Litigating Indigenous Dispossession in the Global Economy: Law's Promises and Pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on documents collected with local community members and advocates over the course of more than a decade, this paper begins by describing the legal processes whereby the Campesino Community San Andres de Negritos allegedly “consented” to its own dispossession in favor of the large foreign-owned Yanacocha Mine located in Northern Peru. It frames this story within the larger unfolding story of Agrarian Reform, neoliberal globalization, transnational resource extraction, the rise of community-based activism, and the emergence of Indigenous rights in international law and domestic constitutions in Latin America. In this highly-textured context, this paper describes how advocates developed an innovative rights framework for problematizing the Negritos Community’s dispossession and challenging the legality of Yanacocha’s operations. This unprecedented turn to the law ultimately reveals a disjuncture between the expansion of Indigenous rights recognition at one level, and the absence of appropriate causes of action and procedures for operationalizing these rights on the ground. As the Negritos Community litigates its case against one of the most powerful mining companies in the world, it has faced numerous challenges inside and outside of the courtroom. This paper critically analyzes the response of the state, the company and the domestic legal system. It focuses in particular on the limitation period procedural rule and the formalist and discriminatory view of consent that has permeated the courts’ decisions to date. In formulating this critique, the paper theorizes “the dynamics of dispossession” and reflects on human rights law’s promise and pitfalls as an instrument of global economic justice. The conclusion articulates this study’s findings and consequences for future research and law reform.
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 | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".