Uncontacted peoples: A legal failure
Posted: 2 October, 2020 Filed under: Ross Booth | Tags: "uncontacted peoples", Amazon, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, forced assimilation, hired guns, hiring gunmen, indigenous communities, indigenous groups, indigenous peoples' rights, isolated communities, isolation, John Allen Chau, no-go-zones, North Sentinel Island, outside intrusion, pistoleros, South America, trespassing 1 Comment
Author: Ross Booth
LLB student, University of KwaZulu-Natal
In the age of antiquity, brilliant minds spoke of lost cities and forbidden regions that lay beyond the edges of the known world. Plato famously wrote of Atlantis – a hyper-advanced civilisation that fell from favour with the Gods and was submerged beneath the sea as a consequence. As the world developed, however, and explorers chartered the unchartered, humans realised that these myths were exactly that – myths. But global expansion revealed other mysteries, and while the ideas of golden cities and sunken empires have faded into fable, lost and isolated tribal groups have certainly existed – and still do to this day.
It is roughly estimated that some 100 tribes still operate in varied isolation worldwide, with the bulk situated in different parts of South America. Having largely resisted outside contact (or contact with neighbouring tribes), these indigenous groups have earned the name “uncontacted peoples” – a term that has sparked interest among tourists and missionaries alike. Acting from curiosity or personal intent, many outsiders have sought to intrude upon isolated communities – with differing outcomes. In some instances, tribal groups have welcomed strangers and allowed them to view and even participate in cultural activities. The Jawara tribe on the Andaman Islands of India, has been known to allow tourists and researchers onto their reservation without trouble – even occasionally sending their children to settlements beyond the reserve to be educated. Other tribes, however, are known to respond to outsiders with aggression and violence. The inhabitants of North Sentinel Island are notable for ferociously resisting outside contact, with two fishermen and an American missionary, John Allen Chau, dying as a consequence of trespassing onto the island.
Taking the right to adequate food seriously: Reflections on the International Agreement on Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems
Posted: 23 February, 2015 Filed under: Bereket Kefyalew | Tags: Africa, agriculture, CFS, Committee on World Food Security, development banks, food security, gender equality, global economic crisis, human rights, indigenous peoples' rights, PRIAF, Principles of Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food systems, right to adequate food, right to food, sustainable development, UN agencies, United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Leave a comment
Author: Bereket Kefyalew
Freelance consultant and researcher in human rights and development
After two years of negotiations the Principles of Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (PRIAF) were approved by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on October 15, 2014. This has been endorsed by some as a breakthrough for realising the right to adequate food and ensuring food security for all.
Since the 2007/2008 global economic crisis, agricultural investments, particularly large scale investments have flourished across the globe. Africa has become a major destination for large scale agriculture investors largely due to the cheap and fertile land, and poor protection of land rights. The investments are apparatuses of the market led agricultural trade liberalization model claimed to be the panacea for food insecurity in the world by hegemonic industrialized states.
It is evident that some of these investments have utterly affected the right to adequate food in Africa and elsewhere as the investments, for instance, displaced people from their land, or registered futile contribution to food security and nutrition. For this reason some practitioners proposed human rights based regulation of global and national food and nutrition related policies. Nevertheless the investors and host nations defended the investments and denied the adverse effects.
The PRIAF was born out of these competing views on agricultural investments. It brought together major stakeholders to come into consensus on common principles on how to conduct agriculture investments. It is an effort to regulate agriculture investments globally; and to strike a balance between investment promotion and protection of human rights and ensuring sustainable development.
AfricLaw 