The Transnational Mining Justice Movement: Reflecting on Two Decades of Law Reform Activism in the Americas

Abstract

This article tracks the activism of the mining justice social movement since the late 1990s. As a starting point, this movement is conceptualized as a transnational political project that seeks to transform the terms of corporate resource extraction pursuant to the political and legal arrangements of neo-liberal economic globalization. In this context, the author reflects on the movement’s most significant human rights-oriented law reform projects in the Americas: Indigenous peoples’ right-to-consultation legislation in several Latin American countries and a series of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Canada in response to the right to remedy norm in international law. Drawing on existing research, the author concludes that in both cases the state has responded with law and policy reforms that fall far short of achieving advocates’ objectives. The author argues that these shortcomings are due in part to the persistence of three liberal/neo-liberal ideologies in the reforms in question: formalism, voluntarism, and privatism. To better understand and explain these findings, the author turns to three critical theories of human rights legal activism: pragmatism, left critique/critical legal liberalism, and counter-hegemony. Examining the work of a range of scholars writing under the banner of each theory, the author identifies key debates and insights that may be instructive as the mining justice movement, and related social and environmental justice movements, continue to aspire towards a law reform agenda capable of addressing pressing global environmental and social justice issues.

Regenerating Maya‐Mam ways of governing, Indigenous emancipatory politics in the age of the extractive imperative

“…FREDEMI's alliances with a wide network of environmental and human rights organizations gave way to “increased flows of information and resources between scales” (Urkidi, 2011, 557), leading to the submission of an official complaint against the mine to the Canadian National Contact Point (NCP) in Ottawa in 2010, and the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) calling upon the Guatemalan government to suspend Goldcorp's operations that same year (Kamphuis and Connolly, 2022). 3 Nonetheless, FREDEMI, like most movements related to the defense of territory in Guatemala (Bastos and Sieder, 2014; Copeland, 2019a) and beyond (Kirsch, 2014), remained first and foremost locally grounded (in this case, in San Miguel).…”

“…The analysis that follows draws on partnered ethnographic and oral history research we conducted separately with FREDEMI. As Marina Welker (2016, 586) claims, “there are multiple ethical and political positions from which to study and write about mining.” Given our positionality as white settler Canadians and the asymmetrical power relationships these activists have with Montana and the Guatemalan and Canadian governments (Kamphuis and Connolly, 2022), we consciously chose to partner with FREDEMI as a way to counterbalance this asymmetry. Our partnership took shape through ongoing consultation with FREDEMI leadership about our data collection, analysis, and dissemination methods.…”

“…33The Guatemalan government agreed with the IACHR decision but took no measures to implement it, and the suspension was later reduced to a call for fewer precautionary measures by the IACHR in 2011, following diplomatic pressure from the Canadian government (Kamphuis and Connolly, 2022). The NCP, for its part, dismissed the case, recommending instead that both parties begin a “constructive dialogue.” For an analysis of the racism underlying this kind of recommendation from Canadian authorities in relation to mining conflicts in Guatemala that involve Canadian‐based firms, see Roy Grégoire, 2019.…”

“…To respect other participants' wishes to remain anonymous, we use only a pseudonymous first name, or we simply refer to them as "anonymous." 2 These structures, now commonly known in Guatemala as alcaldías indígenas (Indigenous mayorships), stem from the colonial cabildo de indios created by the Spanish Crown to govern the segregated Indigenous population.3 The Guatemalan government agreed with the IACHR decision but took no measures to implement it, and the suspension was later reduced to a call for fewer precautionary measures by the IACHR in 2011, following diplomatic pressure from the Canadian government(Kamphuis and Connolly, 2022). The NCP, for its part, dismissed the case, recommending instead that both parties begin a "constructive dialogue."…”