Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Who is indigenous? ‘Peoplehood’ and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous identity

Who is indigenous? ‘Peoplehood’ and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous... Debate within global forums over establishing definitional standards for indigenous peoples versus an unlimited right of indigenous self-identification has exposed something of a dilemma over standard setting in international law. Requiring strict, definitional standards excludes some indigenous groups from the very protections they need, while reifying their identities. Yet failure to establish an accepted deflnition of indigenous peoples leads to host-state concerns over applying international legal instruments to the world's indigenous populations. After surveying indigenous definitions developed by academicians in the fleld of nationalism/international law as well as practitioners from IGOs and NGOs, it is determined that a balance between self-identiflcation and establishing a working definition of indigenous peoples is possible. Utilizing a model of ‘Peoplehood’ refined by Holm, Pearson and Chavis (2003), the article presents a new working deflnition of indigenous peoples that is both flexible and dynamic. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nationalism & Ethnic Politics Taylor & Francis

Who is indigenous? ‘Peoplehood’ and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous identity

Nationalism & Ethnic Politics , Volume 9 (1): 26 – Mar 1, 2003
26 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/who-is-indigenous-peoplehood-and-ethnonationalist-approaches-to-jP2skB4bCE

References (29)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1557-2986
eISSN
1353-7113
DOI
10.1080/13537110412331301365
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Debate within global forums over establishing definitional standards for indigenous peoples versus an unlimited right of indigenous self-identification has exposed something of a dilemma over standard setting in international law. Requiring strict, definitional standards excludes some indigenous groups from the very protections they need, while reifying their identities. Yet failure to establish an accepted deflnition of indigenous peoples leads to host-state concerns over applying international legal instruments to the world's indigenous populations. After surveying indigenous definitions developed by academicians in the fleld of nationalism/international law as well as practitioners from IGOs and NGOs, it is determined that a balance between self-identiflcation and establishing a working definition of indigenous peoples is possible. Utilizing a model of ‘Peoplehood’ refined by Holm, Pearson and Chavis (2003), the article presents a new working deflnition of indigenous peoples that is both flexible and dynamic.

Journal

Nationalism & Ethnic PoliticsTaylor & Francis

Published: Mar 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.