Silencing, consultation and indigenous descriptions of the world

IF 3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Human Rights and the Environment Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.4337/jhre.2019.02.03
D. Townsend
{"title":"Silencing, consultation and indigenous descriptions of the world","authors":"D. Townsend","doi":"10.4337/jhre.2019.02.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Inter-American Court and Commission of Human Rights, following the approach in key international human rights texts, have emphasized the importance of procedural rights in the protection of indigenous rights to territory and to cultural identity. In particular, the Court and Commission have focused on rights to consultation in a range of cases in which indigenous peoples have challenged mining, logging and other extractive activities on their territories.\n\nConsultation processes are often expected to serve a wide range of purposes in the protection of indigenous rights and interests in territory. Consultation is a means of informing a community about a project, but also a process through which an agreement can be reached between the community and the State about the use of territory or the sharing of benefits. In this article, I focus on consultation's role as part of the impact assessment process.\n\nIn determining the impact that a project might have on indigenous territory, the Court and Commission have found that the State must assess both the environmental and cultural impacts of a plan or activity. Consultation is a necessary part of the identification of the impacts of an activity and ensuring that the State has all the necessary information prior to making decisions to grant concessions over indigenous territory.\n\nHowever, the Court and Commission's interpretation of indigenous testimony in consultation processes could undermine the role of such testimony in the assessment of environmental impacts, and might silence indigenous participants rather than ensure their meaningful participation. With reference to the idea of illocutionary silencing, taken from feminist speech act theory, I argue that the Court and Commission have interpreted indigenous testimony about the environment as being claims about the cultural impacts of disputed activities or plans, and not as claims about the environmental impacts. In other words, when indigenous community members have offered descriptions of their territories and surrounding environments, such testimony has been treated not as descriptions of the environment but as reports of cultural beliefs and practices. As a result, indigenous input in regard to the environmental impacts of a project or plan can be overlooked. In this article I argue that this failure to recognize indigenous accounts of the environment means that these communities are silenced through the consultation process and denied the opportunity to be informed about all relevant impacts.","PeriodicalId":43831,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2019.02.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Inter-American Court and Commission of Human Rights, following the approach in key international human rights texts, have emphasized the importance of procedural rights in the protection of indigenous rights to territory and to cultural identity. In particular, the Court and Commission have focused on rights to consultation in a range of cases in which indigenous peoples have challenged mining, logging and other extractive activities on their territories. Consultation processes are often expected to serve a wide range of purposes in the protection of indigenous rights and interests in territory. Consultation is a means of informing a community about a project, but also a process through which an agreement can be reached between the community and the State about the use of territory or the sharing of benefits. In this article, I focus on consultation's role as part of the impact assessment process. In determining the impact that a project might have on indigenous territory, the Court and Commission have found that the State must assess both the environmental and cultural impacts of a plan or activity. Consultation is a necessary part of the identification of the impacts of an activity and ensuring that the State has all the necessary information prior to making decisions to grant concessions over indigenous territory. However, the Court and Commission's interpretation of indigenous testimony in consultation processes could undermine the role of such testimony in the assessment of environmental impacts, and might silence indigenous participants rather than ensure their meaningful participation. With reference to the idea of illocutionary silencing, taken from feminist speech act theory, I argue that the Court and Commission have interpreted indigenous testimony about the environment as being claims about the cultural impacts of disputed activities or plans, and not as claims about the environmental impacts. In other words, when indigenous community members have offered descriptions of their territories and surrounding environments, such testimony has been treated not as descriptions of the environment but as reports of cultural beliefs and practices. As a result, indigenous input in regard to the environmental impacts of a project or plan can be overlooked. In this article I argue that this failure to recognize indigenous accounts of the environment means that these communities are silenced through the consultation process and denied the opportunity to be informed about all relevant impacts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沉默、协商和土著人对世界的描述
美洲法院和人权委员会按照主要国际人权案文的做法,强调了程序权利在保护土著对领土和文化特性的权利方面的重要性。法院和委员会特别注重土著人民对其领土上的采矿、伐木和其他采掘活动提出异议的一系列案件中的协商权。通常期望协商进程在保护领土上的土著权利和利益方面服务于广泛的目的。协商是向社区通报项目的一种手段,也是社区与国家之间就领土使用或利益分享达成协议的一个过程。在本文中,我将重点讨论作为影响评估过程一部分的咨询的作用。在确定一个项目可能对土著领土产生的影响时,法院和委员会认为,国家必须评估一项计划或活动的环境和文化影响。协商是确定一项活动的影响和确保国家在作出对土著领土作出让步的决定之前掌握一切必要资料的必要部分。但是,法院和委员会在协商过程中对土著证词的解释可能破坏这种证词在评估环境影响方面的作用,并可能使土著参与者沉默,而不是确保他们有意义的参与。关于来自女权主义言语行为理论的言外沉默的观点,我认为法院和委员会将土著居民关于环境的证词解释为对有争议的活动或计划的文化影响的主张,而不是对环境影响的主张。换句话说,当土著社区成员描述其领土和周围环境时,这种证词不被视为对环境的描述,而被视为对文化信仰和习俗的报告。因此,有关项目或计划的环境影响的当地投入可能被忽视。在这篇文章中,我认为不承认土著居民对环境的描述意味着这些社区在协商过程中被沉默,并被剥夺了了解所有相关影响的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The relationship between human rights and the environment is fascinating, uneasy and increasingly urgent. This international journal provides a strategic academic forum for an extended interdisciplinary and multi-layered conversation that explores emergent possibilities, existing tensions, and multiple implications of entanglements between human and non-human forms of liveliness. We invite critical engagements on these themes, especially as refracted through human rights and environmental law, politics, policy-making and community level activisms.
期刊最新文献
Book review: Matthew C Canfield, Translating Food Sovereignty: Cultivating Justice in an Age of Transnational Governance (Stanford University Press, Stanford 2022) 264 pp. Book review: Rupert Read, Why Climate Breakdown Matters (Bloomsbury, London 2022) 232 pp. Constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene: an introduction Book review: Yoram Bauman and Grady Klein, The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change, Revised Edition (Island Press, Washington DC 2022) 224 pp. Entanglements: the ambivalent role of law in the Anthropocene
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1