of the population died from malaria, measles, and pulmonary infections.<sup>49</sup> In such instances, arguments in favor of non-intervention are justifiable to protect the health of indigenous peoples and preserve their declining populations.

# **3. Arguments for interventions by national governments in the affairs of indigenous groups**

_State Sovereignty and Non-Intervention_ In order to safely justify non-intervention on the bases of equality, sovereignty or self-determination, one must consider that the nature of the relationship between states and multilateral organizations is fundamentally dissimilar to the relationship between a state and indigenous people within that state’s borders. Multi-state relations are established on the principle of sovereign equality<sup>50</sup> referred to in some literature as Westphalian Sovereignty,<sup>51</sup> which implies that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another. Traditional states and non-state actors (including multilateral institutions) acting under international law operate on equal footing, with no one subject wielding superior power over another. States express their consent to be bound by multilateral treaties. Similarly, to be subject to the direction of multilateral organizations or bound by conditions or standards imposed by multilateral organizations, a state must be a member state of that organization or must have signed, ratified, or otherwise subscribed to the institution’s operating agreement. Even in instances where a state is a member of a multilateral organization, that country may still opt out of provisions of an agreement by making a reservation in respect of a particular clause or protocol. Additionally, a state may subsequently withdraw from a treaty to which it had previously subscribed. These prerogatives are enjoyable by states by virtue of the principles of sovereignty, equality, and nonintervention.

By contrast, indigenous tribes do not exist independently of their national governments, nor can they exercise their indigenous sovereignty in a similar manner. Krasner recognizes that in respect of states, sovereignty is also characterized in another form which he refers to as domestic sovereignty.<sup>52</sup> Domestic sovereignty is the ability of a state to maintain the monopoly of the use of force within its territory.<sup>53</sup> More broadly, domestic sovereignty can also be conceptualized as the ability of states to exercise political authority and autonomy over their territories. Indigenous tribes are subject to the political authority of the state in whose territory they live. Laws which are enacted by the legislature of the country apply equally to all citizens within its territory (including indigenous tribes) by default rather than by election or consent. Indigenous nations within the territory of a state must automatically comply with the laws of that state and cannot of their own accord opt out of its application.

> 49 Smithsonian Magazine and Joshua Hammer (2013) ‘The Lost Tribes of the Amazon’, _Smithsonian Magazine_ , <u>https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/the-lost-tribes-of-the-amazon-22871033/</u> (last visited Dec 18, 2023). ‘Nukak dispossession highlights Amazonian tribes’ plight’, BBC News, Sep. 18, 2010, <u>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11331508 (last visited Jan 19, 2024).</u>

> 50 Article 2 of the UN Charter.

> 51 Stephen Krasner (1999), _Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy_ (Princeton University Press). The principle of Westphalian Sovereignty derives from the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. “It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories.” In ‘Westphalian state system’, _Oxford Reference._ Retrieved 1 May 2024, from <u>https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121924198.</u>

> 52 Krasner (1999).

> 53 Id.

9