178 Giulia Sajeva
21 On the possibility of applying the supremacy of human rights norms over norms
regulating different matters in the context of UNDROP and intellectual property
rights and other rights protecting seeds of plant for food and agriculture, see Golay
and Bessa (2019, p. 25) and Golay (2019).
22 ICCAs – a term that is not an acronym – are “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities”, also called “territories of life” (Sajeva, 2019).
23 See for example the famous proposal of Wilson (2016) to turn half the Earth into a
strictly protected area. For a critique on this proposal see Kothari (2020), and for a
much-needed plea for a different approach to conservation see Fischer et al. (2017).
24 In his book, Bavikatte (2015) mentions the confluence of three streams: the
post-development movement; the commons movement, and movement for the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (ibid., p. 16).
25 Biocultural rights may or may not move to the next stage of a fully recognized human
right in international law, however, they deserve attention to understand their potential implications for indigenous peoples and local communities.
26 In 2016, in Opinion T-622, the Colombian Supreme Court made reference to
Bavikatte’s work and acknowledged the biocultural rights of the peoples and communities living alongside the Atrato River (see Castillo Galvis et al., 2019). On this
case, also see, this book, Chapters 1 and 11.
27 Interest in the idea of biocultural rights has largely increased in the last few years, particularly because of the Colombia Supreme Court’s first explicit reference to them in
the Atrato case. For literature making reference to biocultural rights, see Macpherson
et al. (2020); Carrillo Yap (2021); Gimenez (2020); Millaleo Hernández (2020); and
Gilbert (2018).
28 The foundations of a right are here understood as the very reasons/interests/needs
that a right was grounded upon or was recognized for (whether these are moral, legal,
or political in nature).
29 Whether it is appropriate or not to treat nature as a holder of rights is a complex
issue that is not relevant for the purpose of this paper. For the treatment of its main
contours, see Stone (1972); Corrigan and Oksanen (2021); Studley and Bleisch (2018);
and Kauffman and Martin (2019).
30 Quite explicatory is Article 8( j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity:
Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: […] Subject to
national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations, and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;
as well as Article 10(c): “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: […] Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or
sustainable use requirements”.
31 Of course, the rights in the biocultural rights basket are also limited – as all other
human rights – by other human rights and by interests and values that are considered as
particularly important for the general interest. For an analysis of the difference between
classic external limits and biocultural rights internal limits, see Sajeva (2019).
32 See Sajeva (2018, Chapter 5).
References
Abrusci, E. (2017). Judicial Fragmentation on Indigenous Property Rights: Causes,
Consequences and Solutions. International Journal of Human Rights, 21(5), 550–564.
Adams, W. M., & Milligan, M. (Eds.) (2003). Decolonizing Nature. Strategies for Conservation
in a Post-Colonial Era. Earthscan.
21 On the possibility of applying the supremacy of human rights norms over norms
regulating different matters in the context of UNDROP and intellectual property
rights and other rights protecting seeds of plant for food and agriculture, see Golay
and Bessa (2019, p. 25) and Golay (2019).
22 ICCAs – a term that is not an acronym – are “territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities”, also called “territories of life” (Sajeva, 2019).
23 See for example the famous proposal of Wilson (2016) to turn half the Earth into a
strictly protected area. For a critique on this proposal see Kothari (2020), and for a
much-needed plea for a different approach to conservation see Fischer et al. (2017).
24 In his book, Bavikatte (2015) mentions the confluence of three streams: the
post-development movement; the commons movement, and movement for the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (ibid., p. 16).
25 Biocultural rights may or may not move to the next stage of a fully recognized human
right in international law, however, they deserve attention to understand their potential implications for indigenous peoples and local communities.
26 In 2016, in Opinion T-622, the Colombian Supreme Court made reference to
Bavikatte’s work and acknowledged the biocultural rights of the peoples and communities living alongside the Atrato River (see Castillo Galvis et al., 2019). On this
case, also see, this book, Chapters 1 and 11.
27 Interest in the idea of biocultural rights has largely increased in the last few years, particularly because of the Colombia Supreme Court’s first explicit reference to them in
the Atrato case. For literature making reference to biocultural rights, see Macpherson
et al. (2020); Carrillo Yap (2021); Gimenez (2020); Millaleo Hernández (2020); and
Gilbert (2018).
28 The foundations of a right are here understood as the very reasons/interests/needs
that a right was grounded upon or was recognized for (whether these are moral, legal,
or political in nature).
29 Whether it is appropriate or not to treat nature as a holder of rights is a complex
issue that is not relevant for the purpose of this paper. For the treatment of its main
contours, see Stone (1972); Corrigan and Oksanen (2021); Studley and Bleisch (2018);
and Kauffman and Martin (2019).
30 Quite explicatory is Article 8( j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity:
Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: […] Subject to
national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations, and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;
as well as Article 10(c): “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: […] Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or
sustainable use requirements”.
31 Of course, the rights in the biocultural rights basket are also limited – as all other
human rights – by other human rights and by interests and values that are considered as
particularly important for the general interest. For an analysis of the difference between
classic external limits and biocultural rights internal limits, see Sajeva (2019).
32 See Sajeva (2018, Chapter 5).
References
Abrusci, E. (2017). Judicial Fragmentation on Indigenous Property Rights: Causes,
Consequences and Solutions. International Journal of Human Rights, 21(5), 550–564.
Adams, W. M., & Milligan, M. (Eds.) (2003). Decolonizing Nature. Strategies for Conservation
in a Post-Colonial Era. Earthscan.