Abstract
A major part of the global uranium reserves are located on indigenous peoples’ lands. Most indigenous peoples have strongly opposed uranium exploration and exploitation on their ancestral lands, given that many of the uranium mining projects carried out on their lands since the mid-twentieth century during the first uranium boom have led to devastating environmental and health effects. As the share of nuclear energy in global power generation and the demand for uranium had been in decline since the mid-1980s, the pressure on indigenous peoples to accept uranium mining on their lands has been lower in recent years. This began to change, however, with the reconsideration of the allegedly CO2-free nuclear energy as energy source due to increased concerns about global warming in the early 2000s. With the growth in demand, the prices for uranium have increased, and more and more mining companies have approached States—and indigenous peoples directly—for uranium mining permits on indigenous lands. This chapter looks at the potential impact of uranium mining on indigenous communities, examines national and international legal frameworks governing uranium mining on indigenous lands, and develops substantial and procedural rights of indigenous peoples under international law.
Katja Göcke, LL.M. (University of Sydney), Attorney at Graf von Westphalen, Hamburg (Germany).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
World Nuclear Association 2012.
- 4.
See for example UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2009.
- 5.
Churchill and LaDuke 1992, p. 246.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Segal 2012, pp. 363–366.
- 9.
Ibid., p. 365.
- 10.
See Johansen 1997.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
See Parliament of Australia—Senate Committee 1997.
- 14.
World Nuclear Association 2011.
- 15.
Cameco Corp. 2012.
- 16.
- 17.
See World Nuclear Association 2012.
- 18.
Simpson 1997, pp. 22–23.
- 19.
See for example Cobo 1986, para 369; Article 1(2) of ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (adopted 27 June 1989, entered into force 5 September 1991) 1650 UNTS 383; International Law Association 2012, pp. 2–3. Regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNGA Res 61/295 (13 September 2007)), see also Cole 2009, pp. 201–205.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
Barnhart (ed), 2003, p. 521.
- 23.
See for example Dannenmaier 2008, pp. 84–88.
- 24.
Frost 1998.
- 25.
Ibid.; Diehl 2011.
- 26.
Diehl 2011.
- 27.
- 28.
UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1994/7 (6 June 1994), pp. 3–7.
- 29.
Ibid., para 12(a).
- 30.
- 31.
Declaration of the Indigenous World Uranium Summit (Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA; 2 December 2006). www.miningwatch.ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/IWUS_Declaration_0.pdf.
- 32.
Now the Inuit Circumpolar Council.
- 33.
ICC Resolution on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, Point 4 (adopted 1983). www.arcticnwfz.ca/documents/I%20N%20U%20I%20T%20CIRCUMPOLAR%20RES%20ON%20nwfz%201983.pdf.
- 34.
Diné Natural Resources Protection Act (2005) enacted by the Navajo Nation Council. www.navajocourts.org/Resolutions/CAP-18-05.pdf.
- 35.
Hualapai Department of Natural Resources.
- 36.
Southwest Research and Information Center 2008.
- 37.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 2007.
- 38.
Vestergaard and Bourgouin 2012.
- 39.
Paladin Energy 2012.
- 40.
See for example Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 2007.
- 41.
See for example Rogers 2011, quoting the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Cathy Towtongie.
- 42.
See for example CBS News 2011.
- 43.
See World Nuclear Association 2012.
- 44.
According to the Fifth Amendment ‘[n]o person shall […] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’.
- 45.
There is, however, a distinction between ‘reservations’ and ‘tribal trust lands’. Whereas initially, the term ‘reservation’ was synonymous with ‘tribal trust land’, this has changed in the course of the allotment policy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Under the General Allotment Act 1887 (Dawes Act) of 8 February 1887 (24 Stat. 388; now codified as 25 U.S.C. 331) reservations were to be divided into allotments for individual Indians. After a trust period of 25 years these allotments were to become freely alienable. Land exceeding the amount needed for allotment was to be opened up for settlement by non-Indians. Nowadays, some reservations are predominantly owned by private individuals while others are still entirely or predominantly held in trust by the federal government for the tribes; see Nash and Burke 2006, p. 125; Utter 2001, pp. 207–208.
- 46.
See United States versus Sioux Nation (1980) US Supreme Court, 448 U.S. 371, p. 408; Newton et al. (eds) 2005, pp. 1026–1030 with further references.
- 47.
- 48.
Lone Wolf versus Hitchcock (1903) US Supreme Court, 187 U.S. 553, p. 566.
- 49.
United States versus Sioux Nation (1980) US Supreme Court, 448 U.S. 371.
- 50.
An additional 180,000 km² are held by the Alaska Natives in form of Alaska Native Corporation Lands; see Utter 2001, p. 217.
- 51.
Sac & Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma versus United States (1967) United States Court of Claims, 383 F.2d 991, para 47.
- 52.
United States versus Santa Fe Pacific Railroad (1941) US Supreme Court, 314 U.S. p. 339, p. 347.
- 53.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians versus United States (1955) US Supreme Court, 348 U.S. p. 272, p. 277.
- 54.
Ibid., p. 279.
- 55.
Ibid., p. 285.
- 56.
Kelly Jr. 1975, pp. 671–672 and pp. 675–678.
- 57.
Wewaykum Indian Band versus Canada (2002) Supreme Court of Canada, 4 S.C.R. 245, paras 74 and 86.
- 58.
See Section 53 Indian Act and Regulations Providing for the Disposition of Surrendered Minerals Underlying Lands in Indian Reserves (C.R.C., c. 956).
- 59.
- 60.
Calder versus Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) Supreme Court of Canada S.C.R. p. 313, 328, 375 and 390.
- 61.
Guerin versus The Queen (1984) Supreme Court of Canada, 2 S.C.R. p. 335, 349 and 352 (Wilson J) and pp. 376-378 (Dickson J); see also Slattery 1987, p. 731 and pp. 748–749.
- 62.
Since during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, cession treaties had been concluded over the whole area of Ontario and the Prairie Provinces, potential aboriginal titles and rights can only exist in the northern territories, British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Maritime Provinces. Regarding the areas in the Northwest Territories claimed by the Dene and Métis, which are covered by Numbered Treaties No 8 (June 1899) and No 11 (June 1921) (printed in Reiter 1996, Ch. 7 pp. 42–59 and pp. 68–71) the Canadian federal government has concluded a CLC agreement based on the fact that these treaties have never been implemented; see also Isaac 2004, p. 94.
- 63.
Delgamuukw versus British Columbia (1997) Supreme Court of Canada, 3 S.C.R. 1010, para 168.
- 64.
Haida Nation versus British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004) Supreme Court of Canada, 3 S.C.R. 511, para 10; see also Taku River Tlingit First Nation versus British Columbia (Project Assessment Director) (2004) Supreme Court of Canada, 3 S.C.R. 550, para 21.
- 65.
Haida Nation versus British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004) Supreme Court of Canada, 3 S.C.R. 511, paras 39-47 (44); Taku River Tlingit First Nation versus British Columbia (Project Assessment Director) (2004) Supreme Court of Canada, 3 S.C.R. 550, paras 29–32.
- 66.
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement 1975 (Quebec); Northeastern Quebec Agreement 1978 (Quebec); Inuvialuit Final Agreement 1984 (Northwest Territories); Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement 1992 (Yukon, Northwest Territories); eleven Yukon First Nations Final Agreements under the Council for Yukon Indians Umbrella Final Agreement 1993 (Yukon); Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement 1993 (Northwest Territories); Nunavut Land Claims Agreement 1993 (Nunavut); Nisga’a Final Agreement 1998 (British Columbia); Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement 2003 (Northwest Territories); Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement 2005 (Newfoundland and Labrador); Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement 2006 (Quebec, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador); Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement 2007 (British Columbia) and the Maa-Nulth First Nations Final Agreement 2009 (British Columbia). For an overview of the several CLC Agreements, see for example Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011.
- 67.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) (1982, c. 11)) reads as follows:
-
(1)
The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed.
-
(2)
In this Act, ‘Aboriginal Peoples of Canada’ includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
-
(3)
For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ‘treaty rights’ includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
-
(4)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
-
(1)
- 68.
Mabo versus Queensland (No 2) (1992) High Court of Australia, 175 C.L.R. 1, para 62.
- 69.
Western Australia versus Ward (2002) High Court of Australia, 213 C.L.R. 1, paras 94–95.
- 70.
- 71.
Sections 29–31 NTA.
- 72.
Sections 35 and 38 NTA.
- 73.
Sections 39 NTA.
- 74.
Sections 42 NTA. Regarding the negotiation process, see also Stephenson 2002, pp. 57–59.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
Section 24 (1)(f) and (7)(a) Mining Act 1978 (WA) (1978 No 107). See Tehan 1993, p. 38 and pp. 41–43.
- 79.
1976 No 91.
- 80.
Section 16(9) Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966 (SA) (1966 No 87).
- 81.
Section 20 Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (SA) (1981 No 20); Section 21 Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 (SA) (1984 No 3).
- 82.
Adopted 26 June 1957, entered into force 2 June 1959, 328 UNTS 247.
- 83.
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (27 June 1989), http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169. Although ILO Convention 107 remains binding on those 17 States which have ratified it, it was declared closed for ratification after the adoption of ILO Convention No 169. In case a State has ratified both ILO Convention 107 and ILO Convention 169, ILO Convention 107 is completely replaced by the latter.
- 84.
The list of Member States is available under www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314:NO.
- 85.
- 86.
Baluarte 2004, p. 10.
- 87.
Emphasis added by author.
- 88.
Emphasis added by author.
- 89.
Emphasis added by author.
- 90.
See Articles 10 and 11 Charter of the United Nations.
- 91.
Barelli 2009, pp. 969–970.
- 92.
In the General Assembly 143 States voted in favour of UNDRIP with four States (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA) voting against and 11 abstaining. 34 States did not participate in the vote. All four States opposing UNDRIP have since then changed their vote in favour of the Declaration; see UN News Centre 2010.
- 93.
- 94.
Emphasis added by author.
- 95.
Emphasis added by author.
- 96.
UNDG 2008, p. 13.
- 97.
Ibid, p. 28.
- 98.
Ángela Poma Poma versus Peru (2009) UN Human Rights Committee, Comm No 1457/2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006, para 7.6.
- 99.
Apirana Mahuika et al. vs. New Zealand (2000) UN Human Rights Committee, Comm No 547/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993, para 9.8.
- 100.
Concluding Observations on Ecuador (2003), UN Doc. CERD/C/62/CO/2, para 16; see also Concluding Observations on Australia (2000), UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.101, para 9; Concluding Observations on the United States of America (2001), UN Doc. CERD/C/59/Misc.17/Rev.3, para 21; Concluding Observations on Ecuador (2008), UN Doc. CERD/C/ECU/CO/19, para 16; Concluding Observations on the Philippines (2009), UN Doc. CERD/C/PHL/CO/20, para 24; see also CERD Early Warning Urgent Action Letters to Belize, Brazil, Botswana, India, Indonesia, Canada, Niger, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines and the USA (73th–80th meeting, 2008–2012), in which the CERD repeatedly demanded compliance with the principle of FPIC. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/early-warning.htm.
- 101.
See for example Concluding Observations on Russia (2008), UN Doc. CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, para 24, in which Russia requested ‘[t]o seek the free informed consent of indigenous communities and give primary consideration to their special needs prior to granting licences to private companies for economic activities on territories traditionally occupied or used by those communities’; see also Concluding Observations on Chile (2009), UN Doc. CERD/C/CHL/CO/15-18, para 16.
- 102.
See also International Law Association 2012, pp. 4–6.
- 103.
Asian Development Bank 2009, para 33.
- 104.
Inter-American Development Bank 2006a, p. 6; emphasis added by author.
- 105.
Inter-American Development Bank 2006b, p. 39; see also ibid. p. 43.
- 106.
Emphasis added by author.
- 107.
Saramaka People versus Suriname (2007) IACtHR, Series C No 172, para 133.
- 108.
Ibid., para 134.
- 109.
Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on Behalf of Endorois Welfare Council versus Kenya (2010) ACommHPR, Comm No 276 / 2003, para 291.
- 110.
See Observaciones del Relator Especial sobre la situación de derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales de los indígenas acerca del proceso de revisión constitucional en el Ecuador, paras 39–40, printed in Anaya 2008, paras 39–40 (translation by Rodríguez-Piñero 2011, pp. 473–474; footnotes omitted).
- 111.
Anaya 2009, para 47; see also ibid., paras 48–49.
- 112.
UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2010, para 34.
- 113.
See for example Articles 13(1) and 14(1) ILO Convention 169 and ILO Committee of Experts, ‘Observations on Peru’ (adopted 2002, published 2003 (91st session)), para 7; see also Feiring 2009, p. 94; Articles 25 and 26 UNDRIP; Article XXIV(1); Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community versus Nicaragua (2001) IACtHR, Series C No 79, paras 149 and 151; Moiwana Community versus Suriname (2005) IACtHR, Series C No 124, paras 130–135; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community versus Paraguay (2006) IACtHR, Series C No 146, para 128; Saramaka People versus Suriname (2007) IACtHR, Series C No 172, paras 93 and 96; Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on Behalf of Endorois Welfare Council versus Kenya (2010) ACommHPR, Comm No 276 / 2003, paras 190 and 196–209; Cobo 1986, paras 511–520.
- 114.
Currently, the province of Saskatchewan is the only political unit within Canada with active uranium mines. Since the entire area of Saskatchewan is covered by colonial cession treaties, it is generally assumed that indigenous peoples cannot claim any aboriginal rights and titles within this province.
- 115.
Regarding the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination, see Articles 1(2) and 55 Charter of the United Nations; Article 1(1) and (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171; Article 1(1) and (2) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3. That the right of peoples to self-determination extends to indigenous peoples is made clear in para 17 of the preamble of UNDRIP and in Article 3 UNDRIP.
References
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2005) Report of the African commission’s working group of experts on indigenous populations/communities. www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/African_Commission_book.pdf
Anaya J (2004a) International human rights and indigenous peoples: the move toward the multicultural state. Ariz J Int Comp Law 21:13–62
Anaya J (2004b) Indigenous peoples in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Anaya J (2008) Report of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples: addendum: summary of cases transmitted to governments and replies received. UN Doc. A/HRC/9/9/Add.1, Annex 1
Anaya J (2009) Report of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34
Asian Development Bank (2009) Safeguard policy statement. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2009/Safeguard-Policy-Statement-June2009.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009) 3238.0: experimental estimates and projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991 to 2009. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/7B8E83A5E4FFADCCCA25762A001CFB79?OpenDocument
Baluarte DC (2004) Balancing indigenous rights and a state’s right to develop in Latin America: the inter-American rights regime and ILO convention 169. Sustain Dev Law Policy 4(2):9–15
Barelli M (2009) The role of soft law in the international legal system: the case of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. ICLQ 58:957–983
Barnhart RK (ed) (2003) Chambers dictionary of etymology. Chambers, Edinburgh
Bernauer W (2012) Uranium territory. The dominion. www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4532
Cameco Corp. (2012) Uranium price: spot price history. www.cameco.com/investors/uranium_prices_and_spot_price/spot_price_complete_history/
CBS News (2011) Uranium mining rejected at Iqaluit public forum. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/03/18/nunavut-uranium-iqaluit-forum.html
Charters C (2007) The road to the adoption of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. NZYIL 4:121–133
Churchill W, LaDuke W (1992) Native North America: the political economy of radioactive colonialism. In: Jaimes MA (ed) The state of native America: genocide, colonization, and resistance. South End Press, Boston, pp 241–266
Cobo JRM (1986) Study of the UN special rapporteur of the sub-commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4
Cole MD (2009) Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht indigener Völker: eine völkerrechtliche Bestandsaufnahme am Beispiel der Native Americans in den USA. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin
Daes E-I A (1996) Working paper by the chairperson and special rapporteur of the UN working group on indigenous populations on the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1996/2
Dannenmaier E (2008) Beyond indigenous property rights: exploring the emergence of a distinctive connection doctrine. Wash Univ Law Rev 86:53–110
Diehl P (2011) Uranium mining and milling wastes: an introduction. www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html
Dow C, Gardiner-Garden J (1998) Background paper 15 1997–1998: indigenous affairs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America, Norway and Sweden. www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1997-98/98bp15.htm
Dowie M (2009) Harm subsidies. Guernica. www.guernicamag.com/features/enemy_mine/
Dowie M (2009) Nuclear caribou. January/February 2009 Orion. www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4247/
Eichstaedt PH (1994) If you poison us. Red Crane Books, Santa Fe
Feiring B (2009) Indigenous & tribal people’s rights in practice: a guide to ILO Convention No. 169. www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—normes/documents/publication/wcms_106474.pdf
Frost SE (1998) Waste management in the uranium mining industry. www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/frost.htm
Honor the Earth (2012) Annual report 2011–2012. www.honorearth.org/sites/honorearth.org/files/2011-12_HTE_AR%20final.pdf
Hualapai Department of Natural Resources (—) National Environmental Policy Act. hualapai.org/nepa.html
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (1992) Schedule of Indian bands, reserves and settlements including membership and population, location and area, in hectares. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2011) General briefing note on Canada’s self-government and land claims policies and the status of negotiations. www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/pubs/gbn/gbn-eng.asp
Inter-American Development Bank (2006a) Operational policy 765 on indigenous peoples. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=2032081
Inter-American Development Bank (2006b) Strategy 2387-5 for indigenous development. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=2032081
International Law Association (2012) Final report Sofia (2012): rights of indigenous peoples. www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1024
Isaac T (2004) Aboriginal law: commentary, cases and materials. Purich, Saskatoon
Johansen BE (1997) The high cost of uranium in Navajoland. Akwesasne Notes New Series 2(2):10–12. Reproduced at www.ratical.org/radiation/UraniumInNavLand.html
Kelly DG Jr (1975) Indian title: the rights of American Natives in land they have occupied since time immemorial’. Columbia Law Rev 75:655–686
Kingsbury B (1998) Indigenous peoples’ in international law: a constructivist approach to the Asian controversy. AJIL 92:414–457
LaDuke W (2009) Uranium mining, native resistance, and the greener path. Orion (January/Februray 2009), www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4248
LaDuke W (2010) Building a green economy (talk at Missouri State University, April 2010). www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50ke0xaxy4
McNamara P (2009) Nuclear genocide in Canada: part 1. www.porthopehistory.com/nucleargenocide/nucleargenocide_index.htm
McRae H et al (2009) Indigenous legal issues: commentary and materials, 4th edn. Reuters, Sydney
Mitchell J (1997) Forest Service national resource guide to American Indian and Alaska Native relations. www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/
Nash DR, Burke CE (2006) The changing landscape of Indian estate planning and probate: the American Indian Probate Reform Act. Seattle J Soc Justice 5:121–179
Nettheim G (1999) The search for certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth). UNSW Law J 22:564–584
Newton NJ et al (eds) (2005) Cohen’s handbook of federal Indian law, 3rd edn. LexisNexis/Matthew Bender, Newark
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (2007) Policy concerning uranium mining in Nunavut, http://makitanunavut.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ntiuraniumpolicy.pdf
Paladin Energy, company profile (2012) Labrador: an emerging uranium district in Canada. Mining Journal (Supplement April 2012), www.nr.gov.nl.ca/nr/mines/investments/Uranium_2012_scr%2014.pdf
Parliament of Australia—Senate Committee (1997) Uranium mining and milling in Australia: indigenous concerns, www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=uranium_ctte/report/d07.htm#52
Pollack DP (2001) Indigenous land in Australia: a quantitative assessment of indigenous landholdings in 2000, http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/DP/2001_DP221.pdf
Reiter RA (1996) The law of Canadian Indian treaties, 2nd edn. Juris Analytica, Edmonton
Rodríguez-Piñero L (2011) The Inter-American system and the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples: mutual reinforcement. In: Allen S (ed) Reflections on the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Hart, Oxford, pp 457–483
Rogers S (2011) Rosy financial future lies ahead for NTI: Towtongie. Nunatsiaq Online, www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674rosy_financial_future_ahead_for_nti_towtongie/
Segal A (2012) Uranium mining and the Navajo Nation: legal injustice. South Calif Rev Law Soc Justice 21:355–397
Simpson T (1997) Indigenous heritage and self-determination: the cultural and intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. IWGIA, Kopenhagen
Slattery B (1987) Understanding aboriginal title. Can Bar Rev 66:727–783
Southwest Research and Information Center (2008) Communities and uranium: the work continues. 9(2) Voices from the Earth. www.sric.org/voices/2008/v9n2/Voices_Summer08_uranium.pdf
Statistics Canada (2009) Employment and unemployment rates for the First Nations identity population and the registered Indian population (aged 25 to 54) living on and off reserve, Canada, 2001 and 2006. www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-559/table/t7-eng.cfm
Stephenson MA (2002) Resource development on aboriginal lands in Canada and Australia. James Cook Univ Law Rev 9:21–73
Tehan M (1993) Practising land rights: the Pitjantjatjara in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. Aust Q 65(4):34–54
Triggs G (1999) Australia’s indigenous peoples and international law: validity of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth). Melb Univ Law Rev 23:372–415
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009) State of the world’s indigenous peoples. United Nations, New York, UN Doc. ST/ESA/328
UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2010) Progress report on the study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making. UN Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2
UN News Centre (2010) United States’ backing for indigenous rights treaty hailed at UN (press release 17 December 2010), www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37102
UNDG (2008) Guidelines on indigenous peoples’ issues, www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdf
US Congress - Senate (2010) Hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs: S. Hrg. 111-580: unemployment on Indian reservations at 50 percent—the urgent need to create jobs in Indian country (106th Congress, 28 January 2010), www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/January2820102.pdf
Utter J (2001) American Indians: answers to today’s questions. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
Vestergaard C, Bourgouin F (2012) Should Greenland mine its uranium. April 2012 DIIS Policy Brief, http://subweb.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Policybriefs2012/PB_should-Greenland-mine
World Bank (2005) Operational Policy 4.10: indigenous peoples, www.worldbank.org
World Nuclear Association (2011) The nuclear renaissance, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html
World Nuclear Association (2012) World uranium mining, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html
Xemplar Energy Corp. (2007) Uranium: the global energy market, http://xemplar.ca/uranium_global_energy.php
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Göcke, K. (2014). Indigenous Peoples in the Nuclear Age: Uranium Mining on Indigenous' Lands. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume I. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-019-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-020-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
