THE RIGHT TO CONSULTATION AND FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT IN LATIN AMERICA: THE GOVERNMENTALITY OF THE EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades, indigenous peoples in Latin America have adopted a human rights approach which demands the ratification of the International Labour Organization Convention 169 (C169), a convention that has been successfully ratified by most of Latin American countries. Most of the literature on the governance of natural resource extraction has focused on different governmental administrations and ecological policies. However, there is still a need to analyse the role of the right to consultation and ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) within this governance structure. Using the theoretical framework of governmentality, this article aims to analyze the continuities and ruptures, as well as the tensions and advances of this form of governance by focusing on the rationalities, practices and technologies of government and power relations at play in the ratification of C169 and the implementation of FPIC in several Latin America countries. The main conclusion is that, while indigenous peoples are gaining more participation in and influence on the governance of extractive projects, national governments have colonized the right to FPIC, rendering it subordinate to their neoliberal and post-neoliberal projects. This has occurred through a rationality based on development and national interest, the use of biopolitics, ontopolitics and disciplinary power, as well as institutional and legal reforms as technologies of government – all of this having yielded little substantive implementation in comparison to a more established normative implementation. Consequently, the governmentality of most of these Latin-American countries corresponds to authoritarian governmentality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".