dc.contributor.advisor | Vitikainen, Annamari | |
dc.contributor.author | Reibold, Kerstin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-19T21:12:42Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-19T21:12:42Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-12-07 | |
dc.description.abstract | The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a landmark decision for indigenous rights. UNDRIP promises indigenous peoples the restitution of their land, resource, and political self-determination rights to the greatest extent possible. It aims to ensure that indigenous peoples are treated equal to other peoples. It also means to rectify the past unjust dispossession and forced political incorporation that indigenous peoples have experienced during colonialism. Yet, today, other peoples or states often occupy and use traditional lands of indigenous peoples. If indigenous peoples regain their traditional lands and sovereignty over them, the current occupants stand to lose their current rights. Thus, the challenge that indigenous rights pose is how to reconcile these conflicting rights or, if reconciliation is not possible, how to decide whose rights should prevail. This question is the topic of this thesis.
The thesis argues for two things. First, it holds that when deciding which rights should be restituted to indigenous peoples we need to look at all the different interests that land and self-determination rights protect. For example, people can have economic or cultural interests in land. In some cases, these interests are incompatible but in other cases, rights can be shared in such a manner that the main interests of each party can be protected. Second, the thesis argues that indigenous peoples have a special interest in being recognized as moral equals by their former colonizers. During colonialism, the alleged inferiority of indigenous peoples justified the denial of indigenous land and self-determination rights. Therefore, the recognition of these rights nowadays serves as an affirmation of the moral status equality of indigenous peoples. This special interest of indigenous peoples must be taken into account when deciding rights conflicts between indigenous peoples and settler states. | en_US |
dc.description.doctoraltype | ph.d. | en_US |
dc.description.popularabstract | The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a landmark decision for indigenous rights. UNDRIP promises indigenous peoples the restitution of their land, resource, and political self-determination rights to the greatest extent possible. It aims to ensure that indigenous peoples are treated equal to other peoples. It also means to rectify the past unjust dispossession and forced political incorporation that indigenous peoples have experienced during colonialism. Yet, today, other peoples or states often occupy and use traditional lands of indigenous peoples. If indigenous peoples regain their traditional lands and sovereignty over them, the current occupants stand to lose their current rights. Thus, the challenge that indigenous rights pose is how to reconcile these conflicting rights or, if reconciliation is not possible, how to decide whose rights should prevail. This question is the topic of this thesis.
The thesis argues for two things. First, it holds that when deciding which rights should be restituted to indigenous peoples we need to look at all the different interests that land and self-determination rights protect. For example, people can have economic or cultural interests in land. In some cases, these interests are incompatible but in other cases, rights can be shared in such a manner that the main interests of each party can be protected. Second, the thesis argues that indigenous peoples have a special interest in being recognized as moral equals by their former colonizers. During colonialism, the alleged inferiority of indigenous peoples justified the denial of indigenous land and self-determination rights. Therefore, the recognition of these rights nowadays serves as an affirmation of the moral status equality of indigenous peoples. This special interest of indigenous peoples must be taken into account when deciding rights conflicts between indigenous peoples and settler states. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Globalizing Minority Rights project financed by the Research Council of Norway (NFR 259017) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19882 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | UiT Norges arktiske universitet | en_US |
dc.publisher | UiT The Arctic University of Norway | en_US |
dc.relation.haspart | <p>Paper 1: Reibold, K. (2019). Why indigenous land rights have not been superseded - a critical application of Waldron’s theory of supersession. <i>Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP)</i>. Also available in Munin at <a href=https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19853>https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19853</a>.
<p>Paper 2: Reibold, K. Global welfare egalitarianism, resource rights, and decolonization. <i>Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric</i>, in press.
<p>Paper 3: Reibold, K. (2017). Can naturalistic theories of human rights accommodate the indigenous right to self-determination? In Maliks, R. & Karlsson Schaffer, J. (Eds), <i>Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights: Implications for Theory and Practice</i>, pp 204-228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Also available at <a href= https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316650134.011>https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316650134.011</a>. | en_US |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/RCN/SAMKUL/259017/Norway/Globalizing Minority Rights: Cosmopolitanism, Global Institutions, and Cultural Justice// | en_US |
dc.rights.accessRights | openAccess | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2020 The Author(s) | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) | en_US |
dc.subject | VDP::Humanities: 000::Philosophical disciplines: 160::Philosophy: 161 | en_US |
dc.subject | VDP::Humaniora: 000::Filosofiske fag: 160::Filosofi: 161 | en_US |
dc.title | Indigenous rights, supersession, and moral status equality | en_US |
dc.type | Doctoral thesis | en_US |
dc.type | Doktorgradsavhandling | en_US |