ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OF THE ANÁLISIS DE ARGUMENTACIÓN … · Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int....

Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OF THE POSITION OF COLOMBIA REGARDING

THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES*

ANÁLISIS DE ARGUMENTACIÓN SOBRE LA POSICIÓN DE COLOMBIA FRENTE A LA

DECLARACIÓN DE NACIONES UNIDAS SOBRE LOS DERECHOS DE LOS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS

José Fernando Gómez-roJas**

Reception date: 10 de febrero de 2010Acceptance date: 12 de marzo de 2010

To ciTe This arTicle / Para ciTar esTe arTículoJosé Fernando Gómez-Rojas, Argument Analysis of the Position of Colombia regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 16 Inter-national Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 143-176 (2010).

ISSN:1692-8156

* This article is and adjusted version of a paper elaborated for the Discourse Analysis: Principles and Methods course, led by Professor Des Gasper, during my Masters Degree in Development Studies at the Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, the Netherlands, 2008-09. I would like to thank Professor Gasper for his careful feedback on the structure of this paper.

** Bachelor of Laws, LLB, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (2004). Specialist in Analysis and Resolution of Armed Conflicts, Universidad de los Andes (2007). Masters Degree in Development Studies, Specialization in Human Rights, Development, and Social Justice, Minor in Civic Action and Social Movements, Institute of Social Studies, ISS (2009). Cur-rently, consultant lawyer in human rights, development, and international law.

Contact: [email protected].


144 José Fernando Gómez-roJas

absTracT

This is the final result of an investigation. This article seeks to analyse the discourse elaborated by the Colombian Government concerning the adoption of the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the General Assembly, on September 13th, 2007. In doing so, Stephen Edelson Toulmin and Michael Scriven's methods of argument analysis will be proposed, basically stressing on the clarification of some meanings, the (un)stated conclusions, the (un)stated assumptions, and an overall evaluation of the discourse. The main purpose of this docu-ment is to analyse the relationship between texts, co-texts, and contexts, and their influence within politics and international law. The analysis of these interactions would help policy-makers and academics gain more room for manoeuvre in regard to problem and priority-setting scenarios.

Key words author: Indigenous peoples, United Nations, Declaration, discourse, text, context.

Key words plus: Indians of South America, Civil Rights, Discourse Analy-sis, Indian's Rights.


145The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles

Resumen

Éste es el resultado final de una investigación. El presente artículo pretende analizar el discurso elaborado por el Gobierno colombiano en relación con la adopción del texto de Declaración de Naciones Unidas sobre los Dere-chos de los Pueblos Indígenas en el marco de la Asamblea General, el 13 de septiembre de 2007. Para ello, se proponen los métodos de Stephen Edelson Toulmin y Michael Scriven sobre análisis argumentativo, para aclarar el significado de algunas frases, identificar las conclusiones y supuestos directos e indirectos, así como una evaluación general del discurso estudiado. El pro-pósito principal de este artículo es intentar analizar la relación entre textos, co-textos y contextos, y la influencia de estos conceptos frente a la política y el derecho internacional. El análisis de estas interacciones puede ayudar a quienes diseñan políticas públicas o a la academia, con el fin de lograr un mayor margen de maniobra en relación con escenarios de identificación de problemas y prioridades.

Palabras clave autor: Pueblos indígenas, Naciones Unidas, Declaración, discurso, texto, contexto.

Palabras clave descriptor: Indígenas de Suramérica, derechos civiles, análisis del discurso, derechos de los indígenas.

summary

inTroducTion.- i. colombia and The un declaraTion.- A. Quick context.- B. Difficulties of the text: text and co-text.- C. Text structure.- D. Overall evaluation of the discourse.- II. a new PoliTical PosiTion? A. Unilateral declaration of support to the UN Declaration.- B. Text analysis.- C. Overall evaluation of the discourse.- conclusions.- biblioGraPhy.



inTroducTion

The study of development policy is normally not connected with policy discourse and methods of analysis.1 Effective discourse analysis requires systematic attention to both text and context.2 Furthermore, when talking about policy practice, it is crucial to mention framing, which means “what and who is actually included, and what and who is ignored and excluded”.3 Accord-ing to Gasper,4 “this framing cannot be settled by instrumental rationality, precisely because it frames that”.

In that sense, this article is an attempt to study the formal dis-course of the Colombian Government vis-à-vis the international community with respect to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (herein after the UN Declaration). The article consists of two main parts. In Part I, a brief context of the Declaration will be mentioned. Secondly, I will pose the difficulties found when analysing this discourse. Thirdly, the text of the vote explanation of the Colombian Government re-garding its abstention from voting (whether against or in favour of) the UN Declaration will be presented. Thereafter, I will structure the text in distinct parts in order to provide the meanings of key words, the main conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and the overall evaluation of the text. In Part II, a similar analysis will be presented regarding a recent unilateral declaration of the Colombian Government before the UN General Secretary concern-ing the support of this Government to the principles and values of the UN Declaration. Finally, some conclusions will be made.

1 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).


3 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 6 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).

4 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe and Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).



i. colombia and The un declaraTion

A. Quick context

Texts often depend on contexts.5 The Declaration process was not pacific due to long-term difficulties in terms of opposing interests between (nation) states and indigenous communities, as it can be described as follows:

• With an overwhelming majority of 143 votes in favour, only 4 negative votes cast (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) and 11 abstentions, the United Nations General As-sembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13th, 2007. The Declaration has been negotiated through more than 20 years between nation-states and Indigenous Peoples.6

• Since its establishment in 1995, the Working Group on the Draft Declaration has met annually but although the adapta-tion of the draft Declaration was recommended in the First International Decade's programme of activities, this did not happen. In 2005 the mandate of the Working Group was renewed but the continued lack of progress in adopting the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a cause of great concern.7

• Finally, September 13th, 2007 is the date when a final text was adopted by the UN General Assembly through the Resolu-tion 61/295.

5 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings − A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).

6 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (consulted on February 25th, 2009).

7 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (consulted on February 25th, 2009).



B. Difficulties of the text: text and co-text

Given that the text under analysis consists of more than 1400 words, it is not easy to choose which part deserves more consid-eration than another, especially due to an apparently cohesive structure in the argumentation of the Colombian government. Therefore, it is not easy to separate a text from a co-text which could be often inter-related. I chose as the text the main reasons why, from the Government's point of view, the UN Declaration would contradict the interests/values of the Colombian state. Consequently, the co-text consists of the previous consider-ations (“grounds” in terms of Stephen Edelson Toulmin)8 that provided the justifications for the abstention of the Colombian Government.

C. Text structure

I found that I needed —wanted— to concentrate on a sub-section of the text. It depended on what I considered forms a sufficiently self-contained section, as it involves all the components of an argument analysis. Having recognised the difficulties encoun-tered when attempting to choose between text and a co-text, I decided to separate the eighteen (18) paragraphs of the discourse as follows:a. Particularities of the Colombian Indigenous Peoples and their

national legal protection (paragraphs 1 to 5). b. The position of the Colombian State in the international arena

regarding indigenous issues (paragraph 6). c. Cooperation with the Colombian Indigenous Peoples and

policy-making (paragraphs 7 to 8). d. The arguments (grounds) for the abstention of Colombia

(paragraphs 9 to 17). e. Final statements (paragraph 18).

8 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings −A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).



Herein I reproduce the full text of the explanation of vote:9

1. “The Colombian State has incorporated into its legal system a broad range of rights aimed at recognizing, guaranteeing and implementing the rights and constitutional principles of pluralism and national ethnic and cultural diversity.

2. In the framework of its 1991 Constitution, Colombia has dis-tinguished itself as one of the most advanced countries with regard to the recognition of the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to the indigenous legislation index of the Inter-American Development Bank, Colombia is first in terms of the quality of its legislation in the sphere of cultural, economic, territorial and environmental rights, as well as in terms of the overall quality of its indigenous legislation.

3. Our diversity is reflected in the existence of 84 Indigenous Peoples. According to the 2005 census, some 3.4 per cent of Colombians identify themselves as belonging to indigenous communities. For the Colombian State, the recognition of the traditional territories of those communities is fundamental. Today there are 710 reservations occupying an area of ap-proximately 32 million hectares, corresponding to 27 per cent of the national territory. By the end of 2007, that area should extend to 29 per cent of the national territory. Those properties cannot be proscribed, seized or transferred. Indigenous peoples access to collective or individual land ownership is regulated by legal and administrative provisions guaranteeing that right, in keeping with the State's objectives and with principles such as the social and ecological functions of ownership and State ownership of the subsoil and nonrenewable natural resources.

4. In these territories, Indigenous Peoples carry out their own political, social and legal organization. By constitutional mandate, their authorities are recognized as public State authorities having a special nature. As far as the legal area

9 United Nations General Assembly, 61st session, September 13th, 2007, resolution A/61/PV.107.



is concerned, a special indigenous jurisdiction is recognized, which is significant progress compared with that made by other countries in the region.

5. Reservations participate in the central Government's budgetary transfer system. It should also be noted that all members of these communities are covered by the State-subsidized health service. In addition, the law establishes that Indigenous Peoples are exempt from compulsory military service —an essential provision aimed at preserving their cultural identity. And there are special electoral districts for Indigenous Peoples in national political elections.

6. In the international context, Colombia has been a leading country in implementing the prior-consultation provisions of International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, to which our country is a party. Since 2003, 71 prior-consultation proceedings have been undertaken for natural resource pros-pecting and extraction projects and other development projects in established indigenous territories.

7. Cooperation with indigenous communities is a priority for the State. In this area, there are permanent forums such as the national coordination board, the national rights commis-sion, the Amazon regional board and the national territories board. Those forums have made it possible to jointly elaborate norms and policies concerning indigenous communities from a multiethnic and inclusive perspective.

8. In order to continue these activities over the long term, the State, with participation by indigenous experts, is currently developing a comprehensive policy for indigenous communities, crucial aspects of which are related to, inter alia, territories, human rights and self-government.

9. In the General Assembly, Colombia has reaffirmed its commit-ment to the rights of indigenous communities. My delegation nevertheless supported the initiative to postpone a decision on the Declaration, because we believed that it was important to seek an agreement enabling us to adopt a Declaration accept-able to all countries —a text that would be adopted by consen-



sus and would conform to general international and national normative frameworks. We even supported the establishment of a forum that would have enabled indigenous communities to participate in the discussion. Regrettably, the most recent consultative process in the Assembly was characterized by a lack of transparency, a lack of willingness to negotiate and a lack of openness, which did not permit such a consensus to be reached.

10. The Colombian constitution and body of law, as well as the international instruments ratified by our country, conform with most provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, while the Declaration is not a legally binding norm for the State and in no way constitutes the establishment of conventional or customary provisions that are binding for Colombia, my delegation finds some aspects of the Declara-tion to be in direct contradiction with the Colombian internal legal system, which obliged us to abstain in the voting. I shall refer briefly to some of these.

11. For example, article 30 of the Declaration provides that effec-tive consultations must be held with indigenous communities prior to using their lands or territories for military activities. Under the mandate set out in our constitution, the State secu-rity forces must be present throughout the national territory to provide and guarantee to all inhabitants protection of and respect for their lives, honour and property, both individual and collective. Protecting the rights and integrity of indigenous communities depends to a great extent on security in their ter-ritories. In that connection, instructions have been issued to the security forces to fulfil their obligation to protect the rights of such communities. Nevertheless, this provision of the Declara-tion contradicts the principle of the necessity and effectiveness of the State security forces, preventing the fulfillment of their institutional mission. That is not acceptable to Colombia.

12. Moreover, articles 19 and 32 of the Declaration refer to con-sultations to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities before adopting measures that may



affect their lands or territories and other resources. In par-ticular, the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources is mentioned.

13. The right of these communities to prior consultation is defined in our constitution and in ILO Convention No. 169. In that regard, Colombia's Constitutional Court has reiterated in its jurisprudence that there must be compatibility between the exploitation of natural resources and the protection of the social, cultural and economic integrity of indigenous commu-nities. Therefore, it is necessary to guarantee their full, free and informed participation in the decisions taken to authorize such exploitation in their territories.

14. However, that Court has indicated that, while the Government is obligated to provide effective and reasonable mechanisms for participation, it is not obligatory to reach an agreement. Indig-enous peoples' right to consultation is not absolute. Both the Constitutional Court and the ILO Committee of Experts have established that prior consultation does not imply a right to veto State decisions, but that it is an ideal mechanism for enabling indigenous and tribal peoples to exercise the right to express themselves and to influence the decision-making process.

15. The Declaration's approach to prior consent is different and could amount to a possible veto on the exploitation of natural resources in indigenous territories in the absence of an agree-ment. That could interfere with processes benefiting the general interest.

16. Other articles of the Declaration state that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own, develop and control the territories that they possess by reason of traditional ownership, as well as the underlying natural resources. Other related rights, such as protection against the dispossession of such resources, are also recognized. It is important to stress that many States, including Colombia, constitutionally stipulate that the subsoil and non-renewable natural resources are the property of the State in order to protect and guarantee their public use for the benefit of the entire nation. Therefore, accepting provisions such as



those I have cited would run counter to the internal legal order, which is based on the national interest.

17. Moreover, the Declaration refers to archaeological and his-torical sites as well as to lands and territories, without clearly defining the concept of indigenous territories, which is relevant to achieving effective protection in terms of the rights of peoples and the obligations of the State.

18. Finally, Colombia has been and will continue to be a country committed to facts and realities in protecting the rights of In-digenous Peoples, from a realistic and participatory perspective that harmonizes national identity with the development of the State, to which all Colombians belong. The decision to abstain in the voting on this text because of the legal incompatibilities that I have identified does not change the State's firm national commitment to implementing the constitutional provisions, internal norms and assumed international obligations aimed at preserving the Colombian nation's multi-ethnic nature and protecting its ethnic and cultural diversity.”10

As it can be seen, the objective of this discourse is to provide a full explanation of the reasons of the abstention of Colombia for voting in favour —or against— the UN Declaration. Fol-lowing the Stephen Edelson Toulmin model of argumentation11 the three central elements in argumentation are the claim, the grounds and warrants. With respect to the claim, one could argue that the Colombian Government abstained from voting this international document due to “insolvable contradictions” with the national legislation —including the Political Constitu-tion, as mentioned in paragraph 10. From paragraphs 9 to 17 it provides the grounds for this claim and from paragraphs 1 to 9 it uses context as a way of implying possible warrants.

10 United Nations General Assembly, 61st session, September 13th, 2007, resolution A/61/PV.107.

11 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings – A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).



However, the present article explores the argumentation of the Colombian Government in accordance with the seven-step model for argument analysis, delivered by Michael Scriven.12 In that sense, I will clarify some meanings of specific terms, as well as identify the stated and unstated conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and an overall evaluation of the discourse. Therefore, I will proceed to propose paragraph 10 as the climax or the turning point of the discourse:

12 Michael Scriven, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning, 40-45 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976).



Paragraph 10: Colombia recognises Indigenous Peoples' rights but:

Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

The

Col

ombi

an C

onst

itu-

tion

and

bod

y of

Law

, as

w

ell

as t

he i

nter

nati

onal

in

stru

men

ts r

atifi

ed b

y ou

r co

untr

y, c

onfo

rm w

ith m

ost

prov

isio

ns o

f th

e D

ecla

ra-

tion

on th

e R

ight

s of

Ind

ig-

enou

s P

eopl

es.

How

ever

, whi

le th

e Dec

lara

-tio

n is

not

a le

gally

bin

ding

no

rm fo

r the

Sta

te a

nd in

no

way

con

stitu

tes

the

esta

b-lis

hmen

t of c

onve

ntio

nal o

r cu

stom

ary

prov

isio

ns t

hat

are

bind

ing

for

Col

ombi

a,m

y de

lega

tion

fin

ds s

ome

aspe

cts

of t

he D

ecla

rati

on

to b

e in

dir

ect c

ontr

adic

tion

with

the C

olom

bian

inte

rnal

le

gal s

yste

m, w

hich

obl

iged

us

to

abst

ain

in t

he v

otin

g.

I sh

all r

efer

bri

efly

to s

ome

of th

ese.

In th

is c

ase,

the

“how

ever

” re

pres

ents

tha

t no

t al

l the

pr

ovis

ions

of

the

Dec

la-

rati

on a

re a

ccep

tabl

e to

C

olom

bia,

thu

s so

me

ex-

plan

atio

ns a

re d

ue to

com

e.C

erta

inly

, “m

y de

lega

tion”

re

fers

to

the

Gov

ernm

ent

whi

ch t

he s

peak

er i

s re

p-re

sent

ing.

The

wor

d “o

blig

ed”

is u

n-fa

vour

able

her

e. It

sugg

ests

so

met

hing

whi

ch w

as i

n-ev

itab

le a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

It c

ould

hav

e be

en “

led”

.

Stat

ed co

nclu

sion

: The

Dec

-la

rati

on f

ollo

ws

—ge

ner-

ally

spe

akin

g— t

he s

ame

prin

cipl

es a

nd n

orm

s of t

he

Col

ombi

an in

tern

al L

aw.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: T

he

Col

ombi

an G

over

nm

ent

con

sid

ers

that

int

ern

a-tio

nal d

ecla

ratio

ns h

ave n

o le

gal

impl

icat

ions

aga

inst

a

Stat

e.

Sta

ted

conc

lusi

on:

Th

e C

olom

bian

Gov

ern

men

t w

as o

blig

ed t

o ab

stai

n to

th

e D

ecla

ratio

n be

caus

e it

coul

d ha

ve e

ndan

gere

d th

e In

tern

al L

egal

Sys

tem

.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n: T

he

Col

ombi

an G

over

nm

ent

belie

ves

that

no

inte

rna-

tiona

l con

sequ

ence

s can

be

deri

ved

from

a d

ecla

ratio

n.U

nsta

ted

assu

mpt

ions

: The

G

over

nm

ent

cont

radi

cts

itse

lf h

ere,

whe

n it

envi

s-ag

es p

ossi

ble

trou

bles

if

voti

ng. I

f dec

lara

tions

hav

e no

lega

l im

plic

atio

ns, w

hy

shou

ld a

Gov

ernm

ent

not

vote

in fa

vour

? The

re se

ems

to b

e an

impl

icit

clai

m th

at

ther

e is

no

thin

g w

ron

g in

the

Col

ombi

an L

egal

Sy

stem

, and

that

the

Gov

-er

nm

ent

pref

ers

cert

ain

prin

cipl

es i

n th

e in

tern

al

law

s ab

ove

the

prin

cipl

es

set u

p in

the

Dec

lara

tion.



I considered this paragraph as the climax of the discourse because after having presented a series of positive measures in favour of the Indigenous Peoples and after having mentioned that the Declaration coincides generally with the Colombian internal legal system, the speaker continue with a however followed by the rest of the paragraphs, implying that the Declaration still has some possible troubles and alleged contradictions in respect to the Colombian law which are about to be explained. These possible troubles are reproduced through the grounds of the ar-gumentation. In this case, the grounds of the argumentation are the reasons that obliged the Colombian Government to abstain from voting as a way of protecting “its” national values.



Ground 1 - Paragraph 9: The lack of consensus during the negotiation13

13 A clarification needs to be made in this point, since this is not itself the reason why Co-lombia abstained.

Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

In t

he G

ener

al A

ssem

bly,

C

olom

bia

has

reaf

firm

ed i

ts

com

mit

men

t to

the

rig

hts

of

indi

geno

us c

omm

uniti

es.

My

dele

gati

on n

ever

thel

ess

supp

orte

d th

e in

itia

tive

to

post

pone

a d

ecis

ion

on t

he

Dec

lara

tion

, be

caus

e w

e be

-lie

ved

that

it w

as im

port

ant t

o se

ek a

n ag

reem

ent

enab

ling

us t

o ad

opt

a D

ecla

rati

on

acce

ptab

le to

all

coun

trie

s - a

te

xt th

at w

ould

be

adop

ted

by

cons

ensu

s [1]

and

wou

ld c

on-

form

to

gene

ral i

nter

natio

nal

[2]a

nd n

atio

nal [

3]no

rmat

ive

fram

ewor

ks.

Reg

rett

ably

, th

e m

ost

rece

nt

cons

ulta

tive

proc

ess i

n th

e A

s-se

mbl

y w

as c

hara

cter

ized

by

a la

ck o

f tra

nspa

renc

y, a

lack

of

will

ingn

ess

to n

egot

iate

and

a

lack

of o

penn

ess,

whi

ch d

id n

ot

perm

it su

ch a

con

sens

us to

be

reac

hed.

Rea

ffirm

ing

com

mit-

men

t do

es n

ot n

eces

-sa

rily

mea

n th

at th

ese

righ

ts h

ave b

een

guar

-an

teed

on

the g

roun

d.A

pol

ite w

ay o

f say

ing

“acc

epta

ble

to

Co

-lo

mb

ia”.

Mor

eove

r,

are c

laus

es [2

] and

[3] a

se

cond

pol

ite ta

ctic

to

cove

r th

at C

olom

bia

does

not

wis

h to

giv

e p

rio

rity

to

gen

eral

in

tern

atio

nal

fram

e-w

orks

?H

ere

the

“lac

k o

f tr

ansp

aren

cy”

is u

n-fo

rtun

ate

as it

impl

ies

dish

ones

ty a

nd r

ests

cr

edib

ility

on

the D

ec-

lara

tion.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: Si

nce

the

text

is n

ot to

be

chan

ged,

in

rea

lity

the

sig

nat

ure

is

not

only

pos

tpon

ed.

It,

by

defa

ult,

im

plie

s th

at u

nles

s th

e cu

rren

t G

over

nm

ent

is

not c

hang

ed, t

he D

ecla

ratio

n w

ill n

ot b

e si

gned

.U

nsta

ted

conc

lusi

on: B

eari

ng

in m

ind

long

-sta

ndin

g is

sues

ab

out l

ands

and

reso

urce

s, to

se

ek f

or a

tex

t by

con

sens

us

wou

ld i

mpl

y a

text

(ac

cord

-in

g to

the g

over

nmen

t) w

hich

do

es n

ot m

entio

n th

ese p

rob-

lem

s at

all.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: I

f C

o-lo

mbi

a ab

stai

ned

it w

as n

ot

beca

use

of i

ts G

over

nmen

t w

ho w

as o

pen

to n

egot

iate

; it

was

due

to th

e in

flexi

bilit

y of

so

me

othe

r act

ors,

i.e.

, ind

ig-

enou

s re

pres

enta

tives

.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n:

The

Gov

ernm

ent

as-

sum

es th

at th

e D

ecla

-ra

tion

does

not

(wis

h-es

to

asse

rt)

conf

orm

to

int

erna

tion

al n

or-

mat

ive

fram

ewor

ks.



Ground 2 - Paragraph 11: The military responsibility of the Colombian State14

14 In a country that surmounts an armed conflict, the presence of the military could para-doxically endanger the indigenous integrity rather than protecting it.

Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

(…)

Art

icle

30

of th

e Dec

lara

tion

pro-

vide

s tha

t eff

ectiv

e con

sulta

tions

mus

t be

hel

d w

ith in

dige

nous

com

mun

ities

pr

ior t

o us

ing

thei

r lan

ds o

r ter

rito

ries

fo

r m

ilita

ry a

ctiv

ities

. U

nder

the

man

date

set

out

in

our

Con

stit

utio

n, t

he S

tate

sec

urit

y fo

rces

mus

t be

pre

sent

thr

ough

out

the

natio

nal t

erri

tory

to

prov

ide

and

guar

ante

e to

all i

nhab

itant

s pro

tect

ion

of a

nd r

espe

ct fo

r th

eir

lives

, hon

our

and

prop

erty

, bo

th i

ndiv

idua

l an

d co

llect

ive.

P

rote

ctin

g th

e ri

ghts

and

inte

grity

of

indi

geno

us c

omm

uniti

es d

epen

ds to

a

grea

t ext

ent o

n se

curi

ty in

thei

r ter

ri-

tori

es. I

n th

at co

nnec

tion,

inst

ruct

ions

ha

ve b

een

issu

ed to

the

secu

rity

forc

es

to fu

lfil t

heir

obl

igat

ion

to p

rote

ct th

e ri

ghts

of s

uch

com

mun

ities

. N

ever

thel

ess,

thi

s pr

ovis

ion

of t

he

Dec

lara

tion

cont

radi

cts

the

prin

cipl

e of

the

nec

essi

ty a

nd e

ffec

tiven

ess

of

the

Sta

te s

ecur

ity f

orce

s, p

reve

ntin

g th

e fu

lfilm

ent

of t

heir

ins

titu

tion

al

mis

sion

. T

hat

is n

ot a

ccep

tabl

e to

C

olom

bia.

By

“eff

ecti

ve c

onsu

l-ta

tion

s” o

ne u

nder

-st

and

s m

ean

ingf

ul

part

icip

atio

n of

the

in

dig

eno

us

peo

ple

si

nce

a de

cisi

on (

of-

ten

slow

and

com

plex

) co

uld

affe

ct th

em.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: T

he

Dec

lara

tio

n co

uld

impl

y se

curi

ty

risk

s ag

ains

t th

e in

-d

igen

ous

com

mu

ni-

ties

and

the

ins

titu

-ti

onal

mis

sion

of

the

mil

itar

y co

uld

be a

t st

ake.

U

nsta

ted

conc

lusi

on:

The

Col

ombi

an S

tate

fe

els

its

auth

ori

ty

coul

d be

und

erm

ined

if

it a

ccep

ts th

is p

rovi

-si

on.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n:

The

pre

senc

e of

the

m

ilita

ry in

indi

geno

us

terr

itor

ies

does

not

im

ply

that

they

cou

ld

be r

egar

ded

as “

tak-

ing

part

of i

f” o

r sid

ed

with

the

mili

tary

. U

nsta

ted

assu

mpt

ion:

E

njoy

ing

righ

ts i

n-

volv

es b

eing

sec

ured

.



Ground 3 - Paragraphs 12 to 15: Prior, free and informed consent could mean a veto power


160 José Fernando Gómez-roJasId

entif

y co

mpo

nent

sC

lari

fy m

eani

ngs

Con

clus

ions

Ass

umpt

ions

(…)

Art

icle

s 19

and

32

of t

he D

ecla

rati

on r

efer

to

cons

ulta

tions

to

obta

in t

he f

ree,

pri

or a

nd i

nfor

med

co

nsen

t of

ind

igen

ous

com

mun

ities

bef

ore

adop

ting

m

easu

res

that

may

aff

ect

thei

r la

nds

or t

erri

tori

es

and

othe

r re

sour

ces.

In

part

icul

ar,

the

deve

lopm

ent,

ut

iliza

tion

or e

xplo

itatio

n of

min

eral

, wat

er o

r ot

her

reso

urce

s is

men

tione

d.T

he ri

ght o

f the

se c

omm

uniti

es to

pri

or c

onsu

ltatio

n is

de

fined

in o

ur C

onst

itutio

n an

d in

ILO

Con

vent

ion

169.

In

tha

t re

gard

, Col

ombi

a's

Con

stitu

tiona

l Cou

rt h

as

reite

rate

d in

its

juri

spru

denc

e th

at th

ere

mus

t be

com

-pa

tibili

ty b

etw

een

the e

xplo

itatio

n of

nat

ural

reso

urce

s an

d th

e pr

otec

tion

of th

e so

cial

, cul

tura

l and

eco

nom

ic

inte

grity

of

indi

geno

us c

omm

uniti

es. T

here

fore

, it

is

nece

ssar

y to

gua

rant

ee t

heir

ful

l, fr

ee a

nd i

nfor

med

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in th

e de

cisi

ons

take

n to

aut

hori

ze s

uch

expl

oita

tion

in th

eir

terr

itori

es.

(…)

whi

le t

he G

over

nmen

t is

obl

igat

ed t

o pr

ovid

e ef

-fe

ctiv

e an

d re

ason

able

mec

hani

sms

for

part

icip

atio

n,

it is

not

obl

igat

ory

to re

ach

an a

gree

men

t. I

ndig

enou

s pe

ople

s' ri

ght

to c

onsu

ltati

on i

s no

t ab

solu

te.

Bot

h th

e C

onst

itutio

nal C

ourt

and

the

ILO

Com

mitt

ee o

f E

xper

ts h

ave

esta

blis

hed

that

pri

or c

onsu

ltatio

n do

es

not i

mpl

y a

righ

t to

veto

Sta

te d

ecis

ions

, but

that

it is

an

idea

l mec

hani

sm fo

r ena

blin

g in

dige

nous

and

trib

al

peop

les t

o ex

erci

se th

e ri

ght t

o ex

pres

s the

mse

lves

and

to

influ

ence

the

deci

sion

-mak

ing

proc

ess.

The

Dec

lara

tion'

s app

roac

h to

pri

or co

nsen

t is d

iffer

ent

and

coul

d am

ount

to a

pos

sibl

e ve

to o

n th

e ex

ploi

tatio

n of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es i

n in

dige

nous

ter

rito

ries

in

the

abse

nce

of a

n ag

reem

ent.

Tha

t co

uld

inte

rfer

e w

ith

proc

esse

s be

nefit

ing

the

gene

ral i

nter

est.

It i

s ac

tual

ly t

he

core

of

long

-st

andi

ng d

isag

reem

ents

bet

wee

n N

atio

n-St

ates

and

thei

r ind

igen

ous

popu

latio

ns.

Th

e p

rio

r, f

ree

and

in

form

ed

cons

ent

is m

eant

to

prot

ect

them

ag

ains

t arb

itrar

y se

izur

e of t

heir

ter-

rito

ries

or

igno

ring

the

ir o

pini

ons.

T

he w

ord

“con

sent

” im

plie

s tha

t the

in

dige

nous

are

to a

gree

on

poss

ible

ut

iliza

tion

of th

eir

terr

itori

es.

Col

ombi

a ra

tifie

d th

is C

onve

ntio

n in

199

1, th

anks

to L

aw 2

1.“C

ompa

tibili

ty”

and

“Int

egri

ty”

are

quite

vag

ue te

rms.

In t

his

cas

e, “

free

and

inf

orm

ed

part

icip

atio

n” m

eans

som

eth

ing

dif

fere

nt b

ecau

se t

o pa

rtic

ipat

e im

plie

s tha

t con

sent

is n

ot n

eces

sary

to

agr

eein

g on

a g

iven

pro

ject

/pro

-gr

am. T

o pa

rtic

ipat

e co

uld

be e

ven

unde

rsto

od a

s “t

o be

par

ticip

ated

” ab

out a

pro

ject

.H

ere

the

conc

ept

of g

ener

al i

nter

-es

t is

rel

evan

t, si

nce

it ap

pear

s to

ex

clud

e Ind

igen

ous P

eopl

es o

f bei

ng

part

of i

t.T

he g

ener

al i

nter

est

prin

cipl

e is

tr

eate

d he

re i

n it

s ut

ilita

rian

per

-sp

ectiv

e: w

hat

coul

d be

bet

ter

for

the

maj

oriti

es (o

f cap

ital).

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

-si

on:

The

Dec

lara

-ti

on

go

es f

urt

her

an

d co

ntra

dict

s pre

-vi

ous

inte

rnat

iona

l st

anda

rds

set u

p by

th

e IL

O C

onve

ntio

n 16

9 ab

out p

rior

par

-ti

cipa

tion

of

indi

g-en

ous

peop

le in

the

deci

sion

-mak

ing.

S

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: T

he

Dec

lara

tio

n en

tails

dan

ger

as it

im

plie

s ve

to p

ower

fo

r th

e in

dige

nous

co

mm

uniti

es in

the

ab

senc

e of a

n ag

ree-

men

t.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

p-tio

n: t

o pr

ovid

e th

e ri

gh

t to

co

nse

nt

mea

ns

a ri

ght

to

veto

.U

nsta

ted

assu

mp-

tion

: In

dig

eno

us

peop

les w

ill o

ppos

e to

the

Gov

ernm

ent

proj

ects

. U

nsta

ted

assu

mp-

tion

: T

he

gen

eral

in

tere

st i

n C

olom

-bi

a is

dif

fere

nt th

an

that

of

the

Ind

ig-

enou

s Pe

ople

s.



Ground 4 - Paragraph 16: State ownership of the natural resources Id

entif

y co

mpo

nent

sC

lari

fy m

eani

ngs

Con

clus

ions

Ass

umpt

ions

Oth

er a

rtic

les o

f the

Dec

lara

tion

Sta

te t

hat

Indi

geno

us P

eopl

es

have

the

rig

ht t

o ow

n, d

evel

op

and

cont

rol

the

terr

itori

es t

hat

they

pos

sess

by

reas

on o

f tr

adi-

tiona

l ow

ners

hip,

as

wel

l as

the

unde

rlyi

ng n

atur

al r

esou

rces

. O

ther

rel

ated

rig

hts,

suc

h as

pr

otec

tion

agai

nst t

he d

ispo

sses

-si

on o

f su

ch r

esou

rces

, are

als

o re

cogn

ized

. It

is

impo

rtan

t to

str

ess

that

m

any

Sta

tes,

incl

udin

g C

olom

-bi

a, c

onst

itut

iona

lly s

tipu

late

th

at th

e su

bsoi

l and

non

-ren

ew-

able

nat

ural

res

ourc

es a

re t

he

prop

erty

of

the

Sta

te i

n or

der

to p

rote

ct a

nd g

uara

ntee

the

ir

publ

ic u

se fo

r th

e be

nefit

of t

he

entir

e nat

ion.

The

refo

re, a

ccep

t-in

g pr

ovis

ions

suc

h as

tho

se I

ha

ve c

ited

wou

ld r

un c

ount

er to

th

e in

tern

al le

gal o

rder

, whi

ch is

ba

sed

on th

e na

tiona

l int

eres

t.

The

Dec

lara

tion

app

roac

hes

the

core

of

the

conf

lict.

The

lo

ng-s

tand

ing

disc

ussi

on a

bout

la

nd o

wne

rshi

p.W

ith “

as w

ell a

s” t

he G

over

n-m

ent d

elib

erat

ely

avoi

ds sa

ying

“i

nclu

ding

”.M

any

stat

es (i

nclu

ding

Col

om-

bia)

hav

e ad

opte

d th

e W

este

rn

natio

n-st

ate

figur

e. I

n th

e ca

se

of C

olom

bia,

one

coul

d pu

t int

o qu

estio

n w

ho is

the o

wne

r of t

he

terr

itory

, ta

king

int

o ac

coun

t th

at t

he in

dige

nous

com

mun

i-ti

es h

ad t

radi

tiona

l and

pre

vi-

ous t

ies w

ith it

bef

ore t

he a

rriv

al

of c

ivili

zatio

nal c

omm

uniti

es.

Aga

in,

the

conc

ept

of g

ener

al

inte

rest

/nat

iona

l int

eres

t is u

sed

impl

ying

tha

t th

e m

ajor

ity

is

pref

erre

d th

an m

inor

ities

.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: A

gain

, the

Dec

lara

tion

goes

aga

inst

the

con

-ce

pt o

f N

atio

n-St

ate

and

the

way

terr

itori

es

are c

once

ived

as i

nher

-en

t par

t of i

t.

Un

sta

ted

ass

um

p-

tion

: N

atio

nal

inte

rest

eq

ual

s ge

nera

l (m

a-jo

rity

) in

tere

st.

(The

In

dig

eno

us

Peo

ple

s ar

e ju

st a

slig

ht p

er-

cent

age

of th

is g

ener

al

inte

rest

).



Ground 5 - Paragraph 17: Ambiguity in the concept of Indig-enous Territories

Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

Mor

eove

r, th

e D

ecla

ratio

n re

fers

to

arch

aeol

ogic

al

and

hist

oric

al s

ites

as w

ell

as t

o la

nds

and

terr

itori

es,

with

out c

lear

ly d

efini

ng th

e co

ncep

t of

ind

igen

ous

ter-

rito

ries

, whi

ch is

rele

vant

to

achi

evin

g ef

fect

ive

prot

ec-

tion

in te

rms o

f the

righ

ts o

f pe

ople

s an

d th

e ob

ligat

ions

of

the

Sta

te.

Her

e on

e ca

n th

ink

that

th

e G

over

nmen

t fea

rs th

at

Indi

geno

us C

omm

unit

ies

will

cla

im a

ll of

Col

ombi

a as

thei

r te

rrito

ry.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: The

re

is a

mbi

guity

in th

e co

ncep

t of

ind

igen

ous

terr

itor

ies,

so

it w

ould

be

of n

o ac

cep-

tanc

e fo

r th

e C

olom

bian

G

over

nmen

t.U

nsta

ted

conc

lusi

on:

Her

e th

e Gov

ernm

ent g

ives

hig

h re

leva

nce

to a

dec

lara

tion

as a

lega

l doc

umen

t, ev

en

cont

rad

icti

ng i

tsel

f w

ith

para

grap

h 10

, whe

n it

con-

side

red

a D

ecla

rati

on a

s no

t im

plyi

ng in

tern

atio

nal

resp

onsi

bilit

y. I

t env

isag

es

a ri

sk if

acc

epts

this

alle

ged

ambi

guity

.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n: A

m-

bigu

ity c

ould

im

ply

nega

-tiv

e eff

ects

aga

inst

the G

ov-

ernm

ent o

r eve

n ag

ains

t the

ge

nera

l int

eres

t.



D. Overall evaluation of the discourse

Having analyzed the vote explanation, one could say that this was the logic of argumentation of the Colombian government:

1. Positive context of the Colombian Indigenous Peoples.2. Although there is a positive context, signing the Declaration

could imply contradictions with the National Legal System.3. Several reasons are given in order to explain the abstention.4. Conclusion of the vote explanation reaffirming the Colombian

compromise in favour of the Indigenous Peoples.

One can also analyse the five big arguments of the Govern-ment explaining the reasons why it abstained from voting the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples. They can be synthesized as follows: • The lack of consensus during the negotiation.15

• The military responsibility of the Colombian State.• Prior, free and informed consent could imply a veto power.• State ownership of natural resources.• Ambiguity of the concept of Indigenous Territories

Apart from the military responsibility of the Colombian State, one can even go further and inter-relate the other four arguments as related to a common issue: land rights. In fact, the lack of consensus was due to different perspectives on who is the owner of land. As a consequence, if the concept of indig-enous territories is not fully defined —as it appears to happen in paragraph 17—, the Indigenous Peoples have been considered as a threat to future development projects as these communities could apply a veto power using the prior, free and informed con-sent. The Government goes deeper and implies that Indigenous

15 Again, it is important to stress that this point of the lack of consensus is only a cover for the other issues.



Peoples could be in opposition to a general interest which is not adequately explained in this discourse.

As it was mentioned below, I consider paragraphs 1 to 9 as the context of the case. Furthermore, it is worth to note that the context here is matched with the co-text. In other words, the co-text is about the context of the rights situation of the Indigenous Peoples in Colombia, from the point of view of the Government. At the same time, as it is stated, this context/co-text is also used as warrant, as all the aspects mentioned can be considered as positive measures in favour of the Indigenous Peoples. This can lead the reader to envisage two possible interpretations:• Colombia has a positive environment for its Indigenous

Peoples and it will continue supporting that through this UN Declaration, or

• Colombia has a positive environment for its Indigenous Peoples but it will pose some questions on accepting the Declaration.

If the second interpretation is taken as the Colombian Gov-ernment does, surely “certain” readers could note that it is not that bad that the Declaration was not signed since the situation for the Indigenous Peoples in Colombia is already positive. Hence, it will be of no harm for the indigenous the fact that the UN Declaration is not signed up. In fact, paragraph 18 —the last one— ends up with reaffirming the Colombian compromise.

ii. a new PoliTical PosiTion?

A. Unilateral Declaration of support to the UN Declaration and the context of its emergence

The Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia, dur-ing her intervention before the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, on April 21st, 2009, stressed that:



[E]n su compromiso por profundizar la relación entre las instituciones gubernamentales y los pueblos indígenas y animado por el sincero deseo de avanzar en la construcción de confianza y en la consolidación de vías que permitan un mejor entendimiento, el Gobierno nacional hará entrega en el día de hoy, de una nota dirigida al Secretario General de las Nacio-nes Unidas en la que expresa su respaldo unilateral a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, a su espíritu y a los principios que inspiraron su redacción. En este sentido, y si bien no constituye un instrumento jurídicamente vinculante, el Gobierno de Colombia desea reconocer la importancia histórica de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y valorar las aspiraciones que la han fundamentado, así como los esfuerzos de todas aquellas personas y organizaciones que la promovieron.16

It is not a minor issue the fact that the Government of Colom-bia acknowledged its unilateral support to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, before the President of the Durban Review Confer-ence, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the representatives of the participant States. Indeed, the Durban Review Conference was meant to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of measures taken at the World Confer-ence against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, 2001.17 So as part of the Plan of Action, the Colombian Government might have considered this unilateral support as an open manifesta-tion of willingness regarding its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples.

With respect to the diplomatic note elaborated by the Min-ister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia sent to the UN General

16 So far, this information can only be obtained in its original Spanish language version at: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal/espanol/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gLUzfLUH9DYwN3d39zA-yM3i1CjkEAnLwNnI6B8pFl8aFhQmFGwi7GBv2-QqYFRmI9ZoJersZGBpxkB3X4e-bmp-gW5EeUAruoufg!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfVVZSVjJTRDMwTzA4RjBJMEc1TVNSRzI0SjY!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/WCM_PRENSA/prensa/boletines/gobierno+de+colombia+anuncia+respaldo+unilateral+a+la+declaracion+de++naciones+unidas+sobre+los+derechos+de+los+pueblos+indigenas (last accessed September 5th, 2009). The English version of this text could not be obtained by the time of the submission of this article.

17 United Nations official webpage, http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/index.shtml (last accessed September 5th, 2009).



Secretary, which was acknowledged by the Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs, this article analyses its text below. I decided to separate the text in seven (7) paragraphs as follows:18

1. Como Su Excelencia recordará, en su momento el Gobierno de Colombia votó en abstención la Declaración y ofreció una extensa explicación de su voto, fundada en las disposiciones de la normatividad interna que garantizan los derechos de los pueblos indígenas presentes en su territorio, así como en aquellas normas que velan por la prevalencia del interés general de todos los colombianos.

2. El Gobierno Nacional ha mantenido su espíritu de diálogo con las comunidades indígenas, que se ha visto particularmente fortalecido a partir de las sesiones de trabajo establecidas desde octubre de 2008, con ocasión de la Minga social promovida por algunas organizaciones indígenas en Colombia.

3. Por ello, en su compromiso por profundizar la relación entre las instituciones gubernamentales y los pueblos indígenas y animado por el sincero deseo de avanzar en la construcción de confianza y en la consolidación de vías que permitan un mejor entendimiento, el Gobierno Nacional se permite expresar su respaldo unilateral a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, a su espíritu y a los principios que inspiraron su redacción y manifestar su adhesión a los conceptos de igualdad, respeto a la diversidad y no discriminación que fundamentan el texto de la misma.

4. Colombia comparte los principios que inspiraron el contenido de la Declaración. En efecto, las referencias relacionadas con los derechos especiales y afirmativos de los pueblos indígenas, las facultades de autodeterminación de sus comunidades y el respeto por el pluralismo y la diversidad étnica y cultural han sido ampliamente respaldadas por nuestro país, tanto en escenarios e instrumentos internacionales como en la legislación interna.

18 This text could only be obtained in its original Spanish language so all the translations made throughout this section were elaborated by the author.



5. Con la plena aplicación de la normatividad vigente en Colom-bia, el Gobierno Nacional continuará trabajando de manera denodada para garantizar la participación activa de las co-munidades indígenas en la vida democrática, por brindar las oportunidades que les permitan lograr el desarrollo pleno de sus capacidades y por ofrecerles las posibilidades de lograr los niveles de independencia económica y bienestar que permitan preservar su identidad y su cultura.

6. En este sentido, y si bien no constituye un instrumento jurídi-camente vinculante, el Gobierno de Colombia desea reconocer la importancia histórica de la Declaración (…) y valorar las aspiraciones que la han fundamentado así como los esfuerzos de todas aquellas personas y organizaciones que la promovieron. Este reconocimiento del Estado colombiano se hace con las salvedades expresadas en su oportunidad.

7. El Gobierno Nacional, en su espíritu constructivo, invita a con-tinuar fortaleciendo la relación con las comunidades indígenas y a encontrar fórmulas que garanticen la convivencia armónica entre los pueblos indígenas y el resto de la población, a conciliar intereses y a descubrir la riqueza del pluralismo preservando el medio ambiente y el patrimonio cultural de nuestros ancestros para las futuras generaciones.

B. Text analysis

The main claim of this unilateral declaration is to acknowledge official endorsement to the text of the UN Declaration. Some of the grounds of argumentation will be analyzed below. In accordance with the seven-step model for argument analysis, delivered by Scriven,19 I will clarify some meanings of specific terms, as well as identify the stated and unstated conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and an overall evaluation of the discourse.

19 Michael Scriven, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning, 40-45 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976).



Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

Par

agra

ph 1

: (…

) en

su

mom

ento

, el

G

obie

rno

de C

olom

bia

votó

en

abst

en-

ción

la D

ecla

raci

ón y

ofr

eció

una

ext

ensa

ex

plic

ació

n de

su

voto

, fu

ndad

a en

las

di

spos

icio

nes

de la

nor

mat

ivid

ad i

nter

na

que

gara

ntiz

an lo

s der

echo

s de

los p

uebl

os

indí

gena

s pr

esen

tes

en s

u te

rrito

rio,

así

co

mo

en a

quel

las

norm

as q

ue v

elan

por

la

pre

vale

ncia

del

inte

rés g

ener

al d

e to

dos

los

colo

mbi

anos

.

The

“ge

nera

l in

tere

st”

conc

ept

is

clea

rly

a va

gue

term

, sin

ce it

cou

ld

enta

il a

quan

titat

ive

com

pone

nt o

f “m

ajor

itie

s”,

and

/or

cert

ain

eco

-no

mic

/pol

itica

l val

ues.

Uns

tate

d co

nclu

sion

: T

he U

N D

ecla

ratio

n is

not

com

patib

le w

ith

the

Col

om

bia

n n

a-ti

onal

Law

and

the

pr

inci

ple

of g

ener

al

inte

rest

.

Par

agra

ph 3

: (…

) en

su

com

prom

iso

por

prof

undi

zar

la r

elac

ión

entr

e la

s in

sti-

tuci

ones

gub

erna

men

tale

s y

los

pueb

los

indí

gena

s y

anim

ado

por

el s

ince

ro d

eseo

de

ava

nzar

en

la co

nstr

ucci

ón d

e con

fianz

a y

en la

con

solid

ació

n de

vía

s que

per

mita

n un

mej

or e

nten

dim

ient

o, e

l G

obie

rno

Nac

iona

l se

perm

ite e

xpre

sar

su re

spal

do

unila

tera

l a la

Dec

lara

ción

de l

as N

acio

nes

Uni

das s

obre

los D

erec

hos d

e lo

s Pue

blos

In

díge

nas,

a s

u es

píri

tu y

a lo

s pr

inci

pios

qu

e in

spir

aron

su

reda

cció

n y

man

ifest

ar

su a

dhes

ión

a lo

s co

ncep

tos

de ig

uald

ad,

resp

eto

a la

div

ersi

dad

y no

dis

crim

inac

ión

que

fund

amen

tan

el te

xto

de la

mis

ma.

Wh

at d

oes

“un

ilat

eral

sup

port

” m

ean?

Wha

t do

es “

adhe

re t

o so

me

prin

-ci

ples

” m

ean?

Sta

ted

assu

mpt

ion:

T

he G

over

nmen

t con

-si

ders

tha

t th

is u

ni-

late

ral

decl

arat

ion

of

supp

ort

will

im

prov

e it

s re

lati

onsh

ip w

ith

the

Indi

geno

us P

eo-

ples

, and

thei

r mut

ual

com

mun

icat

ion.



Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

Par

agra

ph 4

: C

olom

bia

com

part

e lo

s pr

inci

pios

que

insp

irar

on e

l con

teni

do d

e la

Dec

lara

ción

. En

efec

to, l

as r

efer

enci

as

rela

cion

adas

con

los

der

echo

s es

peci

ales

y

afirm

ativ

os d

e lo

s pue

blos

indí

gena

s, la

s fa

culta

des

de a

utod

eter

min

ació

n de

sus

co

mun

idad

es y

el re

spet

o po

r el p

lura

lism

o y

la d

iver

sida

d ét

nica

y c

ultu

ral h

an s

ido

ampl

iam

ente

resp

alda

das p

or n

uest

ro p

aís,

ta

nto

en e

scen

ario

s e

inst

rum

ento

s in

ter-

naci

onal

es c

omo

en la

legi

slac

ión

inte

rna.

Wou

ldn'

t it

be

a co

ntra

dict

ion

to

shar

e sa

id p

rinc

iple

s bu

t to

abs

tain

fr

om v

otin

g th

e te

xt i

tsel

f? T

hen,

w

hat

do

es “

shar

e” m

ean

wh

en

refe

rrin

g to

sha

ring

the

pri

ncip

les

that

in

spir

ed t

he c

onte

nt o

f th

e D

ecla

ratio

n?

Sta

ted

conc

lusi

on: C

o-lo

mbi

a su

ppor

ts t

he

reco

gniti

on o

f spe

cial

ri

ghts

and

affi

rmat

ive

actio

ns in

favo

r of t

he

Indi

geno

us P

eopl

es.

Sta

ted

conc

lusi

on: T

he

natio

nal l

egis

latio

n is

co

mpa

tibl

e w

ith

in-

tern

atio

nal s

tand

ards

.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n:

The

fac

t of

ela

bora

t-in

g ad

equa

te l

egis

la-

tion

and

spec

ial m

ea-

sure

s in

fav

or o

f th

e In

dige

nous

Peo

ples

is

itsel

f a p

ositi

ve a

spec

t.



Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

Par

agra

ph 5

: Con

la p

lena

apl

icac

ión

de la

no

rmat

ivid

ad vi

gent

e en

Col

ombi

a, e

l Go-

bier

no N

acio

nal c

ontin

uará

trab

ajan

do d

e m

aner

a de

noda

da p

ara

gara

ntiz

ar la

par

-tic

ipac

ión

activ

a de

las c

omun

idad

es in

dí-

gena

s en

la v

ida

dem

ocrá

tica,

por

bri

ndar

la

s opo

rtun

idad

es q

ue le

s per

mita

n lo

grar

el

des

arro

llo p

leno

de

sus

capa

cida

des

y po

r of

rece

rles

las

posi

bilid

ades

de

logr

ar

los

nive

les

de in

depe

nden

cia

econ

ómic

a y

bien

esta

r que

per

mita

n pr

eser

var s

u id

en-

tidad

y s

u cu

ltura

.

Wha

t do

es “

acti

ve p

arti

cipa

tion

” m

ean

for

the

Gov

ernm

ent?

Sin

ce it

in

sist

s on

kee

ping

the

obj

ectio

ns o

f th

e vo

te e

xpla

natio

n of

200

7, w

ould

it

mea

n ac

tive

inv

olve

men

t in

the

de

cisi

on-m

akin

g an

d pr

iori

ty-s

ettin

g pr

oces

ses?

Wha

t doe

s “ec

onom

ic in

depe

nden

ce”

mea

n? O

ne m

ight

feel

on

safe

gro

und

to a

rgue

tha

t th

is c

ould

be

rela

ted

to fo

od s

over

eign

ty a

nd th

e us

e an

d co

ntro

l of

natu

ral r

esou

rces

, whi

ch

is a

cor

e is

sue

thro

ugho

ut t

he D

ec-

lara

tion

. So

, ag

ain,

wou

ldn'

t it

be

anot

her

cont

radi

ctio

n to

rec

ogni

ze

this

ind

epen

denc

e w

hile

the

Gov

-er

nmen

t in

sist

s on

mai

ntai

ning

the

ob

ject

ions

exp

ress

ed in

200

7?

Sta

ted

conc

lusi

on:

Cu

rren

tly,

the

Gov

-er

nm

ent

seek

s to

gu

aran

tee

the

“act

ive

part

icip

atio

n” o

f th

e In

dige

nous

Peo

ples

.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n:

If t

he

Gov

ern

men

t se

eks

for

cont

inui

ng

wor

king

on

bett

erin

g th

e “f

ull

deve

lopm

ent

of t

heir

cap

abili

ties

”,

and

to

fo

ster

th

eir

eco

nom

ic i

nd

epen

-de

nce

and

wel

l-bei

ng

that

mea

ns t

hat

cur-

rent

ly, t

he In

dige

nous

P

eopl

es a

re l

ack

ing

of th

at.

Uns

tate

d as

sum

ptio

n:

The

dev

elop

men

t and

co

nse

rvat

ion

of t

he

ind

igen

ous'

cult

ure

s ha

s be

en f

ram

ed b

y di

alog

ue a

nd c

onti

nu-

ous

inte

ract

ion.



Iden

tify

com

pone

nts

Cla

rify

mea

ning

sC

oncl

usio

nsA

ssum

ptio

ns

Par

agra

ph 6

: En

este

sen

tido,

y s

i bie

n no

co

nstit

uye

un i

nstr

umen

to j

uríd

icam

ente

vi

ncul

ante

, el G

obie

rno

de C

olom

bia

dese

a re

cono

cer

la i

mpo

rtan

cia

hist

óric

a de

la

Dec

lara

ción

(…

) y

valo

rar

las

aspi

raci

o-ne

s qu

e la

han

fun

dam

enta

do a

sí c

omo

los e

sfue

rzos

de

toda

s aqu

ella

s per

sona

s y

orga

niza

cion

es q

ue la

pro

mov

iero

n. E

ste

reco

noci

mie

nto

del E

stad

o co

lom

bian

o se

ha

ce c

on la

s sa

lved

ades

exp

resa

das

en s

u op

ortu

nida

d.

Thi

s pa

ragr

aph

repr

esen

ts,

for

the

auth

or o

f thi

s art

icle

, the

clim

ax p

oint

of

the

dis

cour

se. H

ere

the

Gov

ern-

men

t re

min

ds t

he l

egal

nat

ure

of

the

Dec

lara

tion,

as

it is

not

leg

ally

bi

ndin

g. M

oreo

ver,

the G

over

nmen

t cl

earl

y af

firm

s th

at t

his

unila

tera

l de

clar

atio

n of

sup

port

com

es w

ith

the

rese

rvat

ions

and

cla

rific

atio

ns

prev

ious

ly a

ckno

wle

dged

in th

e vot

e ex

plan

atio

n of

200

7. S

o w

hat

is t

he

valu

e ad

ded

of t

his

new

dis

cour

se?

Is i

t ac

tual

ly a

“ne

w”

disc

ours

e of

th

e C

olom

bian

Gov

ernm

ent?

Wha

t is

the

val

ue

adde

d of

“re

cogn

iz-

ing

the

hist

oric

im

port

ance

” of

the

D

ecla

ratio

n, a

nd t

he “

effo

rts

of a

ll th

e pe

ople

(s)

and

orga

niza

tions

who

pr

omot

ed i

t”?

It m

ight

mea

n ju

st

rhet

oric

but

the

polit

ical

mea

ning

of

this

reco

gniti

on m

ust b

e con

side

red.

Sta

ted

conc

lusi

on: T

he

Col

ombi

an G

over

n-m

ent

stil

l ob

ject

s to

se

vera

l iss

ues

cons

id-

ered

with

in th

e te

xt o

f th

e D

ecla

ratio

n.

Stat

ed a

ssu

mpt

ion:

th

e fa

ct t

hat t

he D

ec-

lara

tion

does

not

con

-st

itute

a le

gally

bin

d-in

g do

cum

ent,

do

es

not

com

prom

ise

the

Col

ombi

an S

tate

.U

nsta

ted

assu

mpt

ion:

T

he

inte

rnat

ion

al

com

mu

nit

y an

d th

e In

dig

enou

s P

eopl

es

wou

ld p

erce

ive

this

u

nil

ater

al d

ecla

ra-

tion

of

supp

ort

as a

po

sitiv

e st

ep t

owar

ds

bett

erin

g th

e dia

logu

e b

etw

een

th

e m

ain

stak

ehol

ders

, i.e

., th

e St

ate,

the

Ind

igen

ous

Peo

ples

, N

GO

s, a

nd

the

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Com

mun

ity o

f Sta

tes.



C. Overall evaluation of the discourse

It is noteworthy to study the “discursive move” of the Colombian Government throughout the process of the adoption of the text of the UN Declaration. Whereas in the vote explanation of the abstention the Government made it clear that there are “insolv-able contradictions” between the text of the Declaration and the National Legal System, in this occasion it praised the historic significance of this text, and even committed itself to “adhere” to its main values and principles. Once again, the Government acknowledged the massive support it has provided for the In-digenous Peoples through a significant set of policies, laws and ratified treaties aimed at respecting, protecting and fulfilling indigenous rights. Furthermore, the Government pointed out the cardinal importance of the principle of meaningful partici-pation of the Indigenous Peoples in the decisions that concern the maintenance of their identity and culture. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten the fact that the Government refers to the reservations it had posed in 2007 before the UN General As-sembly when it abstained from voting the text of the Declaration.

The value added of this unilateral declaration of support, though not representing a legally binding manifestation, is meant to be its political strength in terms of willingness to “recogniz-ing the historic importance” of the Declaration, and the “efforts of all the people(s) and organizations who promoted it”. It might mean just rhetoric but the political meaning of this recognition must be considered.



conclusions

According to Gasper,20 “all policy writing, considered as text and subtext, is open-able to various interpretations, some of them conflicting”. In fact, as abovementioned, there are several terms which, for their vagueness, are indeed open to discussion, i.e. “general interest”, “participation”, “development”, “economic inde-pendence”, “construction of mutual trust”, “to support the underly-ing principles of equality, respect diversity, and non discrimination”, among others; especially, the prevalence of the argument that “Colombia is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic State”.

It is noteworthy that the Declaration was voted within the UN General Assembly on September 13th, 2007. While Colombia abstained from voting in the very session of the adoption of the final text, the unilateral declaration of 2009 does not constitute retroactive effects. In fact, since this Declaration is based on a resolution from the General Assembly, it is not legally binding as other international instruments such as treaties, covenants, among others. Therefore, the Declaration cannot be subscribed nor accessed by the states.

Although the UN Declaration constitutes a not legally binding document, these documents usually take the form of a (legally binding) treaty in the near future. One might guess that this would be the case of this instrument. In fact, this is precisely part of the socio-political struggle initiated some decades ago not only by the very Indigenous Peoples but by their political allies, namely, social movements, NGOs, and some progressive governments.

On the other hand, even though the Colombian Government was quite clear on the fact that there are several clauses of the UN Declaration which clash with the Internal Legal System of the State, the explicit and official endorsement to this instrument is a signal of its formal compromise with its contents and main




goals. As with most of the international instruments that are not legally binding, the contents of these texts are entirely political. And this is not a minor issue. Koskenniemi21 states that “our inherited ideal of a World Order based on the Rule of Law thinly hides for sight the fact that social conflict must still be solved by political means and that even though there may exist a common legal rhetoric among international lawyers, the rhetoric must, for reasons internal to the ideal itself, rely on essentially contested political principles to justify outcomes to international disputes”.

21 Martii Koskenniemi, The Politics of International Law, 1 European Journal of International Law, EJIL, 1, 4-32 (1990).



biblioGraPhy

booksScriven, Michael, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning (McGraw-

Hill, New York, 1976).

conTribuTion in collecTive booksGasper, Des, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing

Development Policy: Frames and Discourses (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gas-per, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).

JournalsKoskenniemi, Martii, The Politics of International Law, 1 European Journal of

International Law, EJIL, 1, 4-32 (1990).

workinG PaPersGasper, Des, Structures and Meanings - A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis

in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).

websiTe linksUnited Nations website: www.un.org.

On the Durban Review Conference: at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/index.shtml.

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs- IWGIA official webpage: http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia on the endorsement of the UN Dec-laration: http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal/espanol/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gLUzfLUH9DYwN-3d39zAyM3i1CjkEAnLwNnI6B8pFl8aFhQmFGwi7GBv2-QqYFRmI-9ZoJersZGBpxkB3X4e-bmp-gW5EeUAruoufg!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfVVZSVjJTRDMwTzA4RjBJMEc1TVNSRzI0SjY!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/WCM_PRENSA/prensa/boletines/gobierno+de+colombia+anuncia+respaldo+unilateral+a+la+declaracion+de++naciones+unidas+sobre+los+derechos+de+los+pueblos+indigenas.

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OF THE ANÁLISIS DE ARGUMENTACIÓN … · Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int....

Documents

Transcript of ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OF THE ANÁLISIS DE ARGUMENTACIÓN … · Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int....