Chapter 1 Indigeneity and the Law At the turn of the year from 1830 to 1831, the legal representatives of the Cherokee Nation sent a bill to the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, the Cherokees opened a lawsuit against the state of Georgia before the highest judicial body in the United States. The document starts like this:To the Honourable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting in chancery. Respectfully complaining, show unto your honours, the Cherokee nation of Indians, a foreign state, not owing allegiance to the United States, nor to any state of this union, nor to any other prince, potentate, or state, other than their own: That, from time immemorial, the Cherokee nation have composed a sovereign and independent state. . . . That, long before the first approach of the white men of Europe to the western continent, the Cherokee nation were the occupants and owners of the territory on which they now reside. . . . That on this territory they and their ancestors, composing the Cherokee nation, have ever been, and still are, the sole and exclusive masters, and governed, of right, by no other laws, usages and customs, but such as they have themselves thought proper to ordain and appoint. . . . Under these circumstances your honours cannot but see that, unless you shall interpose for their protection, these complainants have before them no alternatives but these: either to surrender their lands in exchange for others in the western wilds of this continent, which would be to seal, at once, the doom of their civilization, Christianity, and national existence; or to surrender their national sovereignty, their property, rights and liberties, guarantied as these now are by so many treaties, to the rapacity and injustice of the state of Georgia; or to arm themselves in defence of these sacred rights, and fall, sword in hand, on the graves of their fathers. (Peters 1831, 3, 28)The resulting case, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , would become one of the earliest indigenous rights cases in the Americas in which the claimant, an indigenous community, asserted its rights against the defendant, the (post)colonial state. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, this constellation has become a political and legal commonplace, and going to court has become an ordinary form of interaction between a state and its inhabitants. To better understand this constellation in all its complexity, however, we have to overcome our inurement and begin to appreciate how inherently odd this situation actually is. I have chosen the preceding excerpt to begin this book because it highlights what is odd about the Cherokees' petitioning the Supreme Court. Their whole claim presents a contradiction, and the claimants are very straightforward about it. On the one hand, the Cherokees present themselves in the strongest terms as a sovereign nation, an independent state even, governed by their own laws only. At the same time, they bring a case before the court of another state, the United States, and subject themselves to its foreign rule of law. This oddity, this seemingly minor irritation, is the starting point for this book. It is my contention that indigeneity is a paradoxical formation. The paradoxical nature of indigeneity becomes apparent in the relationship between an indigenous community and the (post)colonial state, or, rather, in the relationship between an indigenous claimant and the national law. On the one hand, the indigenous community rejects the state and views the regulation of its affairs by the law of the state as violation of its integrity. On the other hand, the indigenous community depends on the state, its courts, and its law to protect certain rights that are seen as emanating from the indigenous community itself and not from the national legal system. "We are different; we are equal," goes a Latin American indigenous rights slogan from the 1990s (Brysk 2000, 29). I call this formation, in which the indigenous must appear as both part of the state and as dissociated from it―politically as well as legally―the "indigenous paradox." It is my argument that the phenomenon of indigeneity comes into being when native communities engage with the law of the (post)colonial state in which they find themselves. In other words, native communities become indigenous when they begin to occupy the paradoxical legal position I aim to describe in this book. Therefore, to understand the discourses of indigeneity, it is paramount to follow the language, the textual genres, and the doctrine of the law. In this book, I will therefore employ approaches from legal studies and anthropology (more specifically, semiotic anthropology and intertextual analysis) to investigate the very texts that speak most explicitly to and about indigeneity: landmark indigenous rights cases in the Americas. On Indigeneity What does "indigenous" mean, anyway? Prior to the second half of the twentieth century, the term was mainly used in biology to refer to plants or animals native to a particular place. Since then, various rights movements have introduced the term into international legal forums such as the United Nations (UN), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. In the course of this introduction into international law circles, "indigenous" has come to be used as an umbrella term that encompasses such categories as "Indian," "native," and "aboriginal"; it is now the most frequently used term inside and outside international law to signify communities whose ancestors inhabited colonized territories in precolonial times. Recent anthropological scholarship has contributed much to understanding the phenomenon of "indigeneity" as a legal category, an analytical term to signify a certain type of collective identity, and a designation used by activists to refer to themselves and their collective attachment to their communities, as well as how these various meanings of the term interact and feed back into one another (Culhane 1998; Biolsi 2001; Nesper 2002; Povinelli 2002; Niezen 2003; Kauanui 2008; French 2009; Clifford 2013; A. Simpson 2014). One of the most cited definitions of indigeneity is the one José Martínez Cobo, then the UN special rapporteur of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, used in his report Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations (the so-called Martínez Cobo Report):Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. (Martínez Cobo 1987 para. 379)Although there are many other definitions of "indigeneity" and what constitutes it, Martínez Cobo mentions three aspects that are central to any description of the concept: place, time, and power. "Indigeneity" contains the idea that somebody was somewhere before somebody else came there and that now there is some form of inequality, usually manifest in the fact that those who were there first now occupy a marginalized position. These dimensions of time, place, and power can lead to different forms of indigeneity, as will be explored in the course of this book. In the academic discourse there are a number of established ways to approach indigeneity, and in this book I will sometimes deviate from the analytical foci they advocate. One position sees indigeneity as the simple result of the fact that communities, peoples, and nations inhabited the colonized territories before the advent of colonialism. Another describes indigeneity as an identity formation that is, at least predominantly, an imposition of the colonial settler state. A third group argues that indigeneity is a result of the concepts of nation and nationalism being imported from Europe to the colonies. The first approach is the most straightforward theory on indigeneity and underlies most commonsense understandings of the term. In this view, indigenous communities are simply the decedents of those communities that inhabited colonial territories in precolonial times. In the course of the colonial project, these communities somehow managed to preserve their coherence as a group. Colonialism introduced a sharp division between the natives and the newcomers that came to be expressed mainly in racial terms. As a result, Cherokee, Miskito, Gitksan, and Wet'suwet'en, to name but a few, refer to themselves not only by these signifiers but also as "indigenous"--and are referred to by others as such. This concept focuses on descent from precolonial groups as the basis of indigeneity. However, beyond highlighting kinship and relatedness to precolonial societies, the prior-occupation approach does not contribute much to understanding indigeneity as such. Indigeneity rather appears as just one kinship-based identity conception among others, such as nation, people, and tribe; an umbrella term for all of the native communities in the Americas. Many scholars therefore emphasize that the phenomenon of indigeneity is largely dependent on colonial power relations, which are established by the settler society. One of the clearest statements of this approach is put forth by scholars who situate themselves in the field of settler colonial studies (Veracini 2010; Bateman and Pilkington 2011; Mikdashi 2013). Patrick Wolfe, for example, has remarked that settler colonialism is a structure rather than an event (1999, 2) and that the native-settler relationship is to a large extent determined by a colonial project of the "elimination of the native" (2006, 387). This oppressive relationship is still ongoing and largely defines the way in which indigeneity can be understood and unfolds in practice. In this view, indigeneity is a structural position that is defined by the settler colonial project and its structural determinants. This clear connection between indigeneity and the specific conditions of ongoing colonialism forms the intellectual basis of many more recent interventions of indigenous activists. Indigenous scholars, particularly those in North America, frame indigenous movements specifically as resistance against ongoing settler colonial imposition (see, e.g., T. Alfred 1999; L. B. Simpson 2017; Corntassel 2018). A third approach shares this clear focus on the colonial endeavor to analyze indigeneity. This strand of thinking does not derive from this premise a clear activist impetus for indigenous resistance, but rather tends to be more critical of indigenous movements. In this view, indigeneity appears as a collective identity formation that largely conforms to the Euro-American idea of an ethnic community as the basis for the nation-state (see Eriksen 2002), an approach that has been critically analyzed by authors such as Benedict Anderson (1983), Eric Hobsbawm (1990), and Eric Smith (1996). Imported along with colonialism, indigenous identities as they are mobilized today are merely a variant of European nationalism. Adam Kuper (2003) is among those who have advocated the idea that indigeneity is, in effect, simply the most recent manifestation of ethnonationalism. Scholarship based on these approaches has made important contributions to understanding indigeneity. I claim, however, that all of them, because of their chosen focus, run the risk of underestimating the degree to which indigeneity is a relational phenomenon. If one sees indigeneity mainly as a matter of descent from precolonial inhabitants, one is in danger of underestimating how important it is to take account of the processes of contact between native communities and settler communities. If one sees indigeneity mainly as a result of ongoing settler colonial imposition, one is in danger of underestimating how the colonial encounter has not only been shaped by the settler colonial ambition and the structures it has set up, but also by native resistance and native agency (despite the highly unequal power relations between settlers and natives). If one sees indigeneity mainly as European ethnonationalism in disguise, one is in danger of underestimating the degree to which indigenous identities are not merely European ideological impositions, but are just as much formations into which cultural features of the indigenous communities themselves are interwoven. In this book I strive to remain aware of these analytical pitfalls by constantly foregrounding and highlighting the relational nature of indigeneity. Indigeneity as a specific form of collective identity does not emerge in and of itself, but only in relation to a colonial or postcolonial entity, a newly emerged state with which a specific legal relationship must be established. Indigeneity emerges within and through the relationship between a native community and a postcolonial state. How that comes to pass and how it is inscribed into law are the topics of this book. For this reason, it is important to heed Ronald Niezen's advice, namely, that "a rigorous definition [of indigeneity], one that in effect tried to close the intellectual borders where they were still porous, would be premature and, ultimately, futile," and that the "debates over the problem of definition are actually more interesting than any definition in and of itself" (2003, 19). In other words―and this is what I also want to highlight―the question of defining an indigenous group is not an innocent one; it is not merely a preliminary identification of who the activist in a movement or the claimant in a court proceeding is. Indigenous activists and claimants not only shape the law through their engagement in international forums and courts, but indigeneity itself takes shape through this engagement in national and international law. As Niezen explains: "Indigenous identity is thus not a simple reflection of timeless values and practices; it is based in large measure on a compendium of cultural facts and artifacts intended for consumption in a dominant national society and an international audience. Indigenous lobbying is inseparable from cultural and spiritual trends within its audiences, trends that seek some form of perfection or ancestral source of wisdom from the native, aboriginal, or indigenous 'others'" (2003, 191). The meaning of "indigenous" is linked to the meaning that indigenous claimants want it to have and the meaning that courts decide to apply to it. If one is after a definition of the term "indigenous," one must therefore follow, not least of all, legal language. When indigenous communities "play Indian" (Deloria 1999) in national and international law, it is more than a mere public relations strategy separated from the "real" identity of indigenous groups. "Playing Indian" emerges in a complicated field of indigenous self-conceptions and the expectations of nonindigenous publics. In this context and with reference to the Négritude movement of the 1950s, James Clifford speaks of the emergence of an indigènitude . Like negritude, indigènitude emerges as "a vision of liberation and cultural difference that challenges, or at least redirects, the modernizing agendas of nation-states and transnational capitalism," but it is "less a coherent ideology than a concentration of sources and projects." It is performed in conference rooms at the United Nations and the International Labour Organization, as well as through the arts and at cultural festivals, and it is "sustained through media-disseminated images, including a shared symbolic repertoire ('the sacred,' 'Mother Earth,' 'shamanism,' 'sovereignty,' the wisdom of 'elders,' stewardship of 'the land')" (2013, 16). This symbolic repertoire, these media-disseminated images, Clifford tells us, "can lapse into self-stereotyping. And they express a transformative renewal of attachments to culture and place. It is difficult to know, sometimes even for participants, how much of the performance of identity reflects deep belief, how much a tactical presentation of self" (2013, 16). Indigeneity is a paradoxical formation that has been recognized and granted a certain status within a legal system. At a certain point in the consolidation of the settler state, the legal relationship between natives and settlers becomes characterized by an inner contradiction. Native communities are legally separate from the state; they insist on this separation and use it, sometimes to claim their sovereignty, sometimes their cultural distinctiveness, but always to assert their independence. Nevertheless, the communities are to a certain degree incorporated into the settler state's legal order and depend on the settlers' legal system to secure their independent rights. The title of this book, The Indigenous Paradox: Rights, Sovereignty, and Culture in the Americas , refers to this phenomenon of being legally incorporated and excluded at the same time. The Judicialization of Politics and the History of Juridified Native-Settler Relations in the Americas It is often assumed that today's transnational indigenous rights movements and the fact that indigenous communities increasingly bring their rights struggles before the courts can be situated in a broader phenomenon that has been called the "judicialization of politics" (Tate and Vallinder 1995; Comaroff and Comaroff 2006). This concept is based on the proposition that certain conflicts and disputes somehow get shifted from the political sphere to the judicial sphere. They are "migrating to the courts," meaning that conflicts "once joined in parliaments or by means of street protests, media campaigns, strikes, boycotts and blockades tend more and more to find their way into the judiciary" (Comaroff and Comaroff 2007, 142). As a general trend, this observation seems intuitively to be true. The number of landmark court decisions appears to be steadily increasing, and there is much talk about the growing political power of courts. There has undoubtedly been a significant change globally in the relationship between law and politics since the emergence of human rights law in the second half of the twentieth century. The passing of the United Nations Charter in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 mark the beginning of this intense growth in human rights regimes. At least since the 1970s international and regional regimes of human rights protection have promoted global compliance with human rights standards. Many states have incorporated international human rights into their national legal systems, whether through the explicit incorporation of human rights legislation into national constitutions or through the consideration national courts have given the decisions of international and regional human rights bodies. It is difficult to overestimate the influence of the case law and the underlying legal ideas of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San José on the decisions of national courts in these regions. The implementation of human rights regimes and the mainstream political theory that informs them have combined to establish a global rights-based discourse that has profoundly changed the overall importance of the judiciary and led to a "global expansion of judicial power" (Tate and Vallinder 1995). Political and social actors have changed their strategies accordingly. Not only do social and political activists bring their struggles and disputes before the courts, they consciously frame their projects in legal language borrowed from rights-based and human rights-inspired discourses, often long before an actual court proceeding takes place (Kymlicka 2010, 100). Anthropologists have ethnographically investigated how human rights activism and their human rights talk shape both local political debates and the human rights ideas themselves (Wilson 1997; Riles 2001; Englund 2006; Merry 2006; Tate 2007; Speed 2008; Goodale 2009). In Latin America the growth of human rights regimes, especially the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, has had significant impact on the relationship between law and politics (Domingo 2004; Sieder, Schjolden, and Angell 2005; Huneeus, Couso, and Sieder 2010). Partly in response to this process of negotiating political relations through legal means, partly producing and fostering it, indigenous movements in the Americas are increasingly judicializing their political struggles (Brysk 2000). And while the configurations in North America, especially in the United States, are somewhat different from Latin America, a similar form of judicialization is to be observed there. The far-reaching scope that U.S. courts have for constitutional judicial review enables "a very deep involvement of the courts in politics along a number of dimensions" (Shapiro 1994, 106). Constitutional arguments therefore provide a legal discursive repertoire parallel to "human rights talk" in Latin America. While I agree that the judicialization of politics framework is a useful and effective tool for analyzing indigenous rights discourses, I remain critical of what I perceive to be a bias toward the present in these studies. My argument is that the relationship between natives and settlers becomes judicialized almost from the very beginning of the colonial endeavor. And although the rise of human rights has undoubtedly shaped and extended the legal dimension of this relationship, the idea that native-settler relations were, at some point in the past, a purely "political" matter, whatever that might mean, amounts to a misconception. When it comes to native-settler relations, I therefore see the more recent judicialization of politics through the rise of human rights only as the latest instantiation of the judicialization of these relations. As Robert Williams (1990) has shown in his groundbreaking study on the legal discourses of colonial conquest, European colonialism in the Americas was, from the very beginning, justified and solidified by means of law. As early as the fifteenth century the Spanish and the Portuguese had set up ever more elaborate colonial administrations and developed a canon of colonial law that immediately started to compete with the native legal systems. Ethnohistorical works on native-settler relations in early colonial times have demonstrated the degree to which these relationships were judicialized very early on. Steve Stern (1993) has shown, for instance, how the so-called Toledo reforms enacted by the Spanish Crown in sixteenth-century Peru not only created an effective colonial administration and court system, but also significantly judicialized the relationship between the Spanish settlers and the native population. Particularly with regard to British and French colonialism in North America, another important aspect of the legal relationship between settlers and natives is the history of treaty making in both the United States and Canada. From the seventeenth century onward, the British and later the United States and Canada used the form of the treaty to create a legal framework for the relationship between the settler community and the native communities (Prucha 1994; Calloway 2013; Harjo 2014; Asch 2014). To this day such treaties provide a basis for many indigenous rights claims (Borrows and Coyle 2017). The emerging international human rights regimes provide a new forum for presenting these claims, but in some cases the legal instruments on which they are based preceded the rise of human rights regimes by centuries. My claim is, therefore, that while today's transnational indigenous rights movements can be seen in the context of the rise of human rights regimes and the current judicialization of politics, they are also a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in a historically judicialized relationship between natives and settlers that was a component of the colonial project in the Americas from its earliest days. Contemporary Indigenous Rights Movements in the Americas When we now focus on the contemporary transnational indigenous rights movements, many (if not most) studies locate the moment of their birth in the 1970s. Niezen points to four factors that allowed the process of international indigenism to emerge at this time: the established minority-friendly human rights system; anti-colonial legal discourses that transformed legal thinking; the undeniable failure of assimilationist policies; and an emerging "indigenous middle class." All of these factors contributed to the "rise of indigenism" from the 1970s onward (Niezen 2003, 40−42). Additionally, especially in Latin America, many indigenous groups ran into legal dead ends in their national legal systems. They therefore "turned this weakness into strength" and pooled their limited resources internationally by targeting the less contested international legal arena, especially the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations (UN) (Brysk 1996). As the history of this engagement has been thoroughly documented in other works (Brysk 2000; Thornberry 2002; Niezen 2003; Anaya 2004a; Engle 2010), I will here confine myself to a few crucial points of orientation. Indigenous rights activists have managed to broaden existing human rights treaties and adopt new legal instruments. As a result, indigenous communities in the Americas now have a number of forums available in which to bring indigenous rights cases, including those provided by the ILO, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States (OAS) ; Prior to this activist engagement, the human rights framework was rather ill-equipped to deal with indigenous rights. The first and second generations of human rights, most importantly codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), guarantee group rights generally only under narrow circumstances. Indigenous communities are not mentioned specifically. However, Article 27 of the ICCPR, which guarantees individuals the right to enjoy their "own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, [and] to use their own language," is recognized as applying to indigenous individuals (although not to indigenous groups as collectives). The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), which hears cases on alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the ICCPR, has issued a General Comment (No. 23) to Article 27, in which it explicitly sees indigenous rights, including land rights, as enshrined in that article. It has heard several indigenous rights cases before and since. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which hears cases on alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), has also issued a General Recommendation (No. 23) stating that the ICERD does apply to indigenous groups. The first "big break" for indigenous rights, however, was the International Labour Organization's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 (ILO 169), the first multilateral treaty codifying binding obligations for states to protect indigenous rights. ILO 169 replaced ILO Convention No. 107 from 1957, which spoke of "indigenous populations" instead of "indigenous peoples" and whose proposed measures were directed more at assimilating indigenous populations into the national state than promoting indigenous self-government. Indigenous activists found ILO 107 to be largely inadequate and lobbied to have it replaced with ILO 169 (Swepston 1990; Yupsanis 2010). The American countries that have ratified ILO 169 are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. The United States and Canada initially refused to ratify the convention but have recently changed their position. The second "big break" came in 2007, when the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Although it represents a compromise between indigenous rights activists and the UN member states (White Face 2013), the declaration codifies a number of rights for indigenous peoples. As declarations of the UN General Assembly are considered "soft law," the declaration has no legally binding effect. Nevertheless, "soft law" plays an important role in the legal interpretation of other provisions, and the UNDRIP is an important step toward establishing binding standards of international customary law (Barelli 2009). Even before the UNDRIP was issued, visible changes in state practice regarding indigenous rights had given rise to an emerging body of international customary law providing for basic indigenous rights (Anaya 2004a, 61−96). Additionally, indigenous rights movements have since pushed for the integration of UNDRIP into national constitutions. Bolivia, for example, has already done this. Both ILO 169 and UNDRIP are regularly invoked by indigenous claimants to convince national courts of their claims (Beier 2009). In the Americas, a fairly sophisticated jurisprudence on indigenous rights has emerged in both the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Both bodies have determined that indigenous rights are enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Organization of American States (OAS) has not yet issued an American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, although the commission has already approved several drafts of such a declaration. The transnational indigenous activism that helped create the international legal framework described above was at first dominated by North American activists from the United States and Canada (although indigenous activists from Australia, New Zealand, and, to a lesser extent, northern European communities also played an important role). Indigenous rights movements from South and Central America were initially less well equipped to mobilize international legal instruments. Only from the 1990s onward has this North−South divide begun to close (Engle 2010, 71; Niezen 2003, 71). This early dominance of indigenous movements by common-law countries and former British colonies is an important aspect of the international indigenous rights discourse. This is why I have felt it necessary to devote so much attention to early indigenous rights cases from the United States―they link the more recent indigenous rights debates located in the international human rights regime back to historically earlier legal discourses and help to better contextualize and historicize recent developments. Others have pointed out the degree to which international law is rooted in such European legal discourses as the Roman jus gentium , canon law, and natural law conceptions from the Middle Ages and how the colonial encounter has shaped these older European discourses into international law (Anghie 2005). Colonial legal regimes are likewise rooted in medieval and Renaissance legal thinking (Cohen 1942; Williams 1983). One way to observe how these older European discourses are translated into settler−indigenous relationships in the Americas is to examine seminal U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding Indian law, namely, the so-called Marshall trilogy-- Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832) (discussed in Chapters 2-4)--named after John Marshall, the sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court, who delivered all three judgments. Although these cases are not the first court decisions in the Americas dealing with the relationship between settler colonialists and the native inhabitants (we find those from the earliest colonial times), they are the first ones to be cited internationally and therefore are the foundation of an international body of case law relating to indigenous rights. The basic principles developed in the first U.S. Supreme Court cases on federal Indian law had a great influence on the legal discourses in other common-law settler states, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and became guiding principles for the emerging body of transnational indigenous rights law. Sovereignty and Culture Analysis of the Marshall trilogy cases reveals that one basic principle of indigenous−settler relations in the common-law context is the unbroken sovereignty of indigenous communities after colonization. In simplified terms, from this point of view, indigenous communities are "quasi-states," similar to nation-states but somehow diminished in terms of their sovereignty. It makes sense, then, that the indigenous rights debates from the 1970s onward are directed toward the international right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is codified in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, which declares that the purpose of the United Nations is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace" (emphasis added). In the period of decolonization after the Second World War, the right to self-determination was the basis for acknowledging the right of former colonies to secede from colonial empires. Following this line of argumentation, indigenous peoples, who are legal subjects of international law, should also have the right to self-determination (Cassese 1995). This reasoning presumes that indigenous peoples are in fact "nations" and can claim, if not full sovereignty and independence as states, then at least a certain degree of autonomy. The stronger version of this argument claims a right of secession for indigenous communities; weaker approaches invoke the right to self-determination in order to claim territorial and autonomy rights within the (post)colonial nation-states in which the indigenous communities reside. Niezen asserts that this legal argumentation is the basis of indigenous rights claims, and he provides ethnographic accounts of several discussions in the United Nations on the implementation of indigenous rights instruments to illustrate his point (2003, 145−192). In these cases, insistence that the word "peoples" be used in all relevant legal documents was always at the forefront of the demands of indigenous activists precisely because it then allowed them to invoke the right to self-determination. I call this the "sovereignty approach" to indigenous rights because the rights to territory and autonomy are derived from the sovereignty vested in indigenous communities, which is, in turn, derived from the fact they are―as nations or peoples―legal persons under international law. A sovereign entity is governed only by its own rules or by rules derived indirectly from its own sovereignty. The sovereignty approach to indigenous rights is, to be exact, not a human rights argument. Human rights are rights that protect persons against the state , whereas the right to self-determination protects states ―and, it could be argued, those nations and peoples that are formally not (yet) states― against other states . While states are bound by the right to self-determination in relation to their peers in the international community, they are bound by human rights in relation to their own (and sometimes other states') citizens. The sovereignty approach is not the only argumentative basis for indigenous rights movements. Beginning in the 1980s, the idea of indigenous rights as related to a human right to culture began to emerge (Sanders 1983; Engle 2010). This "culture approach" is in principle detached from the concept of indigenous communities as quasi nation-states. In the culture approach, claims to land and self-government are derived from the idea that indigenous culture has an inherent value and that the postcolonial nation-state has to protect it from infringement. In contrast to the sovereignty approach, the culture approach is based on a human rights argument. The state has the obligation to protect the cultures of its citizens (individuals as well as collectives), including those of indigenous communities. In this view, indigenous communities are bearers of culture and can, therefore, claim state measures to have it protected, not as more or less equal partners in the international community but as a collective of citizens against "their" state. Although they are legally different, both approaches―sovereignty and culture―aim at the same projects: recognition of land rights, a requirement of consultation, consent, and benefit sharing with regard to development projects, the right to continue performing traditional activities without interference, reparations for damages, and so forth. Both approaches invoke the legal argumentation of indigenous movements and often cannot be clearly distinguished from one another in their legal strategies. Their relative importance and dominance vary over time and also regionally in the Americas. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), one of the landmark indigenous rights cases in Canada (discussed in Chapter 5), provides me with the opportunity to investigate how a sovereignty-related indigenous rights argument can be combined with a culture approach. I see this case as an attempt to mediate between the legal principles of the early U.S. cases, which are the basis of modern Canadian native law, and the emerging "culture approach" in international law. To better understand the "culture approach" to indigenous rights, this book presents three cases from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Aloeboetoe v. Suriname (1993), the court's first case dealing specifically with issues of indigenous rights; Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001), generally considered the indigenous rights decision in Latin America with a fully developed culture argument; and Saramaka v. Suriname (2007), which further develops the principles of Awas Tingni and applies them to communities of African descent. We will see that this characterization along the lines of sovereignty and culture is in many ways provisional, but it will help us navigate through many legal intricacies, contradictions, and inconsistencies. Of course, this book is in no way a comprehensive legal history of indigenous rights in the Americas, and certain gaps must be glossed over. The aim is rather to come to a better understanding of how an analysis of legal texts and language can make a larger systematic contribution to the field of indigenous studies in the Americas. The Indigenous Paradox and Legal Pluralism One of the important issues addressed in this book is how to measure the relationship between sovereignty and culture in indigenous rights doctrine. As I indicated at the beginning of this chapter, I believe both legal concepts circle around a paradox inherent in the concept of indigeneity: indigenous groups are part of the state in which they reside, and at the same time they are not. They depend on the state, but they must also―as a matter of their very existence―reject it. I argue that only an indigenous rights strategy that legally and conceptually accommodates this indigenous paradox can fulfill the task of an indigenous rights claim, namely, to invoke the rule of law in order to call for its suspension and thereby open up a space for the indigenous community's own legal system. The whole idea of indigenous rights is practically inconceivable without a clear understanding of the concept of legal pluralism (Griffiths 1986; Benda-Beckmann 2002; Tamanaha 2008; Guevara Gil 2009; Berman 2012). The basic advice of legal pluralism scholarship is simple. Instead of conceiving of the law as a single monolithic system of rules, one should always bear in mind that "the law" represents a repertoire of different, coexisting legal orders: national and international law, official and unofficial law, state law and "traditional," "customary," or "indigenous" law, written and unwritten law, religious and secular law, and so forth. Sometimes these legal orders overlap and compete, sometimes they are more or less clearly separated from one another. For the purposes of my argument, I must differentiate at least three legal orders: indigenous law (meaning the law of the indigenous community); national law (meaning the law of the (post)colonial state); and international law (often consisting of the indigenous rights provisions of the ILO, the UN, and/or the OAS). Indigenous rights are based on the notion that there are two legal systems competing for jurisdiction: an indigenous legal system and a (post)colonial national legal system. Sometimes international law is able to broker this relationship and sometimes it is not. Only if the two legal systems are understood as being in competition can the indigenous paradox emerge. In the case of a successful indigenous rights claim, the indigenous community can use the national legal system to call for the suspension of that very system. The result is that the indigenous legal system takes precedence, but only because the national legal system demands it. The indigenous community is therefore subject to the national law and, at the same time, to its own indigenous legal system. The aim of this book is to explore this paradox and how it shapes legal thinking entrenched in processes of identity. Both the sovereignty approach and the culture approach give rise to some form of legal pluralism, but the legal pluralisms are different. In the sovereignty approach the legal pluralism is rooted in the legal fiction of sovereignty; in the culture approach the legal pluralism is grounded in the "extralegal fiction" of cultural difference. Both these approaches, rooted legal pluralism and de facto legal pluralism , open up legal spaces that allow the indigenous claimant to appear as both a subject of the national rule of law and independent of it. The ways in which indigeneity emerges as a paradox through the mobilization of legal pluralism is distilled from the case studies and concisely presented in Chapter 9. Investigating Legal Texts from an Anthropological Perspective The bulk of the material analyzed in this book comprises legal texts, mainly court decisions on indigenous rights. I investigate these texts both as a lawyer and as a legal and political anthropologist. From a theoretical perspective I conceive of these indigenous rights judgments as a mélange of ethnographic and autoethnographic accounts of indigeneity that must be analyzed with a certain sensitivity to the multiple layers that compose them. An anthropological perspective on legal texts, as I understand it, is informed by several other approaches from neighboring disciplines. It has to be informed by the methods of legal history (see, e.g., Lobban 2004) because it treats the legal text as a source not for the development of a concrete legal argument but for the compilation of a broader description and analysis of legal argumentation. It is also similar to the study of literature, especially in the law-and-literature approach (Brooks and Gewirtz 1996; Dolin 2007), because it is interested in the legal text not as a sheet of unconnected facts but as a carefully composed story with a narrative structure. It has some affinity to psychoanalytic legal analysis (Goodrich 1995; 1997) because it goes beyond the surface meaning of the text and tries to uncover unconscious assumptions and desires coded in the text but not always openly acknowledged. But first and foremost, such an analysis is a project of anthropology. It investigates the text with the eyes of an anthropologist to discover how it uses, constructs, and argues with concepts and objects of study that are at the heart of anthropology: "the cultural," "the social," "the indigenous," and many others, including "the legal" itself. This project of investigating legal texts can also be situated in the broader endeavor to come to terms with the confluence of language, culture, and society, as is done in the framework of semiotic anthropology (Mertz 2007). One strand of this field is based on the semiotic tradition of intertextuality (Kristeva 1986), which puts forth the idea that texts can only be understood within a cultural structure in which other texts are embedded. In legal anthropology, Brinkley Messick's (1992) work on the interaction between textual traditions, legal history, and politics is the most prominent example of this approach. In a broader sense that goes beyond the text as a written document, Elizabeth Mertz (2007, 346) has connected the project of semiotic anthropology to the discursive translation and retranslation of law into different contexts--an interest that has occupied many recent works of legal anthropology (Lazarus-Black 1994; Maurer 1997; Coutin 2003; Bowen 2003; Merry 2006). For anthropology in general, James Clifford and George Marcus's edited volume Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (1986) induced a trend in anthropology to turn to written texts as objects of study and engendered a highly controversial debate (see Zenker and Kumoll 2013). The basic assumption of Writing Culture is relatively simple: anthropologists write narratively structured stories about "the other," and as such occupy a position of authority. Part of ethnographic research must therefore be a reflective and self-critical examination of this position of authority. My argument on the importance of the "writing culture" debate for an anthropological perspective on legal texts is equally simple. Court decisions, in our case on indigenous rights, can be read as ethnographic texts. The way in which court decisions speak about the culture of the other and its rights resembles ethnographic writing. The several layers of a judgment present different ways of conceptualizing the other, including self-conceptions or at least the self-representations of the indigenous claimants. Following the idea of intertextuality, we can view court decisions as emerging in the context of other texts, especially those of the parties involved in the case. These, too, have an ethnographic character. Think, for example, of the statement of defense written by a state official in which the scope of an indigenous treaty right concerning land is argued. Alternatively, such texts might have an autoethnographic character, such as a brief written by an indigenous community that claims certain rights and describes its land tenure system in support of its claims. Such "autoethnographic texts" (Pratt 1991) from indigenous communities are particularly multivalent. They are not "pure" autochthonous self-representations but the product of the input of indigenous communities and careful drafting in collaboration between community activists and those trained in "Western" law and serving as the communities' lawyers. In style and genre they are addressed to the nonindigenous audience, foremost the national or international court. They contain a community's own perspective on the events, the facts in question, and the legal conclusions to be drawn from these facts and often include a depiction of the long history of the indigenous community from time immemorial through the time of conquest to the present day. These legal documents are embedded in complex power relations and depend as much (and usually far more) on what nonindigenous audiences are willing and able to hear as on what indigenous peoples have to say. As I have already posited at the beginning of this chapter, indigeneity as a phenomenon itself has to be situated in these kinds of interdependencies and entanglements with the legal genre. In court decisions on indigenous rights, the indigenous peoples' bills, writs, and other documents are often not reproduced verbatim but are summarized, represented, and discussed in the judgment. The indigenous rights judgment is therefore a special form of ethnographic text, as it is a direct response to the ethnographic and autoethnographic texts of the parties, usually the indigenous community on the one hand and state officials on the other. They are a complex mélange of these different types of text. Court decisions in indigenous rights cases represent a position of authority about "the other." They become part of the discourse on indigeneity, often to a much larger degree than most ethnographic studies. It seems particularly apt, therefore, to investigate court decisions that are explicitly concerned with ethnographic issues, such as those involving indigenous rights, from an anthropological perspective. *** In the last few decades, indigenous rights movements have had a significant impact on the legal and political landscape not only in the Americas but globally as well. This indigènitude is deeply connected with the judicialization of politics that has come about with the emergence of international human rights regimes after the Second World War; its historical roots, however, go back to the early nineteenth century and even earlier. Indigenous rights concepts have profoundly changed national and international law and given rise to indigenous legal and political subjectivities. The rise of indigenism is not an issue for cultural experts only; it is a phenomenon deeply embedded in legal processes. Indigenous movements have made use of opportunities for articulating their claims that the emerging human rights regimes have opened up. International organizations, dispute resolution bodies, and courts have become spaces of indigenous performances. While indigenous peoples have "played themselves" in international legal arenas, their articulations and performances get translated into law and back again into the production and reproduction of indigenous identities. The term "indigenous" itself is as much a legal term as it is a cultural one, as the legal and the cultural are not autonomous fields but are, in fact, inextricably linked. Indigenous discourses, and therefore also indigenous rights doctrine, can be systematized along the two lines of sovereignty and culture. Indigenous communities are both part of the state and separate from it; they are dependent on the state yet cannot exist without asserting and maintaining the boundaries between themselves and the state. This paradox of indigeneity is at the center of this book. Focusing on legal texts from the Americas, this study examines the "big precedents" of indigenous rights on the continent and tracks the indigenous paradox in legal language and doctrine. To that end I try to read the law with the eyes of an anthropologist and discuss indigeneity from the perspective of a lawyer. In such a venture the boundaries between political and legal anthropology, international law, legal history, and literary studies become blurred, and the best one can hope for is to piece together a picture that is more accurate and more complete than the sum of its parts. Excerpted from The Indigenous Paradox: Rights, Sovereignty, and Culture in the Americas by Jonas Bens All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.
