Deliberating Justice: Indigenous Peoples, the World Bank and the Principle of Free Prior Informed Consent

Table of Contents

Declaration

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Acronyms

Introduction

Chapter 1 Indigenous Peoples: Rights in the Development Process

Chapter 2 The Evolution: World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples

Chapter 3 Deliberative Justice: Mediating a Stronger Middle Ground

Conclusion

Bibliography

Declaration

This thesis is submitted in accordance with the rules and guidelines set out in the 2007 GSIA Program Information Handbook. This thesis has not been submitted in full or in part for assessment for any other course or program. I have read the guidelines on plagiarism and in accordance with these all sources are fully, properly and accurately acknowledged.

Jan Lüdert

22 June 2007

Acknowledgements

I dedicate this thesis to my grandfather Karl-Ludwig Lüdert who taught me how to ask questions and my grandmother Elfriede Lüdert who reminded me to never do it on an empty stomach.

This thesis would not have been possible without my parents, whom I thank for believing in me and for being the best friends I have. Further I extend my gratitude to Christel and Werner Gudat as they have not only been providing a financial loan for my degree, but have become true friends over the years.

Dr. Katherine Morton, my thesis supervisor, has not only been a mind- altering mentor during the last months but an inspiration. Through her inquisitive and challenging deliberations I have learned more than scholarship, I have begun to mature as a scholar in the process. I have learned an immense amount, while I can only reciprocate her support I will never able to repay it. Thank you Kathy!

A number of people have helped with the ideas for this thesis, all of whom I thank for their time and amazing input. Amongst them are Dr. Paul Keal, Dr. Heather Rae, Prof. Christian Reus-Smit, Dr. Nicky George, Dr. Jacinta O’Hagan, Prof. Raymond Apthorpe, Prof. John S. Dryzek, Don Blackmore, Ibrahim Hood, Siegmund Bekken, David Martin-Castro, Simon Garrat, Ash Khan, Darren Fernandez, Christian Krafft, Paul Harris and Laura Martindale.

This thesis owes a lot of thanks to Mathew Davies, Gilberto Estrada Harris, Adam Heron and last but not least Kate Hacking without whom many footnotes and typos would have been still there. But moreover, their help conceptually is invaluable and I thank you for all your sleepless nights. Finally I want to thank the GSIA program at The Australian National University for a truly amazing experience. I here include all those who have debated with me, taught me and have done the administrative parts that often go unnoticed. Thank you all.

Abstract

This thesis aims to reflect upon some of the bigger questions of international development. It investigates a general relationship between the World Bank vis a vis demands made by indigenous peoples, namely questioning of how to advance development goals in ways that uphold the justice needs of minorities such as indigenous peoples, further how to achieve a just balance between national prosperity and minority survival, and more broadly, how to further balance the complexities of global, local and national interests. This thesis seeks a stronger middle ground between the Bank and indigenous peoples and focuses, on the importance of deliberation, in general, and the principle of free prior informed consent, in particular.

The argument put forward here is normative and envisages emancipating from the singularity of the modern development paradigm in opening a deliberative space that provides for diversity and difference to flourish instead. Here specifically acknowledging indigenous peoples values and interests as equally important in development, this thesis supports a deliberate and affirmative approach to justice. This of course does not mark the prevailing top-down, state-centric and neo-liberal development paradigm as malign, rather it envisages exchanging its power base for bottom-up participatory deliberation.

Acronyms

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Introduction

‘Indigenous peoples must consent to all projects in our territories. Prior to consent being obtained the peoples must be fully and entirely involved in any decisions. They must be given all the information about the project and its effects. Failure to do so should be considered a crime against the indigenous peoples…’

Para 61, The Kari-Oca Declaration and Indigenous Peoples’ Earth Charter (1992)

‘Where a country is not one of the few that have incorporated free prior informed consent (FPIC) into their domestic legal framework, requiring FPIC would be inconsistent with the Bank Group’s role as a global institution whose members are sovereign governments, possessed of their own rights to determine whether to follow the terms of any international convention. Indeed, this would create a conflict with the Articles of Agreement, as the Bank Group would, in effect, be giving the equivalent of a veto right to parties other than those specified in the country’s legal framework.’

Para 22, The World Bank Group, Legal Note on Indigenous Peoples (2005)

Prologue

More than 300 Adivasis indigenous peoples from the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, representing their organisations and movements, climbed over the fence of the World Bank Group headquarters in New Delhi, India, on 24th November 1999. Blocking the building, covering it with posters, graffiti, cow dung and mud, singing slogans and traditional songs, they handed an open letter undersigned by all participating parties to Mr. Lim, country director of the World Bank Group [hereafter referred to as the Bank]^[1] in India. The letter urged the Bank to withdraw its support for the so-called 'eco-development' programmes that were being implemented in their forests. They argued that the joint forest programmes were leading to violent forced eviction of Adivasis from their lands in violation of the Bank’s own safeguard policies and thereby destroying indigenous livelihoods. ^[2] The main objective of the Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project was to ‘increase forest cover and productivity through development of participatory processes’ by, in particular, incorporating ‘interests of tribal peoples and other disadvantaged groups’.^[3]

Yet an independent report by Bramhane et al. concluded in 2000 that not only had the Bank’s safeguard policy on indigenous peoples been disregarded, but that conflicts between Adivasi communities and the Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project had increased as a direct result of the programmes being implemented.^[4] The Bank’s internal ‘Project Performance Assessment’, concluded in 2005, painted a very different picture, however. Although the sustainability of the project was rated ‘unlikely’, the performance of both Bank and borrower was rated ‘satisfactory’.^[5] It claimed that sufficient attention had been given to conflicts arising from the project, between tribal and non-tribal poor who ‘may feel slighted by perceived preferential treatment of the tribal population’, and that tribal peoples had not been made worse off by the project. In defending its action the Bank stated that ‘there is no shortage of advocacy groups waiting to represent the interests of groups (for example, tribal peoples) who claim their rights have been infringed.’^[6] The implication being that indigenous rights and development imperatives cannot be easily reconciled.

Research Question and Objectives

The Madhya Pradesh Forest Project is one example of a number of development projects that have stimulated a protracted debate over the Bank’s role with respect to indigenous peoples. This in ways reflects the broader polarized debate over development thinking, which has been described as a ‘ paradigm war’.^[7] The dominant paradigm supports a top-down, market growth and consumerist oriented approach over, in contrast, the alternative counter-posing paradigm arguing for a decentralised, bottom-up, sustainable and even post-materialist model of development.

The purpose of this thesis is to further explore and critically investigate the complex relationship between indigenous peoples and the World Bank. Any balanced assessment needs to take into account the deeply embedded interests and values of the major actors. This inevitably raises analytical difficulties, because neither the Bank nor indigenous peoples can be conceived of as homogeneous entities. Mindful of these problems and, also, in addressing the need to focus meaningfully on key issues within the available confines of the thesis, I will seek to identify the dominant interests and values of both actors, as represented in formal policy documents.^[8] While a considerable amount of partisan scholarship exists that interprets the divergent positions of both actors, very few studies exist that focus on pathways to greater reconciliation. One way forward here is to start with the principle of free prior informed consent, which is increasingly seen as a useful means of strengthening the Bank’s relationship with indigenous peoples.

Building on existing scholarship, this thesis aims to reflect upon some of the bigger questions mirrored in the demands of indigenous peoples, namely how to advance development goals in ways that uphold the justice demands of minorities such as indigenous peoples, how to achieve a just balance between national prosperity and minority survival, and more broadly, how to further balance the complexities of global, local and national interests.

In seeking a stronger middle ground between the Bank and indigenous peoples I will focus, on the importance of deliberation, in general, and the legal principle of FPIC, in particular. FPIC also brings into sharp relief the tensions between sovereignty and collective human rights, and thereby demands critical questioning of, and caution when accepting, international norms viz a viz minority rights of the international system. From this departure point, the thesis poses three questions:

How far is it possible to move beyond the current impasse between the World Bank and Indigenous Peoples? Towards this end, how important is the principle of free prior informed consent [hereafter referred to as FPIC] ? And finally, what if any, alternative processes of deliberation are possible?

The main objectives of the thesis are three-fold: first, to provide an overview of the current impasse in the Bank’s relationship with indigenous peoples; second, to highlight the central tensions between the two – namely to question the value of the principle of free prior informed consent in reconciling these tensions; third, to offer an alternative perspective by showing that a reconsideration of FPIC, through a deliberative justice process, holds benefits for both actors and may be seen as way around, or bridge over, the seemingly intractable impasse.

Conceptual Lens

The study of indigenous peoples within the discipline of International Relations has been centrally concerned with the way in which minority groups ‘seek to create collective futures’ that are often opposed to, or at least different from, more dominant voices within their society or the international community more generally.^[9] It is possible to identify three major strands in the literature. First, a number of studies have drawn upon international law, especially in regard to collective rights, concepts of ethical universalism and societal particularism. The work of Paul Keal on the ‘moral legitimacy of international society’,^[10] Will Kymlicka, in defence of liberalism, who argues that ‘collective rights can be defended as appropriate measures for the rectification of an inequality’ concerning indigenous peoples,^[11] and Ronald Niezen, who shows how an ‘International Indigenism’ movement strives for collective rights of indigenous peoples, all belong into this strand.^[12]

Second, other scholars have investigated the extent to which the discipline itself represents or limits the claims of indigenous peoples. These, for example, include James Tully on the ‘internal colonization’ of indigenous peoples^[13] and J. Marshall Beier who argues that International Relations is speaking a ‘hegemonologue’ - that is, ‘a knowing hegemonic Western voice that, owing to its universalist pretensions, speaks its knowledge to the exclusion of all others.’^[14]

And third, there exists an emerging scholarship that seeks to address a wider spectrum of issues relating to development, environmental sustainability, culture and identity, as well as interdependencies between local and global realms. Here scholars have often focused on generating local readings in light of global effects.^[15] Scholarship belonging to this category is usually not confined to International Relations per se, but is more interdisciplinary. John Bodley, for instance, examines the ‘impact of modern civilization on tribal peoples’,^[16] while Blaser, Harvey, McRae et al. provide examples of ‘development projects’ of indigenous peoples in a globalizing world.^[17] Smith and Ward et al. concentrate on the threats and opportunities of globalisation for indigenous peoples.^[18]

More specific scholarship examining the relationship between the World Bank and indigenous peoples can also be differentiated into three strands. First, there is discussion about the role of international norms, such as Benedict Kingsbury’s work on international law and indigenous peoples as a process of ‘international norm formation’^[19] and Galit Sarfaty’s focus on the internalisation and dissemination of indigenous rights norms by the Bank.^[20] Second, the role of transnational and local indigenous movements in relation to the Bank, investigated, for example, by Sanjeev Khagram in the case of India’s Narmada dam^[21] and, in a similar vein, Andrew Gray’s work on the intersection of NGOs pressure and Bank policy shifts.^[22]

Third there is a growing literature that primarily describes and critiques the Bank’s safeguard policies in regards to indigenous peoples. A number of scholars have focused on FPIC – the particular focus of this thesis – and have provided a critical overview, or illustration, of the principle in the Bank’s policies. Noteworthy examples are found in the works of Fergus MacKay^[23] and Marcus Colchester^[24]. Stefania Errico further provides a comprehensive illustration of the Banks revised current Operational Policy OP 4.10 in relation to FPIC in international law.^[25] Joji Carino adds to the debate by outlining some of the conceptual and practical obstacles in regard to FPIC in the Bank’s policies.^[26]

While this thesis draws on the above scholarship, it uses a conceptual lens that has not yet been applied to the relationship between the World Bank and indigenous peoples. It draws attention to the applicability of rights based approaches and the value of justice based approaches in international development. A deliberative justice approach, the thesis argues, has the potential to overcome the current impasse that prevails between indigenous peoples and the Bank viewing their individual constraints currently through a rigid rights based lens. Instead of accepting extant institutional mechanisms, informal practices and formal constraints, the Bank faces, as unchangeable, the argument put forward provides a space to arbiter between states, indigenous peoples and the Bank. In this regard all actors involved face challenges involving questions of legitimacy, responsibilities and possibilities within and without their scope of influence as agents of change. The thesis, in realising these challenges, offers an alternative perspective to the seemingly intractable impasse in providing a deliberative space.

A deliberative model ‘claims that parties to [political] conflict ought to deliberate with one another and through reasonable argument try to come to an agreement on policy satisfactory to all.’^[27] Deliberative justice is understood here as a synthesis between communicative action and justice arguments that focus on overcoming domination and oppression, and on accepting difference, before turning to issues of distribution and restoration.

Methodology and Significance of Thesis

This thesis commences with identifying the main areas of contention in the relationship between the Bank and indigenous peoples. Particular attention will be given to the divergent interests and values with respect to the development process and the rights based approach. I focus on the principle of free prior informed consent for the following four reasons.

First, FPIC is important because it is arguably becoming an emerging international norm, which, if understood properly, can potentially benefit both the Bank in its goal of alleviating global poverty, and indigenous peoples in their quest for justice. Moreover, because the Bank is a leader in development standards and its operational policies are becoming ‘de facto global standards among other development banks as well as institutions engaged in project finance’, a closer look at FPIC as an international norm becomes even more important as it could greatly influence future standards of other International Organizations.^[28] While acknowledging that a realisation of FPIC remains contingent upon the will of the Bank to apply the principle in policy and practice and that there must be a concomitant commitment of indigenous peoples to engage within international society ‘to forge with our non-indigenous brothers and sisters a new partnership,’^[29] it should be noted that there will not be space in this thesis to provide a basis for the operationalisation of FPIC, although it may speak to that and suggest possible work yet to be done.

Second, there exist clear differences in how this principle is being interpreted by indigenous peoples and the Bank, which helps illustrate some of the broader tension in the relationship. Indigenous peoples argue that FPIC is not simply a principle but a human right, relying on an argument that it is inscribed into, and a guarantee of, international law. However despite two major reviews commissioned by the Bank - the World Commission on Dams and the Extractive Industry Reviews (EIR) - recommending the incorporation of FPIC into the Bank’s policy and practice, it has not done so. Instead the Bank continues to stress the importance of consultation rather than consent. While the Bank ‘takes the heavier hand’^[30] in imposing privatisation, deregulation, free trade, and budgetary austerity conditions in return for financial assistance in developing countries, it is, far less interested in taking a similarly strong stance when it comes to FPIC and indigenous peoples. Here the Bank reverts to legal orthodoxy, by pointing to its obligations toward the borrower as set out in the Banks ‘Articles of Agreement’ and ‘Governance structures’.^[31]

Third, by extension - though indigenous peoples are not the only beneficiaries of development - the inclusion of FPIC would arguably ensure the smoother implementation of Bank financed projects. FPIC is more broadly important as a measure of social equity because it brings into sharp relief the tensions between sovereignty, economic development and collective rights. In being able to outline these tensions this thesis relies on recent policy documentations, independent reports and scholarship that offers qualitative insights into the values and interests of the actors. It further provides, the empirical grounds upon which to base a normative argument for moving beyond the impasse.

In striving for a more solid middle ground between the Bank and indigenous peoples, I argue deliberation is an alternative to the current impasse. Here, I disagree with the legal position put forward by the Bank and argue that FPIC is not only consistent with ‘idealized [that of the Bank] and relativised [those of indigenous peoples] approaches to justice’,^[32] but that it also accommodates, and includes, ‘substantive as well as procedural principles.’ The Bank in this sense could benefit from fulfilling its mandate of poverty alleviation and sustainability more effectively.^[33] A deliberative justice argument is seen as a viable option and valid response to the central dilemma of this thesis because it does not require a priori assumptions to be made on who constitutes a legitimate participant in the deliberation process.^[34]

Overview of Thesis Structure

This thesis is divided into three chapters. Chapter One begins with an investigation of indigenous peoples and their rights in the development process. It shows that in recent decades an international recognition of the legitimacy of indigenous peoples’ claims has forged a transnational movement in which indigenous peoples seem to share a commonality of values and interest. This recognition has meant that indigenous peoples can now argue that FPIC is not simply a principle but a right, by pointing out its clear inscription in a growing number of both domestic and international law instruments. This chapter will evaluate FPIC as a legal and normative claim by investigating its current status for indigenous peoples in international society.

Chapter Two then turns to the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Bank. Focusing here briefly on the evolution of the recognition of indigenous peoples as well as the identification procedures in Bank policy, it will then turn to the evolution of the Bank’s approach to FPIC, thereby highlighting the way internal as well as external actors and factors influence the Bank’s policy. Last, the chapter will identify three tensions that persist in regard to FPIC, at the heart of the impasse between the Bank and indigenous peoples.

Chapter Three aims at mediating, through a deliberative justice lens, the current impasse in regard to FPIC. Divided into two parts it will first build a deliberative justice model, utilizing aspects of communicative action and discourse ethics coupled with an understanding of justice as the absence of domination and oppression – one that goes beyond the distribution of material goods. Second, the deliberative justice model will then be applied to move beyond the tensions that create the impasse for both Bank and indigenous peoples.

[...]

---

^[1] For the purpose of this thesis the focus lies in the public sector arms of the World Bank Group, namely the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). See for an overview of the WBG government structure www.worldbank.org

^[2] Denny Henke, "Indigenous Peoples Occupy World Bank Premises in New Delhi,"Global Action, (1999), http://flag.blackened.net/~global/1199aradivasisoccupy.htm. Accessed online 12th of March 2007 at http://flag.blackened.net/~global/1199aradivasisoccupy.htm

^[3] Note that the findings presented were based on ‘initial reconnaissance of six randomly-selected villages’, of which four comprised entirely of ‘tribal or backward’ people and the remaining two of two-to-three-quarters of such people. Further, the Bank states that ‘international practice’ has shifted to the use of ‘indigenous peoples’ in place of the previous ‘tribal people’ and, while the terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘tribal’ are perceived to be interchangeable, the term ‘indigenous peoples’ will be used accordingly by the Bank to reflect this shift. See World Bank, "Legal Note on Indigenous Peoples," ed. World Bank Legal Department (World Bank, 2005). The practice, however, actually began in 1991 with OP 4.20. Accessed online on the 12th of April 2007 at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDPEOPLE/Publications/20571164/Issue%20Notes.pdf

^[4] Gajanand Bramhane, Bijaya Kishore Panda, and Adivasi Mukti Sangathan Sendhwa, "The Adivasis and the World Bank-Aided Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project - a Case Study of Indigenous Experience," in Workshop on Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the World Bank: Policies and Practice (Washington, DC: Forest Peoples Programme, Bank Information Center, 2000). pp. 2, 14 & 37 Accessed online, 21 April, 2007 at http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/wb_ips_madhya_pradesh_may00_eng.pdf

^[5] World Bank, "Project Performance Assessment Report - India - Madhya Pradesh Forestry Development Project," ed. Operations Evaluation Department Thematic and Global Evaluation Group (World Bank, 2005)., pp. 3-4. Accessed online, 12 May, 2007 at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSServlet?pcont=details&eid=000090341_20050525094624

^[6] Ibid., pp. 33-34

^[7] International Forum on Globalisation, Paradigm Wars - Indigenous Peoples' Resistance to Globalisation, ed. Jerry Mander and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2006). p. 4

^[8] Note: Not only are indigenous peoples represented by numerous organizations, they also find themselves in very different social, cultural and political circumstances. The Bank as a Bretton Woods institution is likewise bound up in agreements, as well as conflicts, between recipient states and donors. Moreover even within these groupings competing claims exist – for example, there may be disagreements between leadership and base of both indigenous peoples and Bank, or there may be region-specific claims to be considered.

^[9] Karena Shaw, "Indigeneity and the International,"Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31, no. 1 (2002)., p.57
Note: Indigenous Peoples are not a central theme of International Relations albeit they have gained increasing attention in the scholarship within the last two decades.

^[10] Paul Keal, European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous People: The Moral Backwardness of International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

^[11] Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Page 194
Note: Based on a Rawlsian model that puts rights before the good, Kymlicka puts the just before the political. See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Page 31

^[12] Ronald Niezen, The Origins of Indigenism - Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2003).

^[13] James Tully, "The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom," in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Page 36

^[14] J. Marshall Beier, Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2005). Page 2

^[15] Note: Anthropological, Ethnographical, Cultural and Identity studies provide useful readings for International Relations scholars focusing on the last strand.

^[16] John H. Bodley, Victims of Progress, 3rd. ed. (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1990). Page 1

^[17] Mario Blaser et al., In the Way of Development - Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalisation (London and New York: Zed Books, 2004). Page 1

^[18] Claire Smith, Graeme K. Ward, and eds., Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000).Page vi

^[19] Benedict Kingsbury, "Operational Policies of International Institutions as Part of the Law-Making Process: The World Bank and Indigenous Peoples," in The Reality of International Law - Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, ed. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill and Stefan Talmon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Page 323

Note: Scholarship by Finnemore and Sikkink on norm dynamics in International Organisations and Park’s work on norm diffusion in the Bank while not directly focusing on indigenous peoples also fall into this ‘constructivist’ reading. See Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,"International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998). And Susan Park, "Norm Diffusion within International Organisations: A Case Study of the World Bank,"Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (2005).

^[20] Galit A. Sarfaty, "The World Bank and the Internationalization of Indigenous Rights Norms,"The Yale Law Journal 114 (2006). Page 1792

^[21] Sanjeev Khagram, "Restructuring the Global Politics of Development: The Case of India's Narmada Valley Dams," in Restructuring World Politics - Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, ed. Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink (Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2002). Page 207

^[22] Andrew Gray, "Development Policy, Development Protest: The World Bank, Indigenous Peoples and Ngos," in The Struggle for Accountability: The World Bank, Ngos, and Grassroot Movements, ed. Jonathan A. Fox and David L. Brown (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). Page 267

^[23] See for example Fergus MacKay, "Indigenous Peoples' Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review,"Sustainable Development Law & Policy IV, no. 2 (2004), Fergus MacKay, "The Draft World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples: Progress or More of the Same?,"Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 22, no. 1 (2005).

^[24] Marcus Colchester and Fergus MacKay, "In Search of Middle Ground: Indigenous Peoples, Collective Representation and the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent," in Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (Oaxaca: Forest Peoples Programme, 2004).

^[25] The author would like to thank Ms. Errico for providing a copy of her work. Stefania Errico, "The World Bank and Indigneous Peoples: The Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples (O.P.4.10.) between Indigenous Peoples' Rights to Traditional Lands and to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent,"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 13 (2006).

^[26] Joji Carino, "Indigenous Peoples' Right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent: Reflections on Concepts and Practice,"Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 22, no. 1 (2005).

^[27] Iris Marion Young, "Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy,"Political Theory 29, no. 5 (2001). Page 671.

^[28] Galit A. Sarfaty, "The World Bank and the Internationalization of Indigenous Rights Norms." Page 1792

^[29] Native American Council of New York City, Voices of Indigenous People - Native People Address the United Nations, (Santa Fe, New Mexico,: Clear Light Publishers, 1994). Page 21

Note: Iris Marion Young goes some distance to show how deliberative democratic models and those of political activists who are sceptical due to structural powers (as the Banks) can intersect. See Iris Marion Young, "Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy."

^[30] John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics - Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006). Page 97

^[31] World Bank, "Legal Note on Indigenous Peoples." Page 5-6

^[32] Onora O'Neill, "Justice, Gender and International Boundaries,"British Journal of Political Science 20, no. 4 (1990). Page 440

^[33] Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, "Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process,"The Journal of Political Philosophy 10, no. 2 (2002). Page 153

^[34] John S. Dryzek, Discursive Democracy - Politics, Policy, and Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Page 92

Note: That human rights and international law arguments are crucial and need to continue to be furthered is meant here. This thesis however focuses on the deliberative justice approach as an alternative and added approach.