Indigenous Rights Before the Inter-American Court of Court of Human Rights: a Call for a Pro Individual Interpretation

• Author: Valério de Oliveira Mazzuoli/Dilton Ribeiro
• Pages: 138-162

138

X ANUÁRIO BRASILEIRO DE DIREITO INTERNACIONAL

INDIGENOUS RIGHTS BEFORE THE INTER-AMER ICAN COURT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS: A CALL FOR A PRO INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION

Valerio De Oliveira Mazzuoli1

Dilton Ribeiro2

ABSTRACT

In its traditional conception, international law regulates relations between

sovereign states. This definition is challenged by current developments of

international law, especially in the area of human rights. The human person is

arguably a bearer of rights and duties under international law. However, recognizing

this individual legal personality is not enough. International bodies and treaties need

to acknowledge that individuals are subjects of international law within a pluralistic

world. In other words, the law of nations must crystalize the idea that individuals are,

with all their cultural differences, subjects of international law. The Inter-American

Court of Human Rights recognizes this view through its pro homine principle, which

informs that human rights instruments must seek the best possible protection for the

human person. In this interpretative framework, the Inter-American Court crystalized

a body of norms protecting indigenous rights and their cultural and historical

backgrounds within the general protection system of the American Convention. The

extensive interpretation of rights articulates a new view on the individual legal

personality. Accordingly, this article seeks to understand this approach based on key

decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on indigenous cases.

Keywords: International Law, International Human Rights; Indigenous Rights, Inter-

American Court Of Human Rights.

RESUMO

Na sua concepção tradicional, o direito internacional regula as relações entre

Estados soberanos. Esta definição é desafiado por desenvolvimentos atuais do direito

internacional, em especial na área dos direitos humanos. A pessoa humana é, sem

dúvida, um portador de direitos e deveres sob o direito internacional. No entanto,

reconhecendo essa personalidade jurídica individual não é suficiente. Órgãos e

tratados internacionais devem reconhecer que os indivíduos são sujeitos de direito

1International Law and Human Rights Professor ( Federal University of Mato Grosso, Brazil), Postdoctoral

Fellow in Law and Political Sciences (University of Lisbon, Portugal), PhD Holder summa cum laude in

International Law (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil), LLM (São Paulo State University,

Brazil). E-mail:mazzuoli@ufmt.br.

2PhD Candidate (Queen’s University, Canada), LLM (University of Manitoba, Canada ), LLB (Southwest

Bahia State University, Br azil). E-mail: 11drfr@queensu.ca.

139

Indigenous Rights before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: a Call for a Pro Individual

Interpretation

internacional dentro de um mundo pluralista. Em outras palavras, o direito das

nações deve cristalizar a idéia de que os indivíduos são, com todas as suas diferenças

culturais, sujeitos de direito internacional. A Corte Interamericana de Direitos

Humanos reconhece essa visão através do seu princípio pro homine, que informa que

os instrumentos de direitos humanos devem buscar a melhor protecção possível para

a pessoa humana. Neste quadro interpretativo, a Corte Interamericana cristalizado um

conjunto de normas de proteção dos direitos indígenas e de suas origens culturais e

históricas dentro do sistema da Convenção Americana de proteção geral. A

interpretação extensiva dos direitos articula uma nova visão sobre a personalidade

jurídica individual. Assim, este artigo procura compreender esta abordagem com

base em decisões importantes da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos sobre

casos indígenas.

Palavras-Chave: Direito Internacional, Direitos Humanos Internacionais; Direitos

Indígenas; Corte Interamericana De Direitos Humanos.

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction –2. Inter-American system of human rights in a

multicultural world –3. The application of a multicultural and individual-centered

interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights –4. Conclusion.

INTRODUCTION

The recognition of multiculturalism is unquestionably one of the most

significant post-Second World War movements stemmed from the notion of

individual personality and human centrality. It is intrinsically linked to the

conception of the human person as a bearer of cultural characteristics that are

indispensable to a full and useful existence and that, consequently, must always be

observed and respected. Political philosophy, especially after the 1980s, made room

for debate and the development of multiple conceptions of multiculturalism. This

debate, which soon later became a concern of law and for lawyers, was strongly

rooted in a divergence between communitarians and liberals, and many questions and

different philosophical theories and perspectives still surround this discussion.3

3In political philosophy, the debate on multiculturalism, which relates to a body of ideas concerning legal

accommodation and policies of ethnic diversity, is strongly divided between the liberal and communitarian

approaches. Liberals essent ially argue that individuals mu st be free to decide their own conc ept of good

life and not be constrained by any enforced or inherited condition. Conversely, communitarians affirm that

every human being is connected through roles in social relations. Kymlicka argues differently by asserting

that debates concerning individuals and groups reach a consensus on liberalism and democracy, but

disagree on the interpretation of these principles in multi ethnic and multinational societi es. For a general

view on the concept of mult iculturalism, on the lib eral and communitarian dichotom y, and on the

characteristics or argument of mu lticulturalism, see ,e.g., Charles Taylor, Interculturalism or

Multiculturalism?, 38 PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM 413 (2012); JOHN ARTHUR, THE

OXFORD HANDBOOK OF PRACTICAL ETHICS (Hugh LaFollette ed., 200 5); BHIKHU PAREKH,

RETHINKING MULTICULTURALISM (2000); MICHAEL MURPHY, MULTICULTURALISM: A

CRITICAL INTRODUCTION (2012); Int erview by Verena Risse and Martin Vezér with Will Kymlicka,