Source: https://www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=3137
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:42:45+00:00

Document:
The legal significance of the interaction of resource development and indigenous peoples has increased over recent years. There has been considerable jurisprudence and regulation in the area, both internationally and within many countries, making it timely for an OGEL special issue to examine the contemporary state of the law. We summarise the articles in this special issue at the end of this editorial but first provide a broader overview.
Laws and legal responses to the interaction of resource development and indigenous peoples are nothing new,  but the extent thereof and level of attention thereto has greatly increased. Some of this attention is due, no doubt, to increased awareness and publicity through globalisation and internet use. But there also seems to be something more - something of greater acceptance and responsiveness to the concept of indigenous rights. Over the last decades we have seen increased support from industry for the proposition that, at a minimum, some accommodation needs to be found directly between extractive industries license holders and groups recognized as indigenous in the jurisdictions in which they work. This has been encouraged vigorously by non-governmental organizations (NGO's) and other representatives of indigenous groups. In the absence of a comprehensive legal framework, but understanding the practical need to find a balance between competing interests, various ad hoc approaches have developed. That is the focus of this issue: analysis of trends in such accommodations from a variety of perspectives.
The indigenous-resources interaction is one aspect of the ever-present question in most extractive industries operations: the balancing of broader benefits against local impacts. And the crux is: how is that balance determined and who is involved in the process? Resources development brings benefits both to local indigenous populations and also to the broader society/nation,  but negative impacts from such development are frequently suffered in large part by the local indigenous group. A further complexity is that it is not simply a matter of finding a balance for contemporary interests or proposals for future development. There are often historic actions with significant implications for today, as various cases demonstrate. 'Legacy' issues exist in many countries and mining/petroleum operations are particularly susceptible because of their long life-span. In South Africa in 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that diamond operations, which had begun in the 1920s and 1930s, were now subject to prior indigenous interests which had been excluded under earlier racially discriminatory laws and practices.
It is not only indigenous groups that have concerns about the impacts of extractive industry operations; others are also responding to these issues. National human rights bodies in various countries have published concerns that the impact of some mining operations on indigenous people breach human rights standards. More s ignificantly for resource companies, the impact of some operations on indigenous people and the environment  have influenced investors to withdraw money from resources projects (including the Norwegian Government pension fund,  Joseph Rowntree Trust, the Church of England and Dutch pension manager PGGM ). It is also claimed that business value is lost where a company gives insufficient attention to environmental, social and governance issues including the impact of operations on indigenous people.
There are various UN bodies and mechanisms which address resource-indigenous issues, both at a broad level (e.g., in relation to sustainable development  or racism ) or as part of a focus on indigenous issues. The UN's Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is the highest-level indigenous-specific international body involving governments, and in 2009 it held an International Expert Group Meeting on Extractive Industries. The report of that meeting  addresses the role of companies, indigenous organisations, governments and UN agencies; outlining recommendations for each. In 2010 the Permanent Forum invited the world mining industry to propose sites considered good indigenous practice for further study by the Forum.
In addition to the Permanent Forum, indigenous issues are also addressed through other inter-governmental bodies such as the International Labour Organisation and the UN's Human Rights Council, which has two specific mechanisms: the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples  and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people . The UN's human rights secretariat, the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, also addresses indigenous-resources issues.
It is useful to review some basic workings of international law relevant to understanding indigenous-resources issues. The usual process of creating human rights standards  involves governments negotiating, through UN bodies, the basic terms which, if agreed, become a declaration adopted by the UN's General Assembly (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (the "UDHR"), the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1963, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (the "UNDRIP")). At that point, these standards are a resolution of the General Assembly and so have no legally binding status  and while they may have moral force, the generality of their wording alone might keep them from being enforced as law -- it isn't always clear exactly what is required of whom. Normally, however, the UN bodies use a declaration's text as the basis on which to develop a treaty which provides the specific detail that the declaration's text avoided, and is couched in the understanding that it will only bind those countries which subsequently join it (by ratification, accession or succession). Some court decisions have made reference to Indigenous treaties which are not binding on the country,  while other judges indicate there is no significance or role for treaties which the nation has not joined or implemented domestically,  or which have not commenced. Once a treaty becomes operative (e.g. when it receives a minimum number of ratifications) it is binding on those countries which have joined it, and the earlier declaration is usually forgotten. However some declarations maintain a currency. What we have, in the UNDRIP, is the initial declaration and no current proposal to move further.
These various international fora contribute to the development of international standards about indigenous people and resources projects that eventually become enshrined in international law. For example, the fore-runner of the UN Human Rights Council's Expert Mechanism was the body that first negotiated and wrote what became the UNDRIP. The International Labour Organisation drafted the only international treaty on indigenous rights, the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries or 'ILO 169' and its forerunner ILO 107. Accordingly, familiarity with the work and output of these bodies can help develop awareness of likely future directions and developments. While some commentary suggests UNDRIP will become customary law, binding on all states,  two key barriers (among others) currently exist. First, it was specifically noted by various countries when UNDRIP was passed that it did not represent customary law. Second, there is a lack of consensus around the meaning of significant phrases in UNDRIP. The governments which initially voted against UNDRIP (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) have removed their oppositional vote, but still emphasise the reasons which informed their original opposition.
There is, nonetheless, growing international support and recognition for indigenous rights, with opposition to UNDRIP being withdrawn,  and increasing numbers of countries joining the ILO's treaty on indigenous rights, ILO 169. Of course, as with all areas, a government's ratification of a treaty doesn't necessarily result in any improvements at the national level,  and indigenous treaties are no different.
Regional human rights bodies are engaging with indigenous-resources issues. In 2010, the African Commission on Human Rights ruled that government approval of a tourism reserve violated indigenous peoples' rights  - the first time the Commission has recognised indigenous peoples rights over traditional land. The inter-American human rights mechanisms, established under the American Convention on Human Rights,  have produced considerable jurisprudence on indigenous and resources issues. Decisions confirming and protecting indigenous rights have been delivered by the Inter-American Court  and Commission on Human Rights.
In addition to the universal international standards, there are also regional legal standards being developed on indigenous people and rights across several countries. Examples include the Nordic Saami Convention being negotiated with indigenous people and the governments of Sweden, Finland and Norway , and the proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights.
There are also transnational legal aspects, with court cases in countries where resources firms are headquartered prepared to examine the firm's operations in other countries. The United States Court of Appeals recently allowed a case to proceed dealing with the impact of Occidental Petroleum operations on indigenous people in northern Peru. In 1995, an Australian company was found to have breached Australian law in its agreements and negotiations in Papua New Guinea.
There are a range of fora in which the law of indigenous-resources interaction arises within countries. Often the most public face will be in national politics (e.g., Peru has recently seen a divergence between the Parliament and President over legal protection of indigenous interests and its impact on resource development ). Where political dialogue is unable to provide resolutions, there is increasing recourse to courts. This has seen local courts and tribunals either modifying or halting resource development because of impacts on indigenous people (e.g.. in Colombia,  Malaysia,  Philippines,  Australia,  the United States ).
Some governments have used independent commissions/panels to investigate and report on proposed developments and their impact on indigenous people. This can enable the issue to be addressed with more transparency (e.g., by a public report against specified terms of reference) and principles rather than simply responding to the dominant political force of the time. Recently, in India, this saw the proposed bauxite mine in Orissa being rejected by the Indian Government  after an independently commissioned panel report negatively on its impacts.  The company and the provincial Government are now challenging the central Government's decision. In Canada, the Government established an independent panel to assess a proposed gold-copper mine's effect on Aboriginal rights/rights  and decided not to allow the project to proceed as currently proposed because of its impacts.
Understandably, governments respond to the particular legal framework in which they operate. Thus, in Canada, where there are legal obligations about consultation in relation to impacts on indigenous treaty and aboriginal rights, the Canadian government released a policy framework for consulting with First Nations and Métis communities on decisions or actions that may impact Treaty or Aboriginal rights '. In Australia, where there is a national law requiring notification and an obligation to negotiate in good faith, the government issued implementation guidelines. The Colombian government, after ratifying the ILO treaty on indigenous rights, is 'drafting a bill to facilitate free, prior, and informed consultation of Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples'. While examples from other countries are informative, care must be taken to remain aware of differences in approach which reduce the applicability of the precedent elsewhere (e.g., in Canada the government has a duty of consultation which cannot be delegated to a company,  while in Australia the system usually sees the government as a bystander while the company and indigenous group endeavour to reach an agreed outcome ).
Resources companies are seeking recourse in local courts  and international arbitration  to challenge local and national indigenous developments and legal positions. Equally, indigenous groups are using domestic and international law to challenge government and company developments and proposals.
There have been a variety of multi-stakeholder processes in different extractive resources sectors, which have addressed indigenous-resources interaction. While these multi-stakeholder processes do not directly produce legal results themselves, they are significant in influencing law reform and also identifying non-binding standards with considerable significance for resources companies. Examples of multi-stakeholder processes at the international level include the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development process in 2001/2,  the World Commission on Dams from 1998-2000,  the Forest Stewardship Council,  and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil  . Some have ongoing processes while others were a 'one-off' review and report, with recommendations being taken up by other bodies. Multi-stakeholder processes have also occurred within countries, like Canada's Whitehorse Mining Initiative  and Australia's Mining Certification Evaluation Project  .
Indigenous issues have also been addressed in industry guides and mechanisms: the International Council on Mining and Metals released a practice guide on indigenous peoples and mining  and industry codes are being used to address indigenous impact.
In recent years, many companies have given greater recognition and rights to indigenous peoples. Rio Tinto is one example, with its 2009 annual report stating that it 'operates in a manner consistent with the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples and sovereign obligations. We respect the land connection of indigenous communities and work with them on their land in a spirit of reciprocity, transparency and recognition of their culture'.
the process may include the option of withholding consent.
FPIC has existed for some time in various international structures like the international guidelines on impact assessment,  and in procedures of international financial agencies. It is also used in various multi-stakeholder processes including the World Commission on Dams, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and Forest Stewardship Council.  Some governments are advocating use of FPIC, and this has also been promoted by the European Union.
Various resources companies are committing themselves to gaining consent, as detailed in a comprehensive 2010 report on the area  which summarised the consent policies of De Beers, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Repsol, Occidental, Xstrata and ConocoPhillips. The report observed that the specific wording and action of each company varied widely  and that generally mining companies are incorporating FPIC but that is less common with oil/gas operators. Nestle recently adopted guidelines, about sourcing palm oil, which ' specify that the palm oil Nestlé purchases will...[s]upport the free prior and informed consent of indigenous and local communities to activities on their customary lands where plantations are developed'.
There are a range of other FPIC complexities which will no doubt be addressed, if not by practice, then by commentators and courts over the coming years.
The central question is how to determine whether FPIC occurred before an existing development or initiative is undertaken. And, as FPIC becomes more clear, we are starting to see the development of cases questioning whether existing projects were developed with FPIC.
The relation between (a) FPIC determined by a group and (b) the rights and situation of any person within that group. And the same dilemma exists at a broader level: what happens where there is a national consultation process with indigenous people that results in a legal structure that not every group has agreed to? Various situations exist in New Zealand and Australia around the difficulty of negotiating at a national or regional level and what that means for individuals/groups at the local level.
Is it possible for a group to give FPIC in state of poverty and desperation? This is becoming a significant question in the placement of toxic and nuclear waste.
What should happen in relation to areas where there are indigenous groups who have previously indicated they want no contact with outsiders? Should any activity/contact occur to determine whether FPIC can be reached? In Brazil, protected areas have been made which suspends all activity, while in Peru the government and oil companies propose to continue their activity.
While there is no shortage of bad practice and seemingly intractable problems, there are also examples and structures which provide good bases for progress. We identify some of these below, as well as issues deserving greater attention.
The question of achieving an agreement is one thing, but just as important is the implementation process. The various claims and cases about parties not fulfilling their contractual obligations  suggest more attention is needed to implementation. Similarly, there appears to be limited research regarding whether the process of negotiations does or should provide some benefits to the indigenous group (e.g., through research, capacity building etc) because the outcomes are not certain. This issue requires greater study.
It is difficult to determine, with any objectivity, when arrangements are adequate. Historically, many things have been deemed 'acceptable' and implemented through law that, when viewed in hindsight, are considered egregious by contemporary standards.  Examples abound, such as slavery, segregation, crusades, and eugenics. Where research only examines one side of an issue - e.g., in this context, if only interviewing companies and government; then it is impossible to understand what indigenous people think and would be satisfied with. So we must always remember there are very different perspectives. It is invariably more messy to include these perspectives (e.g., compare land allocation for mining in Australia pre 1992 as opposed to after 1992 when a national indigenous land rights law began) but failure to do so will unlikely result in long term progress. There are critics of multi-stakeholder processes, for example the two year Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development process being decried for having 'sold out' to the other side. There is perverse reassurance, however, that these criticisms came from both sides - mining industry voices  and NGO groups .
There are, of course, different perspectives on the extent and subject matters of indigenous inclusion and much of the argument is not a legal issue. However the policy and political context needs to be understood if one is to have an accurate picture of how a law operates. A complexity with increased indigenous inclusion may be that other communities/groups oppose that occurring. Two implications of this are that: (1) the government may need to do more than simply establish laws and procedures for indigenous inclusion; and (2) there is unlikely to be a universal structure or procedure for how inclusion should be achieved, and instead it will depend on local context.
There are also complexities from the differences between (a) groups that have historical, but not necessarily cultural, connection to land and (b) groups who have a cultural connection to the land. The former groups often enjoy greater legal rights in relation to developments which may impact on the area.  Legal frameworks addressing this issue have different approaches.
ILO 169 treats these groups as having same rights; and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also found in Saramaka that the indigenous rights applied to tribal peoples; and Canadian courts indicate that some first nations' rights also accrue to Metis people.
In some countries, the domestic law distinguishes between these groups and the rights they hold. For example, the state law in Queensland (Australia) allows indigenous land claims to be made on the basis of 'traditional/customary affiliation', 'historical association' and 'economic and cultural viability', ranked in that order where there are cases with multiple claims of different grounds.
Some commentators advocate that companies apply the same policy to all groups.
It is not simply a difference of theoretical interest. It can cause great difficulty in jurisdictions which have regimes which accommodate different types of connections. For example, in some Australian states there is an aboriginal land rights regime which does not require traditional links to country before a claim can succeed, operating at the same time as a national native title regime which does require traditional connection before a claim can succeed.
states should ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms including through particular attention to indigenous peoples who are excluded from the same level of legal protection of their human rights that applies to the wider population.
Much of the above is already covered in a wide range of publications and other available sources, and we have included a bibliography to guide readers of our Special Issue to this material.
Modern natural resource development projects increasingly involve issues related to indigenous peoples' rights. Both international and national legal systems have promulgated considerable jurisprudence and regulation in the area. In keeping with OGEL's mission to provide a dynamic forum for publication, this issue contains articles from authors who have studied and who have practical experience with indigenous rights issues in extractive resource projects across several countries, including projects in Russia, Canada, Australia, Bolivia and Peru (among others).
In addition to geographic diversity, this issue emphasizes analysis of key indigenous rights issues from the viewpoint of a variety of project stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and organizations which represent their interests, international institutions, host governments and extractive resource companies. With respect to indigenous people, the articles detail how indigenous peoples organize themselves, engage in consultation with project developers and host governments, and seek financial and other forms of benefits in exchange for participation in a project. It is the hope of the editors that this issue provides a practical survey of international trends and practices so that such practices can be further studied by academics and practitioners in this area and potentially deployed on future projects.
The following section provides a short introduction to each of the articles in this issue.
Associate Professor Allan Ingelson's paper "Adequate" Consultation with Aboriginal Stakeholders in Canadian Oil and Gas Development examines two decades of decisions of the Albertan Energy Resources Conservation Board. Professor Ingelson focuses on how these decisions have approached consultation programs delivered by oil and gas project proponents in relation to indigenous residents. The paper provides insight into the elements of consultation practices that can prevent project delays, avoid additional costs associated with delays in project approval, and increase efficiency in the regulation of oil and gas development.
Dr. Natalia Yakovleva wrote Oil sector developments in Russia and indigenous people. This paper reviews the current provision of state support for protection of indigenous peoples' rights and interests in relation to extractive sector developments in Russia. Using a case study of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline construction, the paper explores the potential impact of such project on traditional activities of the indigenous communities in the area. The paper investigates the legal provisions for participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making concerning natural resource use on their traditional territories.
Ramanie Kunanayagam & Kathryn Tomlinson have analyzed agreement-making with indigenous stakeholders across several countries. Their paper, Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Projects: Success Factors in Compensation and Benefit Sharing Agreements, explores different types of compensation and benefit sharing agreements between extractive companies and indigenous groups through three different national and project contexts, Bolivian oil and gas compensation agreements, the Sakhalin oil and gas and indigenous agreement in Russia, and the Argyle mining agreement in Australia. Kunanayagam and Tomlinson explain how successful and effective agreements may provide a private company with a long-term social license to operate and provide affected indigenous groups with long-term sustainable benefits on their own terms. This paper discusses the "success factors" for reaching such agreements.
Gaston Bilder provides an interesting comparison between Peru and Bolivia in his article Public Consultations of Indigenous Peoples in the Hydrocarbons Industry. The paper describes the regime for the public consultations of indigenous peoples specifically established for the hydrocarbons industry in Bolivia and the regulations existing and proposed in Peru, with the intention of making some suggestions for their possible improvement, based on industry experience.
The paper Re-conceiving Impact and Benefit Agreements as instruments of Aboriginal community development in northern Ontario, Canada by Peter Siebenmorgen and Dr. Benjamin Bradshaw looks at Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) negotiated between mining firms and Aboriginal communities. The success of some agreements has been limited by the failure of IBAs to identify and thoughtfully address Aboriginal signatories' implicit expectations and interests regarding long-term community development. The article suggests a process for an IBA that is sensitive to the particular socio-economic conditions, cultural interests, and community development expectations of Aboriginal signatories.
Dr. Bram Noble and Courtney Fidler's paper is Advancing Indigenous Community - Corporate Agreements: Lessons from Practice in the Canadian Mining Sector . This paper notes there has been significant writing about the theory of agreement-making, but less available on the realities, and so examines practical experiences with negotiated agreements and the lessons emerging. The paper examines two Canadian case studies of negotiated agreements. For each case, the authors provide an overview of the mining operation and negotiated agreement. This is followed by a number of lessons and observations based on the experiences of those involved. Although the two cases are very different in nature and scope, the authors identify a number of common lessons that arise from negotiating agreements with a community and the opportunities for improving current practices.
We have also been fortunate to be able to reproduce some material from other sources - previously unpublished, as well as an article from another journal.
In 2005, Thomas Isaac and Anthony Knox wrote Canadian Aboriginal Law: Creating Certainty in Resource Development. This paper reflects on the jurisprudential and constitutional changes in Canada over the last two decades, as the recognition and definition of indigenous rights entail and their relationship with development proposals. This paper describes the corpus of Canadian law uniquely developed to deal with the fair resolution of issues arising from the conflict between aboriginal and treaty rights and the rights of natural resource developers. It explains the three principal legal developments which are fundamental to introducing certainty into resolution of such conflict, namely: (a) the doctrine of the Crown's duty to consult aboriginal people, (b) the judicial clarification of the related doctrine of the Crown's fiduciary relationship with aboriginal people, and (c) the practice of regulating relations between resource developers and their aboriginal neighbours in contractual documents.
The 2009 paper Aboriginal Engagement in Resource Development - Industry Leading Practices was written by Intergroup Consultants. The paper represents the culmination of a series of research components intended to lead to an increased understanding of leading practices with respect to Aboriginal engagement in resource development projects across Canada and Alaska. From the beginning, this research was intended to be practice-based. The findings within this document have been drawn from the thoughts and perspectives of individuals engaged in many different facets of resource development and Aboriginal engagement, particularly those with 'hands-on' experience in this subject matter. At the outset, the research process was steered not towards producing a theory-based report derived from academic research and review but rather a document produced by industry and stakeholders to be used by industry and stakeholders.
The final document in this issue is a bibliography of legal and commentary material relevant to indigenous-resources issues. Wherever possible, we have endeavoured to include a URL for any item that is freely available on the internet.
We finish with a comment on Thomas Wälde, OGEL's founding editor and practitioner and academic whose career focussed on the regulation and role of the extractives industry. Thomas was always keen to bring together thinking and people from different perspectives and fields. He urged two of us (Kenneth Culotta and John Southalan) to edit a special issue of OGEL about resources-indigenous issues, notwithstanding that we had never met and had different perspectives on this. We've still never met and still have different perspectives, but hope this issue has done justice to the contributors, the readers, parties involved in indigenous-resources interaction, and to the memory of Thomas Wälde.
JS, KSC, AF (August 2011).
ABC, 2007. 7.30 report, Martin under fire from Indigenous parliamentarians 7 May 2007. Australia. Available 31 Mar 2011.
Ab Land Act (AUS). Queensland Parliament (AUS), Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld), 32 of 1991, 14 Apr 1991. Available 22 May 2011.
ADB, 2009. Asian Development Bank, Safeguard Policy Statement, Policy Paper, June 2009. Mandaluyong City (PHI). Available 31 Mar 2011.
AHRC, 2002. Australian Human Rights Commission, Development and Indigenous Land: A Human Rights Approach. Sydney (AUS). Available 20 Mar 2010.
AI, 2010. Amnesty International, Guatemala: One Mining Activist Shot, Another Threatened, AMR 34/008/2010, 21 July 2010. Available 25 Mar 2011.
Akwé: Kon Guidelines (2004). Conference of Parties of Convention on Biological Diversity, Akwé: Kon Guidelines - Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments (May 2000). Available 29 Jan 2009.
Alexkor Ltd -v- Richtersveld Community (2003). Decision of Constitutional Court of South Africa, Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others ZACC 18 (14 Oct 2003). Available 16 Jun 2010.
Aljazeera, 2010. Protesters block Brazil power plant, 26 Jul 2010. Available 1 Apr 2011.
Am Cnvtn HR (1969). Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights (22 Nov 1969). Available 17 Sep 2009.
Andriyanto, H, 2010. Papua Tribe Files $32b Lawsuit Against Freeport, 8 March 2010. The Jakarta Globe. Available 23 Mar 2011.
APA, 2010. Amerindian Peoples Association, Guyana - Indigenous Peoples Demand Action on Land Rights, Consent Issues, 9 March 2010. Georgetown. Available 23 Mar 2011.
ATSISJC, 2005. Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, Native Title Report 2005, Report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner required by section 209 Native Title Act 1993, 16 Dec 2005. Sydney (AUS): Australian Government. Available 22 May 2011.
Aus Gov, 2007. Dept Resources Energy & Tourism, No 12. Land Access - Indigenous Considerations, Minerals and Petroleum Exploration & Development in Australia Guide for Investors. Canberra: Australian Government. Available 26 Oct 2009.
------, 2009. Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 3 Apr 2009. Canberra: Australian Government. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Awas Tingni -v- Nicaragua (2001). Decision of Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community -v- Nicaragua Series C No. 79 (31 Aug 2001). Available 24 Apr 2009.
Barrionuevo, A, 2010. Amazon Dam Project Pits Economic Benefit Against Protection of Indigenous Lands, New York Times, New York, 17 April 2010, A7. Available 20 Mar 2011.
BBC, 2010. BBC News, Native Alaskans say oil drilling threatens way of life, 20 July 2010. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (2010). Decision of Supreme Court of Canada, Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation 2010 SCC 53 (19 Nov 2010). Available 6 Aug 2011.
BHP -v- Dagi (1995). Decision of Supreme Court of Victoria, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd Appellant -v- Rex Dagi VSC 224 (15 Dec 1995). Available 24 Aug 2009.
Bleicher, S, 1969. The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions. American J Int L, 63(3), 444.
BMF, 2010. Bruno Manser Fund, Swiss retailer lodges complaint against Malaysian palm oil group, 15 June 2010. Basel (CHF). Available 21 Mar 2011.
Bropho v Western Australia (2007). Decision of Federal Court of Australia, Bropho (Swan Valley Nyungah Community) & or's v State of Western Australia & o'rs FCA 519 (13 April 2007). Available 23 Mar 2011.
Burlington Resources v. Ecuador (2010). Decision of Arbitral Tribunal, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic Of Ecuador ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (2 June 2010). Available 22 Mar 2011.
CAN Gov, 2010a. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Canada's Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 12 Nov 2010. Canadian Government. Available 6 Aug 2011.
------, 2010b. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Federal Review Panel Issues Environmental Assessment Report for Proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project, 2 July 2010. Ottawa: Canadian Government. Available 25 Mar 2011.
------, 2010c. Office of the Minister of the Environment, Government of Canada Announces Decisions on Mount Milligan and Prosperity Gold-Copper Mines, Press Release, 2 November 2010. Ottawa: Canadian Government. Available 25 Mar 2011.
------, 2011. Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult, QS-7105-001-EE-A1, March 2011. Canadian Government. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Carroll, R, 2010. Peru's tribal groups chide president for vetoing rainforest law, 24 June 2010. guardian.co.uk. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Chauhan, C, 2010. Probe setback to Vedanta mining project, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 25 July 2010. Available 20 Mar 2011.
CHR, 2011. Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Brgy. Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya 17 January 2011. Manilla. Available 20 Mar 2011.
Colchester, M, 2010. Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Making FPIC work for forests and peoples, TFD Publication Number 11, July 2010. New Haven (USA): The Forests Dialogue. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Dagi -v- BHP (1995). Decision of Supreme Court of Victoria, Dagi -v- The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd & ano'r unreported, decision of Cummins J, case 5782 of 1994 (20 Sep 1995).
Danielson, L, 2006. Architecture for Change: An account of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project, Appendix. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Danielson, L & Digby, C, 2006. Architecture for Change: An Account of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute. Available 24 Aug 2009.
Davis, M, 2008. Indigenous Struggles in Standard Setting: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne J International L, 9(2), 439. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Durban Declaration (2001). World Conference against Racism, RD, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,, Durban Declaration, UN doc A/CONF.189/12 (8 Sep 2001). Available 16 Sep 2009.
EBRD, 2010. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Guidance Note on Indigenous Peoples, 3 December 2010. London. Available 31 Mar 2011.
Edelman, D, 2009. Broader native title settlements and the meaning of the term 'traditional owners'. Paper presented to 'Native Title Conference' (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies), Melbourne, 4 Jun 2009. Available 23 Aug 2010.
EIRIS, 2007. Ethical Investment Research Services and Centre for Australian Ethical Research, Indigenous rights, indigenous wrongs: risks for the resource sectors, SEE risk briefing, October 2007. London: EIRIS Ltd. Available 24 Mar 2011.
------, 2009. Ethical Investment Research Services and Centre for Australian Ethical Research, Indigenous rights: risks and opportunities for investors, ESG Risk Briefing, June 2009. London: EIRIS Ltd. Available 24 Mar 2011.
Endorois Council -v- Kenya (2010). Decision of African Commission on Human and People's Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council -v- Kenya 276 / 2003 (4 Feb 2010). Available 18 Mar 2010.
ERI, 2010. Earth Rights International, ERI Wins Appeal in Case Against Occidental Petroleum for Contaminating Indigenous Achuar Communities in Peru, 6 Dec 2010. Available .
ESCR Net, 2010. ESCR-Justice, Kenyan Government Found in Violation of Indigenous Peoples' Rights under the African Charter, May 2010. New York: International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Available 20 Mar 2011.
Finley-Brook, M & Thomas, C, 2010. From malignant neglect to extreme intervention: Treatment of displaced indigenous populations in two large hydro projects in Panama. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 269-290. Available 29 Mar 2011.
FPP, 2010. Forest Peoples Programme, Guyana: indigenous peoples continue to be left out, July 2010. Moreton-in-Marsh (GBR). Available 21 Mar 2011.
FSC, 1996. Forest Stewardship Council, FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship, FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0) EN. Available 27 May 2010.
Galbraith, J, 1992. The culture of contentment. London: Penguin Books.
Gen Comm 23 (1994). Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27), UN doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5 (8 Apr 1994). Available 24 Apr 2009.
Gen Rec 23 (1997). Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXIII: Indigenous Peoples, A/52/18, annex V (18 Aug 1997). Available 20 Sep 2010.
Gibbs, M, 2005. The right to development and indigenous peoples: Lessons from New Zealand. World Development, 33(8), 1365-1378.
Glamis Gold -v- USA (2009). Decision of Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Glamis Gold Ltd -v- United States of America (14 May 2009). Available 6 Aug 2009.
Goodman, R & Jinks, D, 2003. Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties, Public Law Working Paper No. 56, Mar 2003. Harvard Law School. Available 18 Jan 2010.
Griffin Coal v Nyungar People (2005). Decision of National Native Title Tribunal, Griffin Coal Mining Co v Nyungar People (Gnaala Karla Booja)  NNTTA 100 (23 Dec 2005). Available 6 Aug 2011.
Griffiths, J, 2010. Co-Chairs' Summary of main interim conclusions from field visits, presentations and breakout group report backs. Paper presented to 'TFD Dialogue on Making FPIC Work' (The Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia), Pekanbaru (IDN), 15 October 2010. Available 22 Mar 2011.
Hathaway, O, 2002. Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale LJ, 111, 1935-2042. Available 18 Aug 2009.
Henao, LA, 2010a. Peru criticized over Repsol working in tribal area, 22 April 2010. Lima: Reuters. Available 23 Mar 2011.
------, 2010b. Peru tribes file IFC complaint over Maple pollution, 7 Apr 2010. Reuters. Available 21 Mar 2011.
Holocene P/L -v- Martu People (2009). Decision of National Native Title Tribunal, Holocene Pty Ltd / State of Western Australia / Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation (Jamukurnu - Yapalikunu) NNTTA 49 (27 May 2009). Available 20 Jul 2009.
IACHR, 2010. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR takes cases involving Argentina and Ecuador to the Inter-American Court, Press Release N° 49/10, 5 May 2010. Washington. Available 21 Mar 2011.
ICHRP, 2006. International Council on Human Rights Policy, Human Rights Standards: Learning from Experience. Versoix (CHE). Available 15 Jan 2010.
ICMM, 2010. International Council on Mining and Metals, Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining, 11 October 2010. London. Available 20 Mar 2011.
ILO 107 (1957). International Labour Organisation, Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, C107 (26 Jun 1957). Available 22 May 2011.
ILO 169 (1989). International Labour Organisation, Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Convention: C169 (27 Jun 1989). Available 16 Sep 2009.
ILOLEX, 2011. International Labour Standards Department, Convention No. C169 [ratifications], Database of International Labour Standards, 30 March 2011. Geneva (CHF): International Labour Office. Available 30 Mar 2011.
Ind Gov, 2010. Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests, Decision on Grant of Forest Clearance in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa for the Proposal submitted by the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd for Bauxite Mining in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines, 24 Aug 2010. Government of India. Available 6 Aug 2011.
IRIN, 2010. Integrated Regional Information Networks, Indonesia: Demand for palm oil fuels land-grabbing, 6 July 2010. Jakarta. Available 22 Mar 2010.
Kay, J, 2003. Challenging the Claims for the Role of Capital Markets. CES ifo Forum, 4(2), 17-20. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Koia v Waitangi Tribunal & Attorney General (2011). Decision of High Court of New Zealand, Koia v Waitangi Tribunal & Attorney General NZHC 47 (22 February 2011). Available 23 Mar 2011.
LAHT, 2010. Latin American Herald Tribune, Court Halts Colombia's Biggest Copper Mining Venture, 8 April 2010. Caracas. Available 19 Mar 2011.
Lansen v NT Minister for Mines (AUS) (2007). Decision of Supreme Court of The Northern Territory, Lansen, Harry & o'rs v Northern Territory Minister for Mines & Energy and McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd  NTSC 28 (30 April 2007). Available 31 Mar 2011.
Lee, J, 2010. Handling bad PR turns sticky for Nestle, The Age, Melbourne (AUS), 26 March 2010. Available 24 Mar 2011.
Lehr, A & Smith, G, 2010. Foley Hoag LLP, Implementing a Corporate Free, Prior, and Informed Consent Policy: Benefits and Challenges, report to Talisman Energy Inc, 4 May 2010. Calgary (CAN): Talisman Energy. Available 14 May 2010.
Linda Champion (Central West Goldfields People) v Vosperton Resources (2005). Decision of National Native Title Tribunal, Linda Champion (Central West Goldfields People) v Vosperton Resources NNTTA 1 (1 February 2005). Available 9 Aug 2011.
LRC-KsK, 2010. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Luzon, Prosecution of OCEANAGOLD's Illegal Demolition of Indigenous Houses Resumes, 18 March 2010. Quezon City (PHL). Available 20 Mar 2011.
NZ Māori Council -v- Att-Gen (NZL) (2007). Decision of New Zealand Court of Appeal, NZ Māori Council & o'rs -v- Attorney General and o'rs NZCA 269 (2 Jul 2007). Available 9 Sep 2010.
Marks, N, 2010. Guyana indigenous demand say over land, 3 July 2010. Georgetown: Reuters. Available 20 Mar 2011.
Maya People -v- GTM (2010). Decision of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,, Communities of the Maya People (Sipakepense and Mam) of the Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán Municipalities in the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala Precautionary Measures PM 260-07 (20 May 2010). Available 2 Jun 2010.
Minara Resources -v- Ashwin (2007). Decision of Supreme Court of Western Australia, Minara Resources Ltd v Ashwin WASCA 107 (24 May 2007). Available .
Mishra, S, 2011. Orissa bats for Vedanta refinery, 8 Mar 2011. Bhubaneswar (IND): Times of India. Available 21 Mar 2011.
MMSD, 2002. Breaking new ground: mining, minerals, and sustainable development: the report of the MMSD Project. London: Earthscan. Available 2 Jul 2009.
Moore, D; Dore, J & Gyawali, D, 2010. The World Commission on Dams + 10: Revisiting the large dam controversy. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 3-13. Available 29 Mar 2011.
Nestlé, 2010. Nestlé announces partnership with the Forest Trust to combat deforestation, 17 May 2010. Sydney (AUS): Nestlé Australia Ltd. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Neumayer, E, 2005. Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 1-29. Available 18 Aug 2009.
Nostromo Research, 2002. Sustainable Development Unsustained: A critique of the MMSD project, 17 Apr 2002. London: Society of St Columban. Available 1 Dec 2009.
NSI, 2010. The North-South Institute, NSI in Colombia: dialogue on free and informed consent, 13 Jul 2010. Ottawa (CAN). Available 23 Mar 2011.
NWG Gov, 2010. Ministry of Finance, Three companies excluded from the Government Pension Fund Global, Press release No.: 48/2010, 23 Aug 2010. Oslo: Norwegian Government. Available 24 Mar 2011.
------, ud. Ministry of Finance, Companies Excluded from the Investment Universe, undated. Oslo: Norwegian Government. Available 24 Mar 2011.
O'Faircheallaigh, C, 2004. 'Evaluating Agreements between Indigenous Peoples and Resource Developers', in Langton, M & o'rs (eds.) Honour Among Nations? Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous People, pp303-328. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Oceanagold Inc -v- Judge Panay (2010). Decision of Court of Appeals, Oceanagold (Philippines) Inc -v- Judge Vincent Panay, Alonzo Ananayo & o'rs CA-G.R. SP No 111948 (29 June 2010). Available 20 Mar 2011.
Oguamanam, C, 2004. Protecting indigenous knowledge in international law: solidarity beyond the nation-state. Law Text Culture, 8(1), 191-230. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Ominayak -v- CAN (1990). Decision of Human Rights Committee, Chief Bernard Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada UN doc CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (26 Mar 1990). Available 23 Jul 2009.
Paust, J, 1990. Customary International Law: its nature, sources and status as a law of the United States. Michigan International LJ, 2(1), 59-91.
Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (2008). Decision of Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation 2008 CanLII 11049 (17 March 2008). Available 23 Mar 2011.
Police (SA) v Abdulla (1999). Decision of Supreme Court of South Australia, Police (SA) v Abdulla SASC 239 (17 Jun 1999). Available 6 Aug 2011.
Proposed ADRIP (1997). Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Approved by the Commission at its 1333rd session, 95th Regular Session (26 February 1997). Available 23 Mar 2011.
Rausing, S, 2010. The Vedanta case: A CSR wake-up call for sleeping investors, 3 August 2010. London: Ethical Corporation. Available .
Rio Tinto, 2009. 2009 Annual Report. London. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Ritter, D, 2009. The native title market. Perth (AUS): UWA Press.
Roy, A, 2001. Sovereignty and Decolonization: Realizing Indigenous Self-Determination at the United Nations and in Canada. Cornell University. Available 6 Aug 2011.
RSPO, 2007. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production, Including Indicators and Guidance, Oct 2007. Available 27 May 2010.
Salazar, M, 2010a. Native Peoples' Right to Consultation on Land Use Enshrined in Law, 28 May 2010. Lima: IPS-Inter Press Service. Available 31 Mar 2011.
------, 2010b. Oil Pipeline and Uncontacted Tribes, 5 April 2010. Lima: Inter Press Service. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Santi, M, 2010. Webber, J, Indigenous struggle, ecology, and capitalist resource extraction in Ecuador, An Interview with Marlon Santi, 13 July 2010. Quito: Global Research. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Saramaka People -v- Suriname (2007). Decision of Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Saramaka People -v- Suriname Series C No. 172 (28 Nov 2007 ). Available 22 Sep 2009.
Saxena, N & o'rs, 2010. Report of the four member Committee for Investigation into the proposal submitted by the Orissa Mining Company for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri, Report to Ministry of Environment & Forests, 16 Aug 2010. New Delhi: Government of India. Available 19 Aug 2010.
Schneider, J, 2010. Businessweek, Barrick Fends Off Bid for Temporary Mine Closing, 14 April 2010. Bloomberg. Available 19 Mar 2011.
Singh, A & o'rs, 2005. Shareholder Value Maximisation, Stock Market and New Technology: Should the US Corporate Model be the Universal Standard? International Review of Applied Economics, 19(4), 419-437.
SK Gov, 2010. Ministry of First Nations and Métis Relations, First Nation and Métis Consultation Policy Framework, 15 Jun 2010. Regina (CAN): Government of Saskatchewan. Available 18 Jun 2010.
Solomon, F & o'rs, 2006. Mining Certification Evaluation Project, Final Report, January 2006. Melbourne (AUS): WWF-Australia. Available 24 Mar 2011.
South Fork Band v. Dept Interior (2009). Decision of US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, South Fork Band Council of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. US Department of the Interior No. 09-15230 (3 Dec 2009). Available 19 Mar 2011.
Southalan, J, 2009. Australian Indigenous-resource Developments: Martu People v Reward Minerals. J Energy & Natural Resources L, 27(4), 671-685.
Survival, 2010. Survival International, Serious Damage: Tribal peoples and large dams, 9 August 2010. Available 20 Mar 2011.
SustainableBusiness.com, 2010. Borneo Natives Win Suit Against Malaysian Oil Palm Company, 4 Feb 2010. Available 18 Mar 2011.
Tarantola, D & o'rs, 2008. UNSW Initiative for Health and Human Rights, Human Rights, Health and Development, Technical Series Paper #08.1. Sydney (AUS): University of New South Wales. Available 6 Aug 2011.
Tauli-Corpuz, V, 2010. Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), Mining and Sustainable Development, Statement to 'Interactive Panel: Thematic Session on Mining', 6 May 2010. New York: UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Available 21 Mar 2011.
TN Godavarman v. India (Sterlite Industries) (2008). Decision of Supreme Court of India, TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & o'rs, in the matter of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd INSC 1339 (8 August 2008). Available 21 Mar 2011.
Triggs, G, 2002. 'The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Participate in Resource Development: An International Legal Perspective', in Zillman, D & o'rs (eds.) Human rights in natural resource development: public participation in the sustainable development of mining and energy resources, pp123-154. Oxford (GBR): Oxford University Press.
TSI Land Act (AUS). Queensland Parliament (AUS), Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991, 12 Jun 1991. Available 22 May 2011.
Charter of the United Nations (1945). United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI (26 Oct 1945). Available 5 Aug 2011.
UN, 2005. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples, UN document E/C.19/2005/3, 17-19 Jan 2005. Available 17 Sep 2009.
------, 2007a. UN General Assembly, Official Records, Sixty-first session, 107th plenary meeting, UN document A/61/PV.107, 13 September 2007. Available 16 Sep 2009.
------, 2007b. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of International Workshop on Perspectives of Relationships between Indigenous Peoples and Industrial Companies, Advance Unedited Version, 1-4 Jul 2007. Salekhard (RUS): United Nations. Available 16 Sep 2009.
------, 2009a. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of International Workshop on Natural Resource Companies, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights: Setting a Framework For Consultation, Benefit-Sharing And Dispute Resolution, UN doc A/HRC/EMRIP/2009/5, 3 Jul 2009. Geneva: United Nations. Available 16 Sep 2009.
------, 2009b. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report of the international expert group meeting on extractive industries, Indigenous Peoples' rights and corporate social responsibility, UN doc E/C.19/2009/CRP. 8, 4 May 2009. New York: United Nations. Available 17 Jun 2010.
------, 2009c. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the eighth session, UN doc E/2009/43, 18-29 May 2009. New York: UN Economic and Social Council. Available 25 Mar 2011.
------, 2009d. Special Rep of UN Sec General, Report on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, UN doc A/HRC/11/13, 22 Apr 09. Geneva: United Nations. Available 1 May 09.
------, 2010a. UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the ninth session, UN doc E/2010/43-E/C.19/2010/15, 19 May 2010. New York: Economic and Social Council. Available 21 Mar 2011.
------, 2010b. Department of Public Information, Speakers Highlight Devastating Impact of Logging, Mining, Other 'Mega' Development Projects on Indigenous Lands, as United Nations Permanent Forum Debate Continues, UN doc HR/5014, 20 April 2010. New York: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Available 17 Jun 2010.
------, 2010c. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, UN expert welcomes United States' endorsement of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 17 December 2010. Geneva: United Nations. Available 31 Mar 2011.
------, 2011a. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework, UN doc A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council. Available 25 Mar 2011.
------, 2011b. Commission on Sustainable Development, Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting for Commission on Sustainable Development Considers Focal Issues of Waste Management, Mining, ENV/DEV/1195, 2 March 2011. New York: United Nations. Available 21 Mar 2011.
UNDRIP (2007). United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN doc A/RES/61/295 (13 Sep 2007). Available 27 Jul 2009.
US Gov, 2010a. Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 16 Dec 2010. Washington: US Government. Available 2 Aug 2011.
------, 2010b. Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President at the White House Tribal Nations Conference, 16 December 2010. Washington: Department of the Interior. Available 31 Mar 2011.
WA Gov, 2008. Department of Mines and Petroleum, Native Title and Petroleum, 24 December 2008. Perth: Government of Western Australia. Available 31 Mar 2011.
WA -v- Ward (2002). Decision of High Court of Australia, The State of Western Australia -v- Ben Ward for the Miriuwung Gajerrong People HCA 28 (8 August 2002). Available 1 Jul 2009.
WCD, 2000. World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making, Nov 2000. London: Earthscan Publications. Available 16 Sep 2009.
Weber, B, 2010. Inuit stake in Arctic mines raises fears of environmental conflict, 15 April 2010. The Canadian Press. Available 1 Apr 2011.
Wheelan, H, 2010. UK pension funds slam Vedanta on ESG issues as share price tanks, 29 August 2010. London: responsible-investor.com. Available 23 Mar 2011.
Whitmore, A, 2006. The emperors new clothes: Sustainable Mining? J Cleaner Production, 14, 309.
WMI, 1994. Workplace/Workforce/Community Issue Group, Final Report, October 1994. Ottawa: Whitehorse Mining Initiative. Available 24 Mar 2011.
World Bank, 2005. Indigenous Peoples, Operational Policy OP 4.10, Jul 2005. Washington (USA): World Bank. Available 16 Sep 2009.
Worth, D, 2007. Some Impacts of Rising World Oil Prices on Australian Indigenous Rural and Remote Communities, Research Unit, June 2007. Perth (AUS): National Native Title Tribunal. Available 8 Apr 2011.
Yakye Axa v Paraguay (2005). Decision of Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay Series C No. 125 (17 Jun 05). Available 22 Apr 2009.
Yanomami -v- Brazil (1985). Decision of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Resolution Nº 12/85: Brazil (5 Mar 1985). Available 26 Apr 2009.
 In-House Counsel, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation; Honorary Lecturer, Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy; Committee member, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. John gratefully acknowledges comments on the draft editorial by Graeme Neate.
 Partner, King & Spalding LLP.
 Associate, King & Spalding LLP. Angelica Alfaro, an associate at King & Spalding, and Michael Sparks, an associate at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, also assisted with editing articles in this special issue.
 Barrionuevo 2010 (describing the Brazilian court decisions on dam building in Para State and its impact on indigenous people); Survival 2010 (tribal peoples and large dams); Finley-Brook & Thomas 2010, ( displacement of indigenous populations for hydro projects in Panama ).
 eg. Salazar 2010a; Santi 2010.
 Marks 2010 (describing concerns about Guyana Government identification of carbon sinks without sufficient attention to the impact on indigenous people of the area).
 See e.g., Burlington Resources v. Ecuador (2010),  (resources company suffering kidnapping, destruction of equipment, death threats); Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (2008) , ,  & - (indigenous persons jailed for breaching court orders not to impede exploration on their land); IRIN 2010 (indigenous people jailed for traditional use of land); Aljazeera 2010 (blockade of hydroelectric construction).
 The need to integrate indigenous people into decisions about development on traditional lands has been recognised over last 40 years in treaties, declarations, jurisprudence (international and domestic) and state practice: Triggs 2002,, 123.
 See e.g., "Alaska... derives 90% of its revenue from oil and gas. ...[M]any people, including some among the indigenous people, believe Alaska's Arctic Ocean reserves will bring jobs and could help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. But in [various] Native Alaskan towns, most don't want to risk contaminating the Arctic waters." BBC 2010 ; see also Weber 2010 (indigenous investment in resource development).
 Alexkor Ltd -v- Richtersveld Community (2003).
 See e.g., CHR 2011 (Philippines Commission recommending the government withdraw operating permits from a specified company); AHRC 2002 (Australian Commission's publication of principles developed with indigenous people about resource developments on indigenous land).
 This is not to suggest that indigenous people should be seen as simply part of the environment. Rather, considerable commentary and jurisprudence indicates that environmental impacts are having detrimental effects on indigenous people in that environment.
 See e.g. , NWG Gov 2010 (exclusion of timber and palm oil company from Government Pension Fund Global because of "extensive and repeated breaches of the licence requirements, regulations and other directives governing the company's forest operations in Sarawak, Malaysia and Guyana." The GPFG owned shares worth NOK 8.1 million in the company). More generally, see NWG Gov ud (which relates to environmental divestments for) Actions or omissions that constitute an unacceptable risk of the Fund contributing to: Severe environmental damages: including - Norilsk Nickel (31 October 2009): Barrick Gold Corp (30 November 2008): Rio Tinto Plc. (30 June 2008); Madras Aluminium Company (31 October 2007); Vedanta Resources Plc. (31 October 2007); and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (31 May 2006).
 See report in Wheelan 2010 ; see also report on risk in mismanagement of indigenous issues: EIRIS 2007. However these claims are generally based on variance in stock market price, which has its limitations as an accurate measure of a firm's value or expected future. The problem is that stock market prices do not always reflect long-term expected profitability of firms but are influenced by 'whims, fads, fashion and irrational pessimism or exuberance': Singh & o'rs 2005, , 423-426. There is argument that speculation and other influences on the stock market so distort its operation that share value should be little guidance corporate management: Singh & o'rs 2005, , 433; Kay 2003,, 20.
 Although this article focuses on the recent developments on indigenous-resources issues; there are earlier antecedents in this area; see e.g., the 1959 treaty through the International Labour Organisation.
 See e.g., in meetings of the Commission on Sustainable Development, see UN 2011b.
 See e.g., as an issue in the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, see Durban Declaration (2001).
 UN 2010a, " The Permanent Forum recommends that the International Council on Mining and Metals provide a list of at least 10 projects that they recommend as good practices in the involvement of indigenous peoples in mining operations and invite members of the Forum, members of affected indigenous peoples and indigenous experts to visit the project sites for the purpose of reporting back to the Forum at its tenth session. "
 A subsidiary group established by the Human Rights Council, comprising five experts, to undertake studies and research-based advice to the Council. More information available at .
 An independent expert appointed by the Human Rights Council, to investigate and report on human rights issues of indigenous people. More information available at .
 See e.g. UN 2007b ; UN 2009a.
 For more detail, see ICHRP 2006, partic chs III & V.
 Bleicher 1969, 446. Even the UN Charter does not contain an obligation for UN members to follow a General Assembly resolution - unlike Security Council resolutions which are binding on members: Charter of the United Nations (1945), art 25. Note, however, some declarations may present an expression of international agreement contributing to opinion juris which may support an argument that aspects of the relevant declaration are principles of customary international law, see e.g., Paust 1990, 73.
 eg. 'Australia is not a party to the Convention [ILO 169 on Indigenous Peoples]. But it is an indication of the direction in which international law is proceeding . In the area of human rights particularly, Australian courts should always be prepared to take into account international instruments where they identify precepts of universal application, at least where they are not in conflict with the domestic laws of this country.': Police (SA) v Abdulla (1999),  per Perry J. Even though ILO169 is only formally binding on a couple of countries, it has broader authority: Lehr & Smith 2010, 10.
 eg. There is a 'long settled principle that provisions of an international treaty do not form part of Australian law unless validly incorporated by statute. It has repeatedly been held that the separation of the legislative and executive arms of government necessitates that treaties be implemented domestically under statute. ...The task of ... courts ... is to give effect to the will of ...Parliaments as manifested in legislation. Courts may not flout the will of ...democratic representatives simply because they believe that, all things considered, the legislation would "be better" if it were read to cohere with the mass of (often ambiguous) international obligations and instruments. Consistency with, and subscription to, our international obligations are matters for Parliament and the Executive, who are in a better position to answer to the international community than tenured judges.': WA -v- Ward (2002) ,  &  per Callinan J.
 See e.g. t he treaty regime on racial discrimination (1966), discrimination against women (1979) and treatment of children (1989); which have seen the earlier declarations become forgotten, concerning racial discrimination (1963 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), women (1967 Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) and children (in the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child).
 Davis 2008, 467, and also personal communication to J Southalan by UN official, October 2009.
 ILO 107 (1957). See e.g., art 11 "The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised". This treaty is no longer open for ratification but is still in force for a number of countries which have not ratified ILO 169.
 'Over time, it is likely that the Declaration [UNDRIP] will start to "harden," ...[Non-binding standards] become customary international law and thus binding on States. With regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that process is just beginning': Lehr & Smith 2010 , 11-12. See also Davis, who reviews other writing and observes that some experts 'argue that there is already a distinct body of customary law that accords with the indigenous right to demarcation, ownership, development, control and use of the lands they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used': Davis 2008, 467.
 UN 2007a, 12 (AUS), 13 (CAN) and 15 (NZL).
 See e.g. , '[T]he parties that drafted the Declaration remain deeply divided on the meaning of its language, making it difficult to rely on preparatory papers to divine the meaning of various phrases in the Declaration. ... States and indigenous groups remained divided regarding the meaning of much of the language that is in the Declaration.': Lehr & Smith 2010, 19 ; see also Davis 2008, 464; and the statements by Australian, Canadian and NZ Governments about the uncertainty as to what UNDRIP's provisions on indigenous consent require at a domestic level: UN 2007a, 11 (AUS), 13 (CAN) and 14 (NZI).
Canada's 2010 'support' of UNDRIP states that UNDRIP is 'non-legally binding', 'does not reflect customary international law', and 'does not...change Canadian laws': CAN Gov 2010a . In 2007 Canada raised concerns about UNDRIP's 'provisions dealing with land, territory and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto...and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties': UN 2007a . 'These concerns remain...[and] Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework': CAN Gov 2010a.
Australia's 2009 statement on UNDRIP explained that the government has voted against the document in 2007 but now supports it. However the government stated that UNDRIP 'is non-binding and does not affect existing Australian law', and that there is 'continuing international debate about the meaning of 'free, prior and informed consent': Aus Gov 2009.
The US President's announcement of support for UNDRIP stated that the Declaration is 'not legally binding or a statement of current international law'. The statement also specifically noted how FPIC will be approached: '[T]he United States recognizes the significance of the Declaration's provisions on free, prior and informed consent, which the United States understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken': US Gov 2010a.
 "The United States was one of only four States that voted against the Declaration upon its adoption. The others, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, each reversed their positions and endorsed the Declaration through formal pronouncements since the General Assembly vote. The United States now joins these other countries in making opposition to the Declaration a thing of the past.': UN 2010c. This was in response to President Obama's statement the day before: 'in April, we announced that we were reviewing our position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this declaration.": US Gov 2010b.
 Twenty two countries have ratified ILO 169, with 35% of these having done so since 2002: ILOLEX 2011.
 See e.g., Hathaway 2002,; Goodman & Jinks 2003 ; Neumayer 2005,.
 Santi 2010 (concerns about " forcing the [Ecuadorian] government to respect the international agreements it has signed, such as those with the International Labour Organization (ILO) on indigenous rights, declarations from the United Nations, the Inter-American Convention on Indigenous Rights").
 Endorois Council -v- Kenya (2010).
 See e.g., Awas Tingni -v- Nicaragua (2001) (the American Convention's property rights protected indigenous traditional rights to land and limited the government's ability and procedures to grant concessions to third parties); Saramaka People -v- Suriname (2007) (large scale development or investment which will impact cultural territory of indigenous/tribal peoples, should only occur with their free, prior and informed consent); Yakye Axa v Paraguay (2005) (a government must adopt adequate measures to ensure that indigenous communities has effective use and enjoyment of their traditional land).
 See e.g., Maya People -v- GTM (2010) (government directed to suspend mining on a project alleged to have commenced without the free, prior, informed consent of the effected indigenous community); Yanomami -v- Brazil (1985) (the impacts on an indigenous group from mining and road construction was a breach of the state's obligations to protect indigenous human rights); IACHR 2010 ( IACHR application questioning Ecuadorian Government allowing 'an oil company to carry out activities on [an indigenous] community's ancestral territory without prior consultation, placing the population at risk... The case also refers to the denial of judicial protection and due process to the Kichwa people of Sarayaku).
 Swedish Government representative in UN 2010b.
 Dagi -v- BHP (1995) - this decision was overturned on other issues on appeal but the contempt finding (i.e., the Australian company has illegally interfered with Australian court proceedings through its activities in Papua New Guinea) was not changed: BHP -v- Dagi (1995) at 120-121.
 Carroll 2010: "In May, [Peru's] congress passed a bill codifying parts of the UN convention on indigenous peoples in an attempt to calm tension after clashes between indigenous groups and security forces last year which left more than 30 dead. [President] Garcia...said the legislation would damage the economy and refused to sign it. He sent it back to congress earlier this week on the eve of a recess, meaning it will be months before it can be revived. The president said the bill would slow down Peru's development of minerals and hydrocarbons. 'The law approved by congress goes beyond the UN convention because it doesn't just include tribal communities in the Amazon but also peasant communities,' he said. 'So if you want to build a road or gas pipeline and the locals say 'no', then there is no road or electricity.' "). For further detail on the proposed law, see Salazar 2010a.
 Oceanagold Inc -v- Judge Panay (2010), affirmed in Oceanagold Inc -v- Judge Panay (2010). For more information about case, see LRC-KsK 2010.
 Holocene P/L -v- Martu People (2009). For more information about the case, see Southalan 2009,.
 TN Godavarman v. India (Sterlite Industries) (2008) ; see further description in Chauhan 2010.
 Lansen v NT Minister for Mines (AUS) (2007).
 See e.g., SK Gov 2010.
 See e.g., WA Gov 2008.
 eg. Can Gov 2011; Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (2010), .
 eg. Aus Gov 2007; Griffin Coal v Nyungar People (2005), .
 See e.g., Burlington Resources v. Ecuador (2010) , - &  (company claims that government failed to provide sufficient protection for operations against indigenous protest); Glamis Gold -v- USA (2009), , ,  &  (company claims that government initiatives for protection of environment and indigenous values was in breach of international investment treaty).
 MMSD 2002, with a specific section on indigenous issues at 152-158. For a comprehensive review of the MMSD process, see Danielson & Digby 2006.
 WCD 2000, with a specific section on indigenous issues at 110-112. For a review of the WCD process after 10 years, see Moore & o'rs 2010,.
 WMI 1994 and WMI 1994.
 See e.g., BMF 2010 (supermarket chain lodging complaint against one its suppliers, under the provisions of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, about the supplier's impacts on indigenous people).
 Rio Tinto 2009 , 26.
 See e.g., Roy 2001 ; Oguamanam 2004, 204.
 See e.g., Tarantola & o'rs 2008 , 5; Worth 2007, 326; Gibbs 2005,.
 Gen Comm 23 (1994) at  (indigenous communities must have effective participation in decisions that affect the community; especially where culture manifests in a particular way of life assoc with use of land resources); Gen Rec 23 (1997) at [4(d)] (indigenous peoples must have equal rights of effective participation in public life, and no decisions 'directly relating to their rights and interests' should be taken without their informed consent); Gen Rec 23 (1997) at  (where indigenous peoples have been deprived, without free and informed consent, of lands/territories that they owned/inhabited/used, the State must either return land or provide compo/restitution); Ominayak -v- CAN (1990) at  (a development which threatens way of life & culture of an indigenous group breaches the right to enjoy culture under art 27 of the ICCPR).
 Arguably, FPIC also represents a conceptual shift away from earlier standards (self-determination, right to development) which presumed a desire for all to achieve autonomous industrial development.
 UN 2005, 12; a shorter summary of FPIC is provided in ATSISJC 2005 ,187-188.
 Lehr & Smith 2010 , 5 & 9.
 See e.g., APA 2010 ; Griffiths 2010 ; Colchester 2010 ; Koia v Waitangi Tribunal & Attorney General (2011),  (raised before Tribunal, as a ground contesting Government proposed land settlement with indigenous people).
 See e.g., Bropho v Western Australia (2007), - (judge ruling that, given a group expressly consented to a document and had not alleged " duress or fraud or non est factum", then the consent was effective to bind the group).
 Lehr & Smith 2010, 54.
 Akwé: Kon Guidelines (2004), although these guidelines are voluntary they indicate that governments and companies should establish "a process whereby local and indigenous communities may have the option to accept or oppose a proposed development that may impact on their community.": Lehr & Smith 2010, 14.
 IADB requires FPIC for resettlement, for any funding; 15; EBRD requires "[t]he project proponent must obtain and document consent for activities that are on traditionally used land that would affect the livelihoods, or cultural, ceremonial, or spiritual uses...; would lead to their relocation; or would affect their cultural resources"; 16; IFI's can also put consent requirements into their financial conditions, which make it binding on the particular operation; 14.
 UN 2010b: Deputy Head of Delegation of the European Union, said "...the effective participation of indigenous peoples in projects relating to their development needs must be based on their free, prior and informed consent."
 Lehr & Smith 2010, 51-53.
 FPIC has largely been ignored in many company policies: 'very few companies have policies that incorporate consent, but they will come under increasing pressure to adopt them in the coming years' Lehr & Smith 2010, 50.
 Lehr & Smith 2010 , 5.
 Nestlé 2010 . Like many developments in relation to indigenous-resources issues, this only occurred after a protest against the company's practices, see Lee 2010. A 2009 EIRIS survey noted fewer than 20% of companies have adopted a policy supporting free prior informed consultation for indigenous peoples. See EIRIS 2009, 1.
 Lehr & Smith 2010, 12.
 Andriyanto 2010 ("Papua's Amungme tribe on Monday lodged a new class-action lawsuit against US mining giant Freeport-McMoRan seeking $32.5 billion in material and non-material damages for the alleged illegal acquisition of its ancestral land. The action [is] filed at the South Jakarta District Court...").
 eg. NZ Māori Council -v- Att-Gen (NZL) (2007), -,  & ; Linda Champion (Central West Goldfields People) v Vosperton Resources (2005), -, , , , -, .
 See, eg, Salazar 2010b; Henao 2010a.
 See e.g., IRIN 2010 (allegation that a palm oil plantation operator, had broken a profit-sharing agreement signed with the communities in 1997); Minara Resources -v- Ashwin (2007) (court proceedings over company's non-fulfillment of an agreement promising benefits in return for permission to mine).
 '[I]ndividuals and communities that are favoured in their economic, social and political condition attribute social virtue and political durability to that which they themselves enjoy...even in the face of commanding evidence to the contrary. The beliefs of the fortunate...serve the cause of continuing contentment, and the economic and political ideas of the time are similarly accommodated. There is an eager political market for that which pleases and reassures': Galbraith 1992, 2.
 A report of the situation in Australia following the MMSD process explained that 'rather than building on these considerable accomplishments, key supporters of [organisation which project managed MMSD] decided, for reasons that have never been clear, to withdraw their support from the organization, which then went out of existence. The decision lacked the ideal level of transparency and made it clear that some in the Australian mining industry were simply unable to accept any information that did not ﬁt their rather rigid views': Danielson 2006 , 18; see also report of criticism by mining industry in Nostromo Research 2002 .
 See e.g., Nostromo Research 2002 ; Whitmore 2006, 310.
 See e.g., AI 2010 (describing attacks and threats on indigenous activities for criticising mining affecting their communities).
 Lehr & Smith 2010, 27-28.
 See Ab Land Act (AUS) , s46 and TSI Land Act (AUS) , s43. Thanks to Graeme Neate for explaining this point.
 Lehr & Smith 2010 , 28.
 UN 2009c, 3 ( 'The Permanent Forum supports the conceptual and policy framework proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.'; see also Tauli-Corpuz 2010.
K.S. Culotta; D.A. Fallon; J.L. Southalan; "Indigenous People and Resources Development - A Rapidly Changing Legal Landscape"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.

 art 25
 art 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art 27