Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Protecting the economic patrimony of indigenous nations: the case of the Shuar

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article concerns contemporary problems of indigenous peoples and human rights. In general, the human rights of indigenous people occupy marginal space in the global discourse. Overcoming cultural hurdles, and recognizing that indigenous peoples are not objects of juridical concern, not abstractions of analytically precise units of analysis, but in fact are subjects who come with perspectives of identity, demand and expectations, is a necessary starting point for both the scholar and the advocate. This article deals with a particular indigenous nation in the Amazon: the Shuar. The Shuar hold important perspectives of identity, demand and expectation encompassing the critical values that sustain their lives in the community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Institute for Human Rights, Peace, and Development at the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law.

  2. Declaration on the Fundamental Rights of the Shuar (Shuar Bill of Rights), ArizonaNativeNet (2002).

  3. Shuar Bill of Rights, art. 36 (2002).

  4. Winston P. Nagan, et al., Legal Theory and the Anthropocene Challenge: The Implications of Law, Science, and Policy for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Climate Change: The Expanding and Constraining Boundaries of Legal Space and Time and the Challenge of the Anthropocene, 12 J.L. & Soc. Challenges 150 (2010); See also Winston P. Nagan, Human Rights: The World Quest, Oxford Round Table, Oxford, UK (July 19–July 24, 2009); See also Winston P. Nagan, et al., Misappropriation of Shuar Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Trade Secrets: A Case Study on Biopiracy in the Amazon, Supra; See also Rubenstein, S., Colonialism, the Shuar Federation, and the Ecuadorian state, Supra; See also Winston P. Nagan, Dancing with the Shuar: Novel Aspects of Human Rights Development and the Defense and Promotion of First Nation Rights in Ecuador, Supra.

  5. Diana Ortiz v. Guatamala, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 31/96, Case No. 10.526 (1977).

  6. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 148.

  7. Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay 17 June 2005, Inter American Court of Human Rights; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of 29 March 2006 Inter-American Court of Human Rights; See The Mayagna Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2001) hereinafter the Awas Tingni Case 2001.

  8. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of November 28, 2007 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs) (2007).

  9. Id.

  10. Id.

  11. Id.

  12. The Bellagio Declaration from the 1993 Rockefeller Conference “Cultural Agency/Cultural Authority: Politics and Poetics of Intellectual Property in the Post-Colonial Era,” Mar. 11, 1993, available at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wgtrr/bellagio.htm.

  13. Id. Article 8(J); See also Bonn, Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Ninth Meeting (19–30 May 2008); UNEP/CBD/COP/9/29.

  14. The Alien Tort Statute or Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350—“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

  15. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

  16. Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002).

  17. Conference of the Parties (COP), http://www.cbd.int/cop/.

  18. Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 7), 2004, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Main Achievements Factsheet by The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009)—At its seventh meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2004, the Conference of the Parties followed up on the WSSD call and mandated the Working Group on ABS to elaborate and negotiate an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing with the aim of adopting an instrument/instruments to effectively implement the provisions in Article 15 (Access to Genetic Resources) and 8(j) (Traditional Knowledge) of the Convention, and the three objectives of the Convention. The COP also agreed on the terms of reference for the Working Group, including the process, nature, scope and elements for consideration in the elaboration of the regime (decision VII/19).

  19. Kabir Bavikatte and Daniel F. Robinson, Towards a People’s History of the Law: Biocultural Jurisprudence and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, Supra.

References

  • Arewa, O. B. (2006). Piracy, biopiracy and borrowing: Culture, cultural heritage and the globalization of intellectual property. Bepress Legal Series; Working Paper 1114.

  • Balkin, J. M. (1989). The Hodfeldian approach to law and semiotics, 44. University of Miami Law Review, 1119.

  • Bavikatte, K., Robinson, D. F. (2011). Towards a people’s history of the law: Biocultural jurisprudence and the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 7(1), 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohannan, P. (1963). ”Land”, “Tenure” and “Land Tenure”. In Daniel. Biebuyck (Ed.), African agrarian systems. London: International African Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources & intellectual property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), 653–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombe, R. J. (2001). The recognition of indigenous peoples’ and community traditional knowledge in international law. St. Thomas Law Review, 14, 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlvang, N. (2006). Thieves, robbers, & terrorists: Piracy in the 21st Century. Regent Journal of International Law, 4, 17–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, V. M. (2010). Shamans and Shams: The discursive effects of ethnotourism in ecuador. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 15(2), 387–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D. R. (2000). How intellectual property could be a tool to protect traditional knowledge. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 25, 253–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (2000). Indigenous knowledge, intellectual property and biopiracy: Is a global biocollecting society the answer. European Intellectual Property Review, 22, 245–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando G. S. (2005). El estado del arte del derecho indígena en Ecuador. Revista IIDH, 41, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W. N. (1919). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning, and other legal essays. Yale Law Journal, 28(8), 721–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. R., & Carlson, T. J. (1995). Biocultural diversity, biomedicine and ethnobotany: The experience of Shaman pharmaceuticals. Interciencia, 19(3), 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N., & Hoebel E. A. (2002). The Cheyenne way: Conflict and case law in primitive jurisprudence. Harcourt Brace & Co, 1926: Hein Publishing Malinowski.

  • Malinowski, B. K. (1926). Crime and custom in a Savage Society.

  • Nagan, W. P., Mordujovich, E. J., Otvos, J. K., & Taylor, J. (June 2010). Misappropriation of Shuar traditional knowledge (TK) and trade secrets: A case study on biopiracy in the Amazon. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 15(1), 9.

  • Pienaar, G. (2008). The inclusivity of communal land tenure: A redefinition of ownership in Canada and South Africa? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 12.1. http://www.ejcl.org.

  • Rubenstein, S. (2001). Colonialism, the Shuar federation, and the ecuadorian state. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 19(3), 263–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, L. L., Guttlein, J. A. B., & Elorz, R. I. (1999). Inter-American commission on human rights, Report No. 49/99, Case No. 11.610.

  • Stephenson, D. J. (2001). The nexus between intellectual property piracy, international law, the internet, and cultural values, 14. St. Thomas Law Review, 315, 324–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, G. R. (2000). Trade secrets: The secret to protecting indigenous ethnobiological (medicinal) knowledge. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 1119–1174.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Human Rights, Peace and Development, Levin College of Law, Sam T. Dell Research Scholar Professor of Law, University of Florida, 2500 SW 2nd Avenue, P.O. Box 117625, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Winston P. Nagan

Authors
  1. Winston P. Nagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Winston P. Nagan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagan, W.P. Protecting the economic patrimony of indigenous nations: the case of the Shuar. Policy Sci 46, 143–159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9167-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9167-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation