Advertisement

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in the Philippines: A Fourth World Critique

  • Armi Beatriz E. BayotEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights book series (CHREN, volume 3)

Abstract

When it comes to the planning and execution of resource use activities, indigenous peoples’ voices do not carry the same weight as those of states—not even when the activity at issue will have a profound and irreversible impact on indigenous peoples’ survival. As illustrated by how the norm of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is implemented in the Philippines, this is due to competing state-centric international and domestic legal norms that privilege state prerogatives over natural resources vis-à-vis indigenous peoples’ rights over their territories. The doctrine of state sovereignty is so fundamental in international law that states’ acknowledgment of indigenous peoples’ rights, in general, and FPIC, in particular, continue to be qualified by this doctrine. FPIC, therefore, remains to be a regime of unfulfilled promise due to the inherent power imbalance in the international law framework in which it exists, which is based on a Western conception of state sovereignty that denies the (pre-)existence and validity of indigenous polities and their historical sovereignty. The way forward is to assert indigenous peoples’ participation in international law-making, based on their right to self-determination and historical sovereignty, to empower them to influence the content of other norms of international law that affect them—not just those international law norms that ostensibly exist specifically for the protection of indigenous peoples (such as FPIC).

References

  1. Anghie A (2006) The evolution of international law: colonial and postcolonial realities. Third World Q 27(5):739–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anghie A, Chimni B (2003) Third world approaches to international law and individual responsibility in internal conflicts. Chin J Int Law 2:77–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barelli M (2012) Free, prior and informed consent in the aftermath of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples: developments and challenges ahead. Int J Human Rights 16(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bocobo J (1936) The Regalian Doctrine. Philipp Law J XVI(4–5):151–153Google Scholar
  5. Cariño J (1980) The Chico River basin development project: a case study in national development policy (an update). Agham-Tao 3(1):1–25Google Scholar
  6. Charters C (2010) A self-determination approach to justifying indigenous peoples’ participation in international law and policy making. Int J Minority Groups Rights 17:215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heiniimki L (2011) Towards an equal partnership between indigenous peoples and states: learning from arctic experiences? Yearb Polar Law 3(1):193–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lenzerini F (2006–2007) Sovereignty revisited: international law and parallel sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Tex Int Law J 42:155–189Google Scholar
  9. Lynch O (2011) Colonial legacies of a fragile republic: Philippine land law and state formation. University of the Philippines College of Law, Diliman, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  10. Macklem P (2008) Indigenous recognition in international law: theoretical observations. Mich J Int Law 30(177):208Google Scholar
  11. Miranda L (2008) Uploading the local: assessing the contemporary relationship between indigenous peoples’ land tenure systems and international human rights law regarding the allocation of traditional lands and resources in Latin America. Or Rev Int Law 10:419–452Google Scholar
  12. Miranda L (2010) Indigenous peoples as international lawmakers. Univ Pa J Int Law 32(1):203–263Google Scholar
  13. Miranda L (2012) The role of international law in intrastate natural resource allocation: sovereignty, human rights, and peoples-based development. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 45:785–840Google Scholar
  14. Mutua M, Anghie A (2000) What is Twail? Proceedings of the annual meeting. Am Soc Int Law 94:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nietschmann B (1994) The fourth world: nations versus states. In: Demko G, Wood W (eds) Reordering the world: geopolitical perspectives on the twenty-first century. Westview Press, pp 225–326Google Scholar
  16. Wiessner S (2008) Indigenous sovereignty: a reassessment in light of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 41:1141–1176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations