No Going Back: The Impact of ILO Convention 169 on Latin America in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we assess the impact of the International Labour Organization’s 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO C-169) since it entered into effect in 1991. We examine the Convention’s impact on selected key Latin American states which have ratified the Convention: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. We analyze each country’s constitutional order, legislative and jurisprudential developments, as well as different policy developments concerning indigenous peoples and their rights. We also trace the development of indigenous peoples’ rights in the same period in two non-ratifying states—Australia and Canada—along the same dimensions. We compare the impacts that these laws and policies have had on indigenous peoples’ rights, both in the six Latin American signatories as well as in Australia and Canada. In particular, we examine the indigenous right to political participation and self-government, as well as on the right to land, territories and natural resources. In doing so we assess the right of indigenous peoples to prior consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and to participate in the benefits provided by resource extraction on their lands and territories. We then analyze and discuss the impact that ILO C-169 has had on non-ratifying states, in the case of in Australia and Canada. We argue that ILO C-169 has had an indirect but nevertheless decisive impact on these tow states expressed in legal developments, jurisprudence and policies that concern indigenous peoples. We conclude that ILO C-169 represents a key step in the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. Whether directly or indirectly, and notwithstanding the many gaps still left to address, it demonstrates that there is no going back on indigenous peoples’ rights.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".