> I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break?

Interesting point -- it gave me food for thought. At various points of time, many voters were against rights for blacks, against interacial marriage, against desegregation in schools, against rights for gay people etc. On many occasions the courts stepped in and made decisions that the politicians couldn't make on grounds of equity, fairness, human rights etc. So enforcement of some of these treaties should be a matter for the courts.

It would be interesting to read some of these treaties and see exactly what they say. I'm sure the US Supreme court has already ruled on this matter and the issue is considered settled. My guess is that many of these treaties are subject to the will of the executive and legislature. So if they don't want to enforce them, courts beyond a point can't do much. In any case, courts are also political creatures: they sense the mood of the citizens and the various polical power structures. I doubt that indigenous people would be politically or financially important in their calculus. The best case indigenous people can make is fairness. Even then, their claims by now are difficult to prove. They might say a parcel of land was owned by them -- however, history is patchy and often oral. Records are also made by the victors and therefore again stacked against them too.

Generally it's just a good idea to give a local population some compensation for the large externality a mining operation creates, treaty or not. Democracies owe it to their citizens which are their "shareholders". Not investing in the local communities and say they are owed nothing means that future generations are unproductive, have issues with crime, alcohol, drugs and feel disconnected. Invest in people to make them productive and whichever country you live in will be more happy and prosperous. Otherwise the whole country just gets dragged down a bit. It makes sense morally and economically.

> Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?

Again a good question. In the domain of international relations it is still effectively the law of the jungle. The UN is supposed to protect the rights of the small and weak countries but that is in theory only.

Still, countries are less likely to go invading their smaller neighbours in 2020 than, say, 1820. So you can say the law of the jungle while still generally applicable is no longer as starkly apparent as it once was. Maybe by 2120, the UN will be truly on the side of fairness rather than military/economic might.

However, within countries domestic law is all about using equity and fairness as a principle. The law of the jungle does NOT apply; stronger parties cannot impose their will on the weaker party just because they can. Domestic violence is a crime. Racism/discrimination is a crime. Similarly, dispossesing indigenous people from the lands they enjoyed and casting them aside definitely feels unfair. Allowing them to levy small charges and taxes (subject to overall control and veto by state/federal government) on their traditional lands (for which some historical records or reporting exists) is nothing different to how cities levy all kinds of taxes on businesses operating in their "territory". These taxes should be used to the betterment of the whole community rather than get concentrated in the hands of the powerful elders. Maybe the distribution can be done by the state/federal government. Anyways I'm sure all this has been written about and I'm not adding anything new to the subject.