rights, and be founded upon the principles of non-discrimination and the right of self-determination’. In an interview, Wrays Perez Ramirez, Pamuk (President) of the Wampi autonomous territorial government describes the significance of the Convention in their dealings with the Peruvian State. Raising questions of oil concessions, consultation and autonomy, he stresses the importance of indigenous peoples interpreting the Convention and actively contributing towards its implementation. Tracey White, writing from Aotearoa/New Zealand, in turn, highlights how the ILO is relatively unknown to the Māori. Stressing the limited institutional engagement and access, she among other things calls for setting up an open-ended forum on the ILO and indigenous issues.
Finally, the collection includes a summary by Peter Bille Larsen and Louise Nolle of policy debates held during the 25th anniversary of the Convention in 2014. The global meeting held at the UN in Geneva was a landmark process in taking stock of lessons learned, identifying challenges and looking forward. Five years down the line, many of the topics raised and the voices present retain their relevance.
The need for debate and a concerted effort to accompany states and indigenous peoples in crafting equitable relationships grounded in international human rights standards remains as crucial as ever.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Peter Bille Larsen is a senior lecturer and research associate at the Environmental Governance and Territorial Development Institute (GEDT) of the University of Geneva. He has long-standing engagement with indigenous rights, international standards and social justice through analysis of both international governance systems and national dynamics.
Jérémie Gilbert is Professor of Human Rights Law, Roehampton Law School. His main area of research is on international human rights law, and more particularly the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. He has extensively published on the rights of indigenous peoples, looking in particular at their right to land and natural resources.
Notes
* All papers in this issue were single blind peer reviewed.
1 ILO, Understanding the Indigenous and Tribal People Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Handbook for Ilo Tripartite Constituents (Geneva: International Labour Standards Department, International Labour Organization, 2013).
2 Claude Auroi and Aline Helg, Latin America 1810-2010: Dreams and Legacies (London: Imperial College Press, 2012).
3 CIVICUS, ‘State of Civil Society Reports 2018. Year in Review: Top Ten Trends’, https://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2018/socs-2018-overview_top-ten-trends.pdf (2018).
4 Sharon Venne, ‘The New Language of Assimilation: A Brief Analysis of Ilo Convention 169’, Without Prejudice: The EAFORD International Review of Racial Discrimination 2, no. 2 (1989): 53–67.
5 Jérémie Gilbert and Cathal Doyle, A New Dawn over the Land: Shedding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent (Hart Publishing, 2011).
6 IWGIA, ‘“Defending the Defenders: New Alliances for Protecting Indigenous Peoples' Rights”, Outcome Document, 5-6 September 2018 in Copenhagen’ (2018).
7 José Manuel Salazar Xirinachs, ‘Comentarios De Cierre, Foro Regional Sobre La Implementación Del Convenio Sobre Pueblos Indígenas Y Tribales, 1989 (Núm. 169) Compartiendo Experiencias, Construyendo Alianzas Y Sosteniendo El Progreso, https://www.Ilo.Org/Wcmsp5/Groups/Public/---Americas/---Ro-Lima/Documents/Statement/Wcms_603665.Pdf’, (2017).
8 Huseyin Polat, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Co-Ops and the Ilo-Indisco Programme', Review of International Cooperation 91 (1998): 97–109.
9 Pro 169, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Rights in Practice: A Guide to Ilo Convention 169, (Geneva: International Labour Organization, 2009).
10 Jérémie Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors, (Brill Nijhoff, 2016).
11 ILO (see note 1); Pro 169 (see note 9).