Legal Status of Indigenous Peoples in International Law

1. Introduction

Indigenous Peoples in International Law occupies a distinctive and increasingly consequential place within the contemporary international legal order. The subject is not theoretical or symbolic. It governs concrete disputes over land and natural resources, the legality of extractive and infrastructure projects, the protection of languages and cultural heritage, the regulation of conservation policies, and the accountability of states and corporations for historical and ongoing harms. Across regions, Indigenous communities continue to invoke international law in domestic courts, regional human rights systems, and United Nations mechanisms, making the question of their legal status a matter of practical legal effect rather than abstract principle.

At the core of the debate lies a fundamental transformation. For much of the twentieth century, Indigenous populations were treated primarily as objects of protection, assimilation, or administrative management under domestic law. International law largely mirrored this approach, framing Indigenous issues through development policy, minority protection, or humanitarian concern rather than legal entitlement. Over the last four decades, this paradigm has shifted decisively. Indigenous Peoples are now recognised as collective rights-holders with legally relevant identities, territorial relationships, and institutional autonomy. This evolution challenges classical assumptions about sovereignty, sources of law, and the subjects of international legal personality (Anaya, 2004; Kingsbury, 1998).

The legal status of Indigenous Peoples cannot be reduced to a single doctrinal category. They are not states, yet they are recognised as “peoples” for the purposes of self-determination. They are not merely minorities, yet they benefit from and expand minority-protection regimes. They are not international organisations, yet they participate directly in international norm-making and monitoring processes. Their status emerges instead from an interlocking framework of treaty law, soft-law instruments, customary international law, and authoritative interpretation by courts and expert bodies. Understanding this framework requires attention to how norms are applied in real disputes, how remedies are fashioned, and how compliance is pursued in practice.

This article examines the legal status of Indigenous Peoples through that applied lens. It analyses how international law defines Indigenous identity without imposing rigid criteria, how collective rights to land, culture, and governance are articulated, and how procedural guarantees such as consultation and free, prior and informed consent operate in contested settings. It also addresses the institutional architecture that gives these norms legal force, including regional human rights courts, United Nations treaty bodies, and specialised mechanisms dedicated to Indigenous issues. Throughout, the analysis prioritises examples drawn from jurisprudence and state practice, showing how abstract norms translate into enforceable obligations and measurable outcomes.

The article is written for professionals, students, and researchers who require a clear and current account of Indigenous Peoples’ legal position within international law. It adopts a doctrinal and practice-oriented methodology, grounded in authoritative legal instruments, peer-reviewed scholarship, and institutional practice. The aim is not to advocate a political position, but to explain how the law operates, where its boundaries lie, and why Indigenous Peoples now constitute one of the most dynamic and legally developed areas of contemporary international human rights law.

2. Who are “Indigenous Peoples” in international law

The identification of Indigenous Peoples in international law is grounded in a functional and contextual understanding rather than a fixed legal definition. This approach reflects both historical realities and legal necessity. Indigenous communities differ widely in culture, social organisation, legal traditions, and relationships with states. A rigid definition would risk excluding groups whose identities and histories do not conform to externally imposed criteria. International law has therefore developed a concept-based approach that prioritises self-identification, historical continuity, and collective distinctiveness, while deliberately avoiding exhaustive categorisation.

2.1 The absence of a universal definition and its legal rationale

No binding international instrument provides a single, authoritative definition of Indigenous Peoples. This absence is not an oversight but a conscious normative choice. During the drafting of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), states and Indigenous representatives rejected attempts to codify a strict definition, recognising that identity is dynamic and context-specific (UN General Assembly, 2007). A closed definition would invite restrictive state interpretation, allowing governments to deny recognition to communities whose claims are politically inconvenient.

From a legal perspective, the lack of a definition preserves flexibility and supports the protective purpose of Indigenous rights. International human rights law frequently operates through open-textured concepts—such as “minority,” “family,” or “culture”—that gain content through interpretation and practice rather than formal definition. The same technique is applied to Indigenous identity, enabling international bodies to assess claims on their substantive merits rather than formal labels (Kingsbury, 1998).

2.2 Working criteria developed through UN practice

Although no binding definition exists, international practice has converged around a set of indicative characteristics. The most influential formulation emerged from the UN Special Rapporteur José Martínez Cobo’s Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. The study identified several recurring elements: historical continuity with pre-colonial or pre-settler societies; distinct social, economic, or cultural institutions; non-dominant status within the state; and a collective determination to preserve and transmit identity to future generations (Martínez Cobo, 1986).

Among these elements, self-identification occupies a central legal position. Both UNDRIP and the practice of UN treaty bodies affirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine their own identity and membership. External recognition by the state may be relevant for administrative purposes, but it is not legally decisive. This principle limits state discretion and reflects a broader human rights norm that identity cannot be imposed or denied arbitrarily (Anaya, 2004).

2.3 Indigenous Peoples, minorities, and tribal populations: legal distinctions

International law draws an important distinction between Indigenous Peoples and other protected groups, particularly minorities and so-called tribal populations. Minorities, as understood in instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are protected primarily through individual rights exercised in community with others, especially in the cultural, linguistic, and religious spheres. Indigenous Peoples, by contrast, are recognised as collective entities with rights that extend to land, natural resources, and systems of governance.

The category of “tribal peoples,” used in International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, illustrates the overlap and divergence. Tribal groups may not trace their origins to pre-colonial societies in the same way as Indigenous Peoples, yet they share similar vulnerabilities, cultural distinctiveness, and relationships with land. International law groups them together for protective purposes, while still acknowledging differences in historical experience and legal claims (ILO, 1989).

These distinctions are not merely semantic. They determine the scope of applicable rights, the relevance of self-determination, and the legal standards governing consultation, consent, and restitution. Treating Indigenous Peoples as a distinct legal concept enables international law to address the structural and historical dimensions of their marginalisation rather than limiting protection to non-discrimination alone.

2.4 Identity as a legal gateway to rights

Recognition as Indigenous in international law functions as a gateway rather than an endpoint. It triggers the application of a specialised body of norms concerning land tenure, cultural survival, participation in decision-making, and institutional autonomy. Disputes over Indigenous status often arise in litigation involving natural resource extraction, conservation policies, or development projects, where recognition determines which legal standards apply and which remedies are available.

International adjudicatory bodies have consistently avoided rigid tests, opting instead for contextual assessment informed by history, social organisation, and community self-understanding. This approach reinforces the conceptual nature of Indigenous identity in international law. It is not a label conferred by the state, but a legally relevant expression of collective existence that shapes rights, obligations, and accountability within the international legal system.

3. Legal status: from objects of protection to rights-holders with agency

The contemporary legal status of Indigenous Peoples is the product of a gradual but profound transformation within international law. For most of its history, international law approached Indigenous communities as passive subjects of governance, development, or protection, rather than as holders of enforceable rights. This approach reflected colonial assumptions about civilisation, progress, and sovereignty, and it shaped both domestic policies and international norms well into the second half of the twentieth century. The current framework, by contrast, recognises Indigenous Peoples as collective rights-holders with legal agency, capable of asserting claims, participating in decision-making, and shaping international legal standards.

3.1 The assimilation paradigm and its legal legacy

Early international engagement with Indigenous issues was dominated by an assimilationist logic. Indigenous communities were viewed as populations destined to integrate into dominant societies, with law serving as a tool to manage that transition. This perspective was reflected in International Labour Organization Convention No. 107 of 1957, which framed Indigenous and tribal populations as groups requiring protection during a process of social and economic integration. Rights were conceived as temporary safeguards rather than enduring entitlements, and cultural difference was treated as an obstacle to development rather than a legally protected value (ILO, 1957).

Under this paradigm, Indigenous Peoples were not considered subjects of international law in any meaningful sense. Their interests were mediated through states, and international scrutiny focused on state policies rather than Indigenous claims. Land dispossession, cultural suppression, and forced relocation were addressed, if at all, as humanitarian or welfare concerns rather than violations of legal rights. The legal invisibility of Indigenous agency reinforced the broader marginalisation of Indigenous voices in international fora (Niezen, 2003).

3.2 The normative shift towards rights and self-determination

The erosion of the assimilation model began in the 1970s, driven by Indigenous political mobilisation, decolonisation processes, and the expansion of international human rights law. Indigenous representatives increasingly engaged with United Nations mechanisms, reframing their demands in legal terms and challenging the assumption that they were merely beneficiaries of state protection. This shift culminated in the replacement of ILO Convention No. 107 with Convention No. 169 in 1989, which explicitly rejected assimilation and affirmed respect for Indigenous cultures, identities, and institutions (ILO, 1989).

Convention No. 169 marked a decisive legal turning point. It recognised Indigenous Peoples as distinct collectivities with enduring rights, including rights to land, participation, and cultural integrity. Although its ratification remains geographically limited, its normative influence extends beyond its formal parties. The convention established a template for understanding Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders whose relationship with the state is governed by legal obligations rather than discretionary policy.

This evolution was further consolidated with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. While formally non-binding, the declaration articulated a comprehensive catalogue of rights grounded in existing human rights law, including self-determination, autonomy, and control over lands and resources. Its language reflects the outcome of decades of direct Indigenous participation in norm development, reinforcing the idea that Indigenous Peoples are not objects of international concern but contributors to international law-making (Anaya, 2004).

3.3 Indigenous Peoples as collective subjects of rights

A defining feature of the modern legal status of Indigenous Peoples is the recognition of collective rights. Unlike classical human rights law, which prioritises individual entitlements, Indigenous rights often attach to the group as such. This includes collective ownership of land, communal decision-making structures, and shared cultural and spiritual practices. International bodies have increasingly acknowledged that individual rights cannot be fully realised for Indigenous persons without protecting the collective frameworks that sustain their identity and way of life (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994).

This recognition has important legal consequences. It allows Indigenous Peoples to assert claims that cannot be reduced to individual harm, such as the destruction of sacred sites, disruption of traditional governance systems, or fragmentation of ancestral territories. It also reshapes remedial practice, favouring restitution, demarcation of land, and guarantees of non-repetition over purely monetary compensation. Collective rights thus operate as a mechanism for addressing structural and historical injustice rather than isolated violations.

3.4 Legal agency and participation in international processes

The transition from object to agent is also evident in the procedural position of Indigenous Peoples within international law. Indigenous organisations and representatives now participate regularly in United Nations bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and expert mechanisms dedicated to Indigenous rights. They submit information to treaty bodies, engage in country reviews, and influence the interpretation of international norms through sustained advocacy and expertise (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2014).

In adjudicatory contexts, Indigenous communities increasingly appear as claimants or represented parties before regional human rights courts and commissions. Their legal arguments draw directly on international instruments and jurisprudence, demonstrating a sophisticated engagement with doctrinal standards. This procedural agency reinforces their substantive legal status, confirming that Indigenous Peoples are not merely protected populations but actors capable of invoking, shaping, and enforcing international law.

The contemporary legal status of Indigenous Peoples is therefore best understood as the outcome of a structural reorientation within international law. The shift away from protection without power toward rights with agency reflects broader developments in human rights law and challenges traditional conceptions of sovereignty. Indigenous Peoples now occupy a legally recognised position that combines collective identity, enforceable rights, and participatory capacity, making their status one of the most dynamic and consequential developments in modern international law.

4. Sources of law governing Indigenous Peoples’ status

The legal status of Indigenous Peoples in international law does not derive from a single treaty or institutional framework. It is constructed through a layered interaction between binding treaties, authoritative declarations, customary international law, and interpretative practice by courts and expert bodies. This plurality of sources explains both the strength and the complexity of Indigenous rights. It also clarifies why Indigenous Peoples can invoke international law even in states that have not ratified specialised instruments.

4.1 Treaty law: binding obligations and their practical reach

Treaty law provides the most explicit binding foundation for the international legal protection of Indigenous Peoples. The only global treaty dedicated specifically to Indigenous and tribal populations is the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Adopted in 1989, the convention establishes legally binding obligations relating to land rights, cultural integrity, participation in decision-making, and consultation procedures (ILO, 1989). It represents a clear rejection of earlier assimilationist approaches and affirms the permanence of Indigenous identities and institutions.

Despite its normative importance, Convention No. 169 has a limited ratification record, concentrated mainly in Latin America and parts of Europe. This has led some states to argue that Indigenous rights lack universal legal force. That argument is misleading. Even where Convention No. 169 is not formally binding, its standards are frequently used by courts, treaty bodies, and development institutions as authoritative benchmarks. Its influence, therefore, extends well beyond its state parties, shaping expectations of lawful conduct and informing the interpretation of other international obligations.

In addition to specialised instruments, general human rights treaties play a central role. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child are routinely applied to Indigenous contexts. Through interpretation by monitoring bodies, these treaties have been used to protect Indigenous land tenure, cultural practices, subsistence activities, and participation rights (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994; CERD Committee, 1997). In practice, these treaties constitute the most widely applicable binding framework governing Indigenous Peoples’ legal status.

4.2 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an interpretative authority

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples occupies a distinctive position among the sources of international law. Adopted by an overwhelming majority of states in 2007, the declaration is not legally binding in the formal sense. Its legal significance lies instead in its interpretative authority and normative consolidation. The declaration brings together principles already present in human rights treaties, regional jurisprudence, and state practice, articulating them in a coherent framework specific to Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly, 2007).

International courts, treaty bodies, and national tribunals increasingly rely on UNDRIP to interpret binding obligations. Provisions on self-determination, land rights, consultation, and free, prior and informed consent are frequently treated as authoritative guidance on the content of existing legal duties. This practice demonstrates how soft-law instruments can acquire legal weight through consistent and reasoned use, particularly when they reflect broad consensus and sustained practice.

UNDRIP also derives legitimacy from its drafting process. Indigenous representatives participated directly in negotiations over several decades, contributing language grounded in lived experience and legal argument. This participatory origin strengthens its standing as an expression of evolving international standards, reinforcing its role in shaping the legal status of Indigenous Peoples even absent formal binding force.

4.3 Customary international law and general principles

Customary international law constitutes a more contested but increasingly relevant source governing Indigenous Peoples’ status. Certain core norms, such as the prohibition of racial discrimination and the protection of cultural life, are widely accepted as customary and apply universally. When interpreted in Indigenous contexts, these norms support collective land rights, protection against forced assimilation, and meaningful participation in decisions affecting traditional ways of life (Kingsbury, 1998).

Other elements, particularly free, prior and informed consent, occupy a more nuanced position. While not universally accepted as a general rule applicable to all state actions, consent requirements have been recognised in situations involving large-scale development projects, relocation, or severe impacts on Indigenous lands and resources. Regional human rights jurisprudence and the consistent practice of international bodies suggest an emerging customary dimension in these contexts, even if the norm has not fully crystallised in universal form.

General principles of law also contribute to the legal framework. Principles such as good faith, proportionality, and effective remedy underpin obligations of consultation, impact assessment, and redress. These principles provide doctrinal coherence, linking Indigenous rights to the broader architecture of international responsibility rather than treating them as exceptional or peripheral claims.

4.4 Authoritative interpretation and jurisprudence as a source of normative development

Finally, the legal status of Indigenous Peoples is shaped decisively by interpretation and application. Regional human rights courts, UN treaty bodies, and specialised expert mechanisms have played a central role in clarifying the content and scope of Indigenous rights. Their decisions and views do not merely apply existing law; they develop it by specifying standards, identifying violations, and articulating appropriate remedies.

This interpretative practice functions as a dynamic source of law, especially in areas where treaty provisions are broadly framed. Through repeated application in concrete disputes, concepts such as collective property, cultural survival, and effective consultation acquire legal precision. For Indigenous Peoples, this jurisprudential development is often the most direct pathway through which international law translates into enforceable legal status.

Taken together, these sources form an integrated legal framework. Binding treaties establish core obligations, declarations consolidate and clarify standards, customary law extends protection beyond formal ratification, and jurisprudence operationalises rights in practice. The legal status of Indigenous Peoples in international law is thus neither marginal nor purely aspirational. It is grounded in multiple, mutually reinforcing sources that continue to evolve through application and contestation.

5. The substantive rights bundle (what “legal status” delivers)

The legal status of Indigenous Peoples in international law is given concrete meaning through a substantive bundle of rights that address historical dispossession, structural marginalisation, and ongoing vulnerabilities. These rights are not symbolic affirmations. They operate as legally relevant standards that guide state conduct, inform judicial reasoning, and structure remedies. Their distinctive feature is the combination of collective and individual dimensions, reflecting the reality that Indigenous identity, culture, and survival are inherently communal.

5.1 Self-determination and internal autonomy

Self-determination is the normative foundation upon which the entire Indigenous rights framework rests. International law recognises Indigenous Peoples as “peoples” for the purposes of self-determination, but interprets that right primarily through its internal dimension. This includes the ability to maintain and develop political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions within the framework of the existing state (UN General Assembly, 2007).

Internal self-determination manifests in diverse legal forms: territorial autonomy arrangements, recognition of customary law, Indigenous-controlled education systems, and participation in local governance. International bodies have consistently clarified that Indigenous self-determination does not entail an automatic right to secession, but it does impose binding obligations on states to respect Indigenous governance structures and decision-making authority in matters that directly affect them (Anaya, 2004). The legal consequence is a recalibration of sovereignty, requiring states to accommodate Indigenous authority rather than merely consult it.

5.2 Equality and non-discrimination as structural guarantees

Equality and non-discrimination operate as cross-cutting guarantees that shape the interpretation of all other Indigenous rights. International law recognises that formal equality is insufficient in contexts marked by historical dispossession and systemic exclusion. Substantive equality, therefore, permits, and often requires, differential treatment aimed at achieving equal enjoyment of rights (CERD Committee, 1997).

For Indigenous Peoples, this principle underpins special measures related to land restitution, language preservation, and political representation. International monitoring bodies have repeatedly held that failure to recognise Indigenous land tenure systems or governance institutions can constitute indirect discrimination, even where domestic law appears neutral on its face (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994). Equality thus functions not as a limiting principle, but as a mechanism for addressing entrenched disadvantage.

5.3 Lands, territories, and natural resources

Rights to land, territories, and natural resources form the most litigated and economically significant component of the Indigenous rights bundle. International law recognises that Indigenous relationships to land are not limited to ownership in a narrow, Western property sense. They encompass spiritual, cultural, social, and subsistence dimensions that are integral to Indigenous identity and survival (Anaya, 2004).

International jurisprudence has affirmed that traditional use and occupation can generate legally protected property interests, even in the absence of formal title. States are therefore required to identify, demarcate, and protect Indigenous lands, and to provide restitution or equivalent redress where dispossession has occurred. These obligations extend to natural resources traditionally used by Indigenous Peoples, particularly where resource exploitation threatens their cultural integrity or livelihood (UN General Assembly, 2007).

The legal implications are substantial. Development projects, extractive concessions, and conservation policies that disregard Indigenous land rights have been found incompatible with international obligations. Remedies frequently include land restitution, suspension of projects, environmental rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition, demonstrating that land rights operate as enforceable legal claims rather than aspirational goals.

5.4 Consultation and free, prior and informed consent

The duty to consult Indigenous Peoples, and in certain circumstances to obtain their free, prior and informed consent, is a central procedural expression of Indigenous legal status. Consultation is required whenever legislative or administrative measures may affect Indigenous interests. It must be conducted in good faith, through representative institutions, and with the aim of reaching agreement (ILO, 1989).

Consent represents a heightened standard that applies in situations involving severe or irreversible impacts, such as relocation, large-scale resource extraction, or hazardous activities on Indigenous lands. Consent is not a symbolic formality. International practice treats it as a substantive safeguard designed to prevent coercion, ensure informed decision-making, and respect Indigenous authority over matters fundamental to their survival (UN General Assembly, 2007).

Disputes over consultation and consent illustrate how Indigenous rights operate in practice. Courts and treaty bodies examine the timing, quality, and inclusiveness of consultation processes, as well as the extent to which Indigenous views influenced final decisions. Deficient consultation has repeatedly been found to invalidate state action, confirming the procedural enforceability of this right.

5.5 Cultural rights, language, and identity integrity

Cultural rights occupy a central place in the Indigenous rights framework, reflecting the recognition that culture for Indigenous Peoples is inseparable from land, governance, and social organisation. International law protects Indigenous languages, traditions, spiritual practices, and systems of knowledge as living expressions rather than static heritage (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994).

This protection extends to education, media, and public life. States are required to facilitate education in Indigenous languages, respect cultural practices, and prevent policies that undermine cultural transmission between generations. Interference with subsistence activities, sacred sites, or traditional livelihoods has been treated as an infringement of cultural rights where it threatens the continued existence of Indigenous identity (Anaya, 2004).

5.6 Treaties, agreements, and historical arrangements

A distinctive feature of Indigenous legal status is the recognition of treaties and agreements concluded between Indigenous Peoples and states or colonial authorities. International law acknowledges these arrangements as legally relevant instruments that reflect pre-existing sovereignty and negotiated relationships. While their enforceability often depends on domestic legal systems, international norms require states to respect and interpret them in good faith (UN General Assembly, 2007).

This recognition reinforces the status of Indigenous Peoples as historical and contemporary legal actors. It also strengthens claims to land, self-governance, and reparations, particularly where treaties were violated or disregarded during periods of colonisation or state expansion.

5.7 The integrated effect of the rights bundle

The substantive rights bundle delivered by Indigenous legal status operates as an integrated whole. Self-determination informs land rights; land rights sustain culture; consultation procedures give effect to autonomy; and equality principles ensure that these rights are realised in practice. International law does not treat these rights as optional or aspirational. It treats them as interdependent legal standards that collectively define the position of Indigenous Peoples within the international legal order.

This integrated structure explains both the growing legal sophistication of Indigenous claims and the resistance they sometimes encounter from states and economic actors. The rights bundle reorders power relations, imposes procedural discipline, and demands accountability. It is precisely this capacity to generate legal consequences that marks the transition of Indigenous Peoples from marginalised populations to recognised rights-holders with enforceable agency in international law.

6. Regional jurisprudence: where standards become enforceable

Regional human rights systems have played a decisive role in transforming Indigenous rights from normative commitments into enforceable legal standards. While global instruments articulate principles, it is regional jurisprudence that has clarified content, thresholds, and remedies in concrete disputes. Courts and commissions have addressed questions of land title, resource exploitation, consultation and consent, cultural survival, and reparations, producing a body of case law that now shapes Indigenous Peoples’ legal status across jurisdictions.

6.1 The Inter-American system: doctrinal consolidation and remedial depth

The Inter-American human rights system has generated the most extensive and coherent jurisprudence on Indigenous rights. Beginning in the late 1990s, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights interpreted the right to property under the American Convention on Human Rights as encompassing Indigenous communal land tenure. This interpretative move was legally significant because it allowed collective Indigenous claims to be protected through a treaty provision originally drafted with individual ownership in mind.

The Court has consistently held that Indigenous property rights arise from traditional use and occupation rather than formal title. States therefore bear positive obligations to identify, demarcate, and secure Indigenous lands, and to refrain from acts that would impair their effective use. Failure to do so has been treated as a violation of property rights, judicial protection, and, in many cases, cultural integrity (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2001; 2005).

Over time, the Court refined these principles by linking land rights to procedural guarantees. It developed a structured test for assessing state-authorised development projects on Indigenous territories, requiring prior consultation, benefit-sharing, and, in certain circumstances, free, prior and informed consent. Consent has been treated as mandatory where projects pose a major impact on Indigenous survival or involve relocation, reflecting a rights-based rather than discretionary approach (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2007).

Recent jurisprudence has expanded the remedial dimension of Indigenous rights. In cases involving complex territorial disputes, the Court has ordered comprehensive reparations that include land restitution, environmental restoration, recognition of Indigenous governance structures, and guarantees of non-repetition. The decision in Lhaka Honhat v Argentina illustrates this evolution, as the Court addressed not only land rights but also access to water, food, and a healthy environment as interrelated components of Indigenous cultural survival (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2020). These remedies demonstrate how Indigenous legal status translates into enforceable obligations with long-term structural consequences.

6.2 The African system: recognition amid implementation constraints

The African human rights system has made significant doctrinal advances in recognising Indigenous rights, though enforcement remains uneven. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights was the first regional body in Africa to articulate a clear position on Indigenous Peoples, emphasising marginalisation, attachment to land, and distinct cultural identity rather than priority of occupation as defining features (ACHPR, 2005).

In landmark communications, the Commission recognised that Indigenous communities possess collective rights to land and natural resources under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It interpreted the Charter’s provisions on property, culture, development, and natural resources as protecting Indigenous ways of life and requiring consultation and consent in cases of dispossession or major development (ACHPR, 2010).

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights subsequently reinforced these principles. In Ogiek v Kenya, the Court held that the eviction of an Indigenous community from ancestral forest lands violated rights to property, culture, religion, and development. The judgment confirmed that conservation objectives do not override Indigenous rights and that states must pursue environmental protection through inclusive and rights-respecting means (African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2017).

The remedial phase of Ogiek illustrates both progress and limitation. The Court ordered restitution, compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition, but compliance has been protracted and contested. This highlights a persistent challenge within the African system: strong normative recognition combined with weak enforcement mechanisms. Even so, the jurisprudence has reshaped legal discourse within the region, providing authoritative standards that Indigenous communities and advocates increasingly invoke in domestic litigation.

6.3 Europe and other regions: indirect protection and doctrinal adaptation

In Europe and other regional systems, Indigenous rights have developed through indirect doctrinal routes. The European human rights framework does not contain explicit references to Indigenous Peoples, and the European Court of Human Rights has generally addressed Indigenous claims through provisions on private life, family life, property, and non-discrimination. Despite this limitation, the Court has recognised that traditional livelihoods and cultural practices tied to land fall within the scope of protected interests, particularly where state interference threatens the viability of a community’s way of life (European Court of Human Rights, 2001).

Elsewhere, regional mechanisms in Asia and the Middle East remain less developed in this field, largely due to institutional gaps rather than normative rejection. In these contexts, Indigenous claims are often pursued through domestic constitutional courts or administrative tribunals that draw on international standards as persuasive authority.

6.4 The normative impact of regional jurisprudence

Regional jurisprudence has transformed Indigenous rights from general principles into legally operational standards. Courts and commissions have clarified thresholds for consultation and consent, recognised collective property as a protected legal interest, and articulated remedies that address structural harm rather than isolated violations. This body of law also feeds back into global interpretation, influencing UN treaty bodies and reinforcing the authority of instruments such as UNDRIP.

The practical consequence is a convergence of standards across regions, even in the absence of universal treaty ratification. Indigenous Peoples’ legal status is increasingly defined by enforceable jurisprudence that constrains state discretion and provides concrete avenues for accountability. Regional systems, therefore, function as the primary engines through which Indigenous rights acquire legal force within the international legal order.

7. UN system “machinery”: how status is asserted, monitored, and enforced

The United Nations system provides the primary global architecture through which the legal status of Indigenous Peoples is articulated, supervised, and progressively enforced. Unlike regional human rights courts, the UN system operates through a combination of expert authority, interpretative practice, political scrutiny, and participatory access. Its mechanisms do not rely on coercive enforcement, but they play a decisive role in defining legal standards, constraining state discretion, and enabling Indigenous Peoples to assert rights in domestic and regional forums.

7.1 Political and expert bodies

The recognition of Indigenous Peoples as subjects of international concern with participatory standing is institutionally reflected in dedicated UN bodies. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) functions as a high-level advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, addressing Indigenous issues across development, environment, culture, health, education, and human rights. Its significance lies less in enforcement than in agenda-setting and norm consolidation. By producing annual recommendations and thematic discussions, the Forum translates Indigenous priorities into the language of international policy and law, reinforcing their status as rights-holders rather than vulnerable populations (UNPFII, 2014).

The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) provides the UN system’s most technically focused interpretative output on Indigenous rights. Operating under the Human Rights Council, EMRIP conducts thematic studies and country engagement aimed at clarifying the content of rights such as self-determination, participation in decision-making, and free, prior and informed consent. Its work has been instrumental in specifying how abstract norms apply in administrative, legislative, and development contexts, and is frequently relied upon by states, courts, and treaty bodies as authoritative guidance (EMRIP, 2018).

The Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples complements these bodies through investigative and monitoring functions. Country visits, thematic reports, and communications with governments allow the Rapporteur to assess compliance with international standards and to document patterns of structural violation. While the Rapporteur’s findings are not binding, they carry significant legal and political weight, often triggering legislative review, project suspension, or increased scrutiny by other UN mechanisms (UN Human Rights Council, 2019).

7.2 Treaty bodies as quasi-adjudicative mechanisms

UN human rights treaty bodies constitute the most legally consequential component of the UN machinery for Indigenous rights. These bodies monitor compliance with binding treaties and interpret their provisions in light of Indigenous realities. Through concluding observations, general comments, and individual communications, they have expanded the reach of general human rights norms to encompass collective Indigenous claims.

The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right to culture under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as protecting Indigenous subsistence activities and land-based ways of life, recognising that interference with traditional land use can undermine cultural survival (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994). The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has linked Indigenous land rights to rights to food, health, housing, and cultural participation, emphasising the interdependence of these guarantees.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has developed particularly influential practice through its early warning and urgent action procedures. It has addressed Indigenous land disputes, extractive projects, and legislative reforms, calling on states to halt activities that risk irreversible harm and to ensure effective consultation and consent (CERD Committee, 1997). Although treaty body decisions lack the formal binding force of judicial rulings, they function as authoritative legal interpretations that states are expected to implement in good faith and that are routinely cited by domestic and regional courts.

7.3 Universal Periodic Review and national human rights institutions

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) adds a political accountability layer to the UN machinery. Through periodic peer review of all UN member states, the UPR assesses compliance with human rights obligations, including those affecting Indigenous Peoples. Recommendations frequently address land demarcation, consultation frameworks, protection of Indigenous defenders, and access to justice.

The legal relevance of the UPR lies in transparency and continuity rather than adjudication. Recommendations are recorded, publicly debated, and revisited in subsequent cycles, creating a measurable compliance record. Indigenous organisations regularly submit parallel reports, ensuring that Indigenous perspectives shape the assessment of state practice (UN Human Rights Council, 2016).

National human rights institutions (NHRIs), while domestic bodies, operate as transmission points between international standards and national implementation. When accredited under the Paris Principles, NHRIs engage with UN mechanisms, monitor Indigenous rights domestically, and support the implementation of treaty body and UPR recommendations. Their involvement strengthens the domestic effect of international Indigenous rights norms.

By operating across expert interpretation, treaty supervision, and political review, the UN system gives institutional substance to the legal status of Indigenous Peoples. It does not replace judicial enforcement, but it defines standards, documents violations, and sustains international scrutiny. Through this machinery, Indigenous Peoples are recognised not only as beneficiaries of protection but as participants in the ongoing interpretation and application of international law.

8. Indigenous Peoples in specialized regimes: environment, biodiversity, heritage, and IP

Specialised international legal regimes play a decisive role in operationalising the legal status of Indigenous Peoples beyond general human rights law. Environmental protection, biodiversity governance, cultural heritage regimes, and intellectual property frameworks translate abstract rights into sector-specific obligations that directly affect land use, resource control, knowledge governance, and cultural survival. These regimes reveal both the consolidation of Indigenous rights and the limits of their current legal protection.

8.1 Biodiversity, genetic resources, and benefit-sharing

International biodiversity law represents one of the earliest specialised regimes to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as holders of legally relevant knowledge and interests. The Convention on Biological Diversity marked a normative shift by recognising that Indigenous and local knowledge contribute directly to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. This recognition carries legal consequences. States are required to respect, preserve, and maintain Indigenous knowledge systems and to promote their application with the approval and involvement of the knowledge holders (CBD, 1992).

This framework was strengthened by the development of access and benefit-sharing principles governing genetic resources. International law increasingly links access to genetic material and associated traditional knowledge to prior consent and equitable benefit-sharing. For Indigenous Peoples, this has concrete implications in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, cosmetics, and biotechnology. The use of genetic resources derived from Indigenous territories without consent or compensation is no longer treated as a neutral commercial activity, but as a potential breach of international obligations (UN General Assembly, 2007).

Despite these normative advances, enforcement remains fragmented. Benefit-sharing arrangements are frequently negotiated at the state level, with limited Indigenous participation and weak mechanisms for monitoring compliance. International bodies have criticised practices that reduce Indigenous involvement to consultation without decision-making power. The biodiversity regime, therefore, illustrates a recurring tension: recognition of Indigenous legal status in principle, combined with uneven translation into effective control over resources and benefits in practice.

8.2 Climate governance, conservation, and environmental protection

Environmental and climate regimes have become central to Indigenous Peoples’ legal position due to the geographic overlap between Indigenous territories and ecologically sensitive areas. International environmental law increasingly acknowledges that Indigenous land stewardship and knowledge systems contribute to ecosystem resilience and climate adaptation. This recognition has led to the integration of Indigenous-related safeguards into climate finance, conservation initiatives, and land-use policies (UNEP, 2019).

Legal conflicts arise where environmental objectives are pursued through exclusionary conservation or large-scale climate projects. Protected areas, carbon offset schemes, and renewable energy infrastructure have, in some cases, resulted in restrictions on traditional land use, displacement, or criminalisation of subsistence practices. International law now treats such outcomes as legally problematic where they disregard Indigenous land rights, participation, and consent. Environmental protection does not suspend human rights obligations; it requires their contextual application (Knox, 2017).

Safeguard frameworks linked to climate and environmental funding impose procedural duties on states, including impact assessments, consultation, and grievance mechanisms. These safeguards function as legally relevant standards that can be invoked in domestic and international accountability processes. For Indigenous Peoples, environmental regimes thus operate as both risk and opportunity: risk where conservation reproduces dispossession, and opportunity where legal status enables Indigenous governance models to shape sustainable land management.

8.3 Cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and intellectual property

Cultural heritage and intellectual property regimes expose some of the most persistent gaps in the legal protection of Indigenous Peoples. International heritage law has expanded its scope to include living cultural expressions, oral traditions, rituals, and sacred landscapes. This development aligns with Indigenous conceptions of culture as inseparable from land, community, and governance. Legal protection increasingly emphasises Indigenous participation in the identification, management, and interpretation of heritage associated with their cultures (UNESCO, 2003).

Intellectual property law presents a more contested terrain. Traditional knowledge and cultural expressions rarely conform to classical intellectual property requirements of individual authorship, originality, and limited duration. As a result, Indigenous knowledge has often been treated as part of the public domain, enabling commercial appropriation without consent or compensation (Posey and Dutfield, 1996). This practice sits uneasily with the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as collective rights-holders.

International negotiations have sought to address this mismatch through proposals for sui generis protection of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. These initiatives emphasise collective ownership, perpetual protection, consent-based use, and equitable benefit-sharing. Although binding international rules remain limited, the direction of normative development is clear. Indigenous legal status increasingly requires that knowledge governance respect Indigenous authority and collective control, rather than reducing Indigenous contributions to exploitable inputs.

8.4 The role of specialised regimes in consolidating legal status

Specialised regimes do not operate in isolation. They interact with human rights law, reinforce procedural guarantees such as consultation and consent, and extend Indigenous legal status into technical regulatory domains. At the same time, they reveal structural weaknesses, particularly in enforcement and coordination across legal fields.

The significance of these regimes lies in their practical impact. Environmental approvals, biodiversity access permits, heritage designations, and intellectual property frameworks shape daily realities for Indigenous communities. The incorporation of Indigenous-specific norms into these regimes confirms that Indigenous Peoples in international law are not confined to a single doctrinal niche. Their legal status increasingly permeates diverse areas of international regulation, redefining how global governance addresses land, knowledge, culture, and sustainability.

9. Business, finance, and development projects: the compliance frontier

The interaction between Indigenous rights and large-scale economic activity constitutes the most legally sensitive frontier of Indigenous Peoples in international law. Infrastructure development, extractive industries, agribusiness, and energy projects are the contexts in which Indigenous legal status is most frequently tested, diluted, or contested. International law increasingly regulates these interactions not only through state obligations, but through project governance standards that affect financiers, corporations, and transnational actors.

9.1 Development banks and safeguard policies

Multilateral development banks have become key transmission belts for Indigenous rights standards. Although not parties to human rights treaties, these institutions condition lending on compliance with environmental and social safeguard policies that incorporate Indigenous-specific protections. These safeguards typically require identification of Indigenous Peoples, assessment of impacts on lands and livelihoods, culturally appropriate consultation, and mitigation or compensation measures where harm cannot be avoided.

Safeguard frameworks draw directly on international Indigenous rights norms, particularly land protection, cultural integrity, and participation in decision-making. In projects with significant impacts, safeguards increasingly require evidence of community support or consent rather than mere consultation. Compliance is monitored through project documentation, supervision missions, and accountability mechanisms, giving Indigenous rights operational relevance even in jurisdictions with weak domestic enforcement.

The legal significance of safeguards lies in their practical leverage. Non-compliance can result in suspension of disbursements, restructuring of projects, or cancellation of funding. Indigenous communities have used safeguard mechanisms to challenge projects affecting their territories, effectively invoking international standards through financial governance rather than courts. At the same time, safeguards often prioritise procedural compliance over substantive outcomes, exposing a recurring gap between formal adherence and meaningful Indigenous control (Sarfaty, 2012).

9.2 Corporate responsibilities and litigation trends

Corporate involvement in Indigenous rights violations has prompted the development of international standards addressing business responsibility. International law continues to treat states as primary duty-bearers, but it increasingly expects corporations to respect Indigenous rights through human rights due diligence, particularly in relation to land access, security arrangements, and consultation practices.

Litigation trends demonstrate a gradual shift. Indigenous communities have pursued claims against corporations in domestic courts, alleging complicity in land dispossession, environmental degradation, and violence by private or state security forces. While jurisdictional barriers remain significant, courts have shown a growing willingness to examine corporate conduct where companies relied on defective state consent processes or failed to assess Indigenous rights risks adequately.

Soft-law standards reinforce this trend by articulating expectations of corporate behaviour in Indigenous contexts. These standards emphasise early engagement with Indigenous governance institutions, avoidance of coercive practices, and respect for Indigenous decision-making authority. Although not binding, they increasingly influence investor expectations, contractual arrangements, and reputational risk assessments. Indigenous rights thus enter corporate governance as legal compliance variables rather than peripheral ethical concerns (Ruggie, 2013).

9.3 Free, prior and informed consent in practice: documentation standards

Free, prior and informed consent is the most operationally demanding Indigenous right in business and development projects. International law requires consent in contexts involving relocation, large-scale resource extraction, hazardous activities, or projects that threaten Indigenous survival. In practice, disputes centre on how consent is evidenced and evaluated.

International bodies assess consent through a detailed examination of process integrity. Key factors include recognition of legitimate Indigenous representative institutions, provision of information in accessible languages and formats, sufficient time for internal deliberation, and absence of coercion, manipulation, or conditional benefits. Documentation such as meeting records, impact assessments, community resolutions, and grievance procedures is scrutinised to determine whether consent was genuinely obtained.

Deficient consent processes have legal consequences even where domestic permits are formally valid. International practice treats consent as a substantive safeguard linked to self-determination, not as an extended form of consultation. This approach has reshaped project governance by requiring demonstrable respect for Indigenous decision-making authority, rather than reliance on procedural formality alone (Anaya, 2004; UN General Assembly, 2007).

Also read

• Latin American International Law: Regionalism to Resistance

• The Subjects of International Law

• U.S. Interest in Greenland Under International Law

• What Are Human Rights?

• The Paris Agreement Explained

• Nagorno-Karabakh War: Rights and Settlement

• COP26: Climate Governance

10. Remedies and accountability: what victims can realistically obtain

International law has developed a remedial framework for Indigenous Peoples that aims to address structural harm rather than isolated violations. In practice, remedies reflect a balance between legal principle, feasibility, and political resistance. While full restoration is often recognised as the preferred outcome, international bodies have adopted a pragmatic approach that combines restitution, compensation, benefit-sharing, and forward-looking structural measures.

10.1 Restitution vs compensation vs benefit-sharing

Restitution is the primary remedy in cases involving unlawful dispossession of Indigenous lands and resources. International jurisprudence treats restitution as the preferred response where it is materially possible, reflecting the central role of land in Indigenous cultural survival and self-determination. Restitution may involve return of territory, legal recognition of communal title, or demarcation and protection of ancestral lands (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2005).

Where restitution is factually impossible or would create disproportionate disruption, international bodies have accepted compensation as a secondary remedy. Compensation is not limited to market value; it may include cultural damage, loss of subsistence, and long-term impacts on community life. Monetary compensation alone is generally considered insufficient where it fails to restore the conditions necessary for Indigenous cultural continuity (Anaya, 2004).

Benefit-sharing has emerged as an additional remedial tool, particularly in contexts involving resource extraction or long-term development projects. Rather than addressing past harm, benefit-sharing focuses on equitable participation in ongoing economic activity. International practice increasingly treats benefit-sharing as complementary to, not a substitute for, restitution or compensation, especially where projects continue on Indigenous lands (UN General Assembly, 2007).

10.2 Guarantees of non-repetition and structural remedies

International remedies increasingly include guarantees of non-repetition aimed at preventing future violations. These measures address underlying legal and institutional failures rather than individual acts. Typical guarantees include legal reforms recognising Indigenous land tenure, establishment of consultation and consent procedures, reform of environmental and licensing regimes, and recognition of Indigenous governance institutions.

Structural remedies may also involve environmental restoration, access to public services, or protection of cultural sites. Such measures acknowledge that Indigenous rights violations often stem from systemic exclusion rather than isolated misconduct. By targeting legal frameworks and administrative practice, guarantees of non-repetition seek to transform the conditions that produced the violation.

10.3 Enforcement gap

Despite normative clarity, enforcement remains the central weakness of Indigenous remedies. International decisions often depend on state cooperation, and implementation is frequently delayed, partial, or contested. Political resistance, competing economic interests, and administrative inertia limit the effectiveness of remedial orders.

International law responds to this gap through monitoring, follow-up procedures, and reputational pressure rather than coercion. While imperfect, this framework has enabled Indigenous Peoples to secure tangible outcomes in some cases and to establish authoritative legal records that support ongoing advocacy and domestic litigation.

11. Current fault lines and open legal debates

The legal framework governing Indigenous Peoples in international law has expanded significantly, yet it remains marked by unresolved tensions and contested interpretations. These fault lines reflect deeper structural questions about sovereignty, economic development, and the limits of collective rights. Understanding these debates is essential for assessing both the stability and future trajectory of Indigenous legal protection.

One central debate concerns the legal scope of free, prior and informed consent. While international instruments and regional jurisprudence clearly require consent in situations involving relocation, large-scale resource extraction, or severe impacts on Indigenous survival, disagreement persists over its broader application. Some states continue to treat consent as an aspirational objective rather than a binding requirement, particularly in legislative or regulatory contexts. International practice increasingly rejects this narrow view, yet consensus has not fully crystallised, leaving room for strategic resistance in implementation (UN General Assembly, 2007; Anaya, 2004).

A second fault line lies in the relationship between Indigenous land rights and state claims over natural resources. Many domestic legal systems assert state ownership of subsoil resources, even where surface lands are recognised as Indigenous territory. International law has not resolved this tension conclusively. Jurisprudence has moved toward requiring consultation, impact assessment, and benefit-sharing, but the extent to which Indigenous Peoples can veto resource exploitation remains contested. This ambiguity continues to generate conflict in extractive regions and undermines legal certainty for all actors involved.

Security and emergency justifications represent a further area of contestation. States have invoked national security, public order, or environmental emergency to justify restrictions on Indigenous land use and governance. International law permits limitations on rights under strict conditions, but application in Indigenous contexts raises concerns about proportionality and necessity. Recurrent use of security arguments in Indigenous territories suggests a risk of normalising exceptional measures that erode hard-won protections.

Finally, disputes over recognition and identity persist. Although self-identification is a foundational principle, states often retain decisive control over official recognition processes. This creates legal uncertainty for communities seeking to assert Indigenous status and access to associated rights. International bodies have criticised restrictive recognition regimes, yet no uniform standard exists to constrain state discretion fully.

These unresolved debates do not negate the legal status of Indigenous Peoples, but they define their contested boundaries. They reveal an area of international law that is dynamic rather than settled, shaped by ongoing negotiation between legal principle and political reality.

12. Conclusion

The legal status of Indigenous Peoples in international law has evolved into a coherent, though still contested, body of norms that confer real legal consequences. Indigenous Peoples are no longer treated as peripheral beneficiaries of protection but as collective rights-holders whose identity, relationship to land, and systems of governance carry legal weight. Through treaties, authoritative declarations, regional jurisprudence, and UN monitoring mechanisms, international law now recognises Indigenous Peoples as actors capable of asserting claims, shaping standards, and obtaining remedies.

This framework delivers substantive rights that are example-driven and operational rather than abstract. Land restitution orders, consultation and consent requirements, environmental safeguards, and structural reforms demonstrate that Indigenous legal status produces enforceable obligations. At the same time, the system remains constrained by uneven implementation, political resistance, and fragmentation across legal regimes. The enforcement gap, particularly in contexts involving economic development and resource extraction, continues to limit the transformative potential of recognised rights.

The future of Indigenous Peoples in international law will be determined less by the creation of new norms than by the consolidation and faithful application of existing ones. Courts, treaty bodies, financial institutions, and domestic authorities already possess sufficient legal guidance to act. The decisive question is whether states and private actors will comply with standards that increasingly leave little room for denial or dilution. In that respect, Indigenous Peoples in international law represent one of the clearest tests of whether international legal commitments can meaningfully constrain power and deliver justice to historically marginalised communities.

References

1. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2005). Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities. Banjul: ACHPR.

2. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2010). Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya. Communication No. 276/2003.

3. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2017). African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (Ogiek case). Judgment on the Merits, 26 May 2017.

4. Anaya, J.S. (2004). Indigenous Peoples in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Anaya, J.S. (2011). ‘The duty to consult Indigenous Peoples’, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 28(2), pp. 299–321.

6. Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Centre for International Environmental Law (2015). Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies: Indigenous Peoples and Corporate Accountability. Washington, DC: CIEL.

8. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1997). General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples. UN Doc. CERD/C/51/Misc.13/Rev.4.

9. European Court of Human Rights (2001). Chapman v United Kingdom. Application No. 27238/95.

10. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2001). The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua. Judgment of 31 August 2001.

11. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2005). Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Judgment of 17 June 2005.

12. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2007). Saramaka People v Suriname. Judgment of 28 November 2007.

13. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2020). Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v Argentina. Judgment of 6 February 2020.

14. International Labour Organization (1957). Convention No. 107 concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries. Geneva: ILO.

15. International Labour Organization (1989). Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Geneva: ILO.

16. Kingsbury, B. (1998). ‘Indigenous peoples in international law: A constructivist approach’, American Journal of International Law, 92(3), pp. 414–457.

17. Knox, J.H. (2017). Human Rights and the Environment. UN Special Rapporteur Report. UN Doc. A/HRC/34/49.

18. Martínez Cobo, J.R. (1986). Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4.

19. Niezen, R. (2003). The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

20. Posey, D.A. and Dutfield, G. (1996). Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa: IDRC.

21. Ruggie, J. (2013). Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. New York: W.W. Norton.

22. Sarfaty, G.A. (2012). Values in Translation: Human Rights and the Culture of the World Bank. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

23. UN Economic and Social Council (2014). Report of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. UN Doc. E/2014/43.

24. UN General Assembly (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UN Doc. A/RES/61/295.

25. UN Human Rights Committee (1994). General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Article 27). UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5.

26. UN Human Rights Council (2016). Universal Periodic Review: Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council. UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/5/1.

27. UN Human Rights Council (2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. UN Doc. A/HRC/42/37.

28. UNESCO (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.

29. UNEP (2019). Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.