The power to consent: Indigenous peoples, states, and development projects

Abstract

The principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has become increasingly important in Indigenous peoples’ rights discourse. But continuing debates over the meaning of consent show the need for further clarification. In Part I of the article, I give a brief description of consent’s ‘standard grammar’ as developed in other areas of Western legal and ethical discourse to clarify what those who use the language of consent within that tradition commit themselves to, if they are to do so correctly. I also highlight the features that explain why consent has the potential to diminish coercion in relations of deep asymmetry. I argue that this potential is not related to the existence of an ‘absolute’ veto but, rather, to the specific way in which consent structures the interactions between the parties. In Part II, I turn to the Canadian context and the duty to consult developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. I make two main arguments: first, I show that that language is importantly different from consent and, second, I argue that though the Court in Tsilqoth’in Nation uses consent in a way that is closer to the standard grammar, the significance of this move remains limited. In Part III, I turn toward the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to assess whether it presents a better framework for the fulfilment of consent’s promise. I argue that not only is it possible to interpret the Declaration as formulating a conception of consent that follows broadly the standard grammar but also that this reading best fits the Declaration’s basic purposes. However, to develop a functional conception of FPIC, we need to face a challenge for which the grammar of consent has little answer: the often-contested character of Indigenous rights. I conclude by sketching three possible responses to that challenge.

The violence of disavowing Indigenous governance: exposing the colonial politics of "development" and FPIC in the Caribbean

“…As an instrument for safeguarding against land grabbing and partial aspect of self-determination, FPIC is a politically loaded and hotly contested protocol that also legitimizes and reproduces state power, liberal conceptions of rights, and Western worldviews, which often clash with Indigenous cosmologies and can subvert Indigenous peoples' governance systems (Leydet, 2019). In many ways, rather than guaranteeing relative autonomy for Indigenous communities and putting an end to the colonial enterprise, i.e., capitalist exploitation, FPIC merely mediates it.…”

Le consentement préalable, libre et éclairé

“…Le conflit entourant le gazoduc Coastal GasLink Une illustration des défis entourant la mise en oeuvre du CPLE Le trajet du gazoduc Coastal GasLink (Sources : Cecco 2020) D'autres proposent une lecture plus globale qui situe notamment l'article 32 dans l'économie générale du texte de la DNUDPA et des grands principes qu'elle vise à mettre en valeur (Doyle 2015 ;Barelli 2018 ;Leydet 2019 ;Newman 2020). L'ancien rapporteur spécial de l'ONU pour les droits des peuples autochtones James Anaya adopte une telle interprétation.…”

“…Le consentement est ici présenté comme une extension de l'obligation de consulter plutôt que comme une véritable reconnaissance de l'auto rité autochtone sur le territoire -ce qui limite considérablement sa portée juridique, mais aussi sa signification politique. Le CPLE risque dès lors d'être détourné de son sens premier lié au principe d'autodétermination (Leydet 2019;Rollo 2019).…”

‘Consent’ as epistemic recognition: Indigenous knowledges, Canadian impact assessment, and the colonial liberal democratic order

“…Despite the adoption of this act, the interpretation of FPIC remains a matter of debate and political struggle. There is a general consensus that FPIC represents a departure from the duty to consult and accommodate framework developed by the Supreme Court of Canada over the last several decades (Beaton, 2018;Hamilton, 2018;Imai, 2017;Leydet, 2019;Mitchell et al, 2019); however, opinions about the nature and extent of this departure vary considerably.…”