DOCSLIB.ORG

Saramaka People V. Suriname Author(S): Marcos A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saramaka People V. Suriname Author(S): Marcos A Saramaka People V. Suriname Author(s): Marcos A. Orellana Reviewed work(s): Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 841-847 Published by: American Society of International Law Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20456684 . Accessed: 13/02/2013 11:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of International Law. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:18:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2008] INTERNATIONALDECISIONS 841 differently to theAppellate Body itself, as opposed to panels?Note that theAppellate Body refers to "an adjudicatorybody"-in the singular-perhaps implying that only theAppellate Body may depart from prior rulingson the basis of "cogent reasons."Alternatively, the "adju dicatory body" itmentions may be theDispute Settlement Body, which would thus include panels. Since there are severalongoing zeroing disputes, the panels in question may have the opportunity to test the boundaries of theAppellate Body's new standard. SIMONLESTER WorldTradeLaw.net, Wellington, Florida Indigenousand tribalpeoples' rights-land, territory,and natural resources-consultations and prior informedconsent- environmentaland socialimpact assessment- concessions andforeign direct invest ment- environmentaldamage SARAMAKAPEOPLE V. SURINAME.Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations,and Costs). SeriesC, No. 172.At <http:flwww.corteidh.or.cr>. Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights,November 28, 2007. The case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname,1 decided by the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights on November 28, 2007, concerned logging andmining concessions awarded by Suriname on territorypossessed by the Saramakapeople, without their full and effective consultation. The Court examined the rights of tribalpeoples in international law and con cluded that themembers of the Saramaka people have a right to use and enjoy the natural resources that lie on andwithin their traditionallyowned territoryand that are necessary for their survival.The Court also declared that Surinamemay restrict this right by granting con cessions for the exploration and extraction of natural resourcesonly when such restrictiondoes not deny theSaramaka's survival as a tribalpeople. In this respect, the statemust abide by three safeguards:first, effective consultations in every event, aswell as free,prior, and informed con sent in connection with development and investment projects havingmajor impacts; second, a sharingof benefits derived from development plans; and third, prior and independent envi ronmental and social impact assessment (EIA). In the end, theCourt found thatSuriname had violated the rights, under theAmerican Convention on Human Rights,2 to juridicalperson ality, property, and judicialprotection of the Saramakapeople living in theUpper Suriname River Region, in relation to the obligations to respect, ensure, and give domestic legal effect to those rights. In its judgment, the Court disposed of all issues relating to the Saramaka People case namely, preliminary objections, merits (including evidence), reparations,and costs. Both the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights (Commission) and the "representatives"of the allegedvictims submittedwritten briefs containing pleadings,motions, and evidence.This 1 Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, Costs, Ser. C, No. 172 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Nov. 28,2007). The Court has issued a Saramaka v. on subsequent judgment, People Suriname, Interpretation of the Judgment Prelim and Ser. No. The are inary Objections, Merits, Reparations, Costs, G, 185 (Aug. 12, 2008). Court's judgments available at 2 <http://www.corteidh.or.cr>. Openedfor signatureNov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS 123. This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:18:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 842 THE AMERICAN JOURNALOF INTERNATIONALLAW [Vol. 102 duality of "applicants" raised a question concerning the Court's competence in relation to alle gations by the victims' representativesconcerning the ongoing effects of theAfobaka Dam, a hydroelectric project in proximity to the Saramaka people. The Court considered that the Commission's application defined the factual scope of the litigation, and found that it did not include detailed factual assertions on the dam (paras. 13, 16). The Court then turned to preliminary objections; three of which are reported here. First, the state argued that the petitioners3 had no authorization from the chief leaderof the Sara makas (theGaa 'man)to petition on behalf of thewhole Saramakacommunity. In accordance with theprinciple of effectiveness (effetutile), theCourt noted that theAmerican Convention permits any group of persons to lodge petitions, including persons other than the alleged vic tims, and dismissed the objection (paras.19-24). Suriname also argued the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.The Court noted that for this objection to be timely, itmust be pleaded in the state's first submission before theCom mission; otherwise, it ispresumed to be tacitlywaived. Further, the statemust specify the avail able remedies that remain to be exhausted and demonstrate their applicability and effective ness. Since Suriname argued non-exhaustion only in its fourth submission, and since itdid not specifywhich remedieshad not been pursued, theCourt dismissed the objection (paras.41-44). Finally, the state challenged the petition's admissibility, arguing that petitioners had filed requestswith theUN Human Rights Committee and theUN Committee on theElimination of RacialDiscrimination (CERD) .4The Court focused itsexamination on the object, purpose, and nature of those actions to determine whether the caseswere substantially the same.The Court concluded that the reporting procedures of the universal, treaty-basedbodies and the CERD's earlywarning and urgent procedure could not be equatedwith its adjudicatory juris diction (para.54). After addressing (and dismissing) the state's preliminary objections, theCourt assessed the available evidence and then analyzed themerits in a single section. First, theCourt addressed the question whether themembers of the Saramaka people make up a tribal community; of central importance in this contextwere the social, cultural, and economic characteristicsof the Saramakas. Insteadof being indigenous to the region that they inhabit, the Saramakasare one of sixMaroon groups in Suriname whose ancestorswere enslaved during the European col onization in the seventeenth century but escaped to the interior regions of the country. The Saramakas' social structure is organized inmatrilineal clans, and they regulate themselves, at leastpartially, by theirown customs and traditions.Culturally, themembers of the Saramaka people maintain a strong spiritual relationshipwith the ancestral territory that they have tra ditionally used and occupied. In this regard,"land ismore thanmerely a sourceof subsistence; it isalso a necessary source for the continuation of the life and cultural identity of the Saramaka people" (para.82). The Court observed that their economy can also be characterizedas tribal. Having established that the Saramakapeople make up a tribalcommunity, theCourt then askedwhether itsmembers require specialmeasures that guarantee the full exercise of their rights. In this regard, theCourt declared that its jurisprudence regarding indigenous peoples' 3 Namely, the Association of Saramaka Authorities and the twelve Saramaka captains. 4 was a to on One submission "shadow report" the Human Rights Committee Suriname's compliance with the on International Covenant Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; other were to measures submissions the CERD's "early warning and urgent action procedure." This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:18:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2008] INTERNATIONALDECISIONS 843 right to property is also applicable to tribalpeoples because both share similar characteristics, such as having distinct social, cultural, and economic traditionsdifferent from other sections of the national community, identifying themselveswith their ancestral territories,and regu lating themselves, at leastpartially, by their own norms, customs, and traditions. The second issue addressedby theCourt was whether Article 21 of theAmerican Conven tion protects the rightof themembers of tribalpeoples to the use and enjoyment of communal property.Recalling its jurisprudenceon indigenous peoples' rights, "both the private property of individualsand communal property ofthe members of... indigenous communities arepro tected byArticle 21 of theConvention" (para.89). The Court explicitly observed that its juris prudence is "basedupon the special relationship thatmembers of indigenous and tribalpeoples havewith their territory,and on the need to protect their right to that territory in order to safe guard the physical and cultural survivalof such peoples" (para.90).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Results from a School Survey
    CHAPTER 2 Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Results from a School Survey Isabelle Léglise and Bettina Migge 1 Introduction The population of the Guiana plateau is characterised by multilingualism and the Republic of Suriname is no exception to this. Apart from the country’s official language, Dutch, and the national lingua franca, Sranantongo, more than twenty other languages belonging to several distinct language families are spoken by less than half a million people. Some of these languages such as Saamaka and Sarnámi have quite significant speaker communities while others like Mawayana currently have less than ten speakers.1 While many of the languages currently spoken in Suriname have been part of the Surinamese linguistic landscape for a long time, others came to Suriname as part of more recent patterns of mobility. Languages with a long history in Suriname are the Amerindian languages Lokono (Arawak), Kari’na, Trio, and Wayana, the cre- ole languages Saamaka, Ndyuka, Matawai, Pamaka, Kwinti, and Sranantongo, and the Asian-Surinamese languages Sarnámi, Javanese, and Hakka Chinese. In recent years, languages spoken in other countries in the region such as Brazilian Portuguese, Guyanese English, Guyanese Creole, Spanish, French, Haitian Creole (see Laëthier this volume) and from further afield such as varieties of five Chinese dialect groups (Northern Chinese, Wu, Min, Yue, and Kejia, see Tjon Sie Fat this volume) have been added to Suriname’s linguistic landscape due to their speakers’ increasing involvement in Suriname. Suriname’s linguistic diversity is little appreciated locally. Since indepen- dence in 1975, successive governments have pursued a policy of linguistic assimilation to Dutch with the result that nowadays, “[a] large proportion of the population not only speaks Dutch, but speaks it as their first and best language” (St-Hilaire 2001: 1012).
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEMOGRAPHIC EVOLUTION of SURINAM 1920-1970 to Norine VERHANDELINGEN VAN HET KONINKLIJK INSTITUUT VOOR T AAL-, LAND- EN VOLKENKUNDE
    THE DEMOGRAPHIC EVOLUTION OF SURINAM 1920-1970 To Norine VERHANDELINGEN VAN HET KONINKLIJK INSTITUUT VOOR T AAL-, LAND- EN VOLKENKUNDE 65 THE DEMOGRAPHIC EVOLUTION OF SURINAM 1920 - 1970 A socio-demographic analysis H. E. LAMUR THE HAGUE - MAR TINUS NIJHOFF 1973 I.S.B.N. 90.247.1556.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish first and foremost to record my thanks to Professor W. Steigenga for his constant guidance and encouragement. I am also grateful to him for the freedom he allowed me, both as regards the framework of the investigation and the analysis of the data collected. His critical approach contributed in no small degree to the study being brought to a successful conclusion, and my only hope is that I have succeeded in making fuIl use of his commen tso I also wish to express my gratitude to Professor A. J. F. Köbben for his criticism and valuable suggestions. The data for the study were collected and partially processed by H. A. C. Boldewijn, W. J. Doest, D. P. Kaulesar Sukul, R. 1. Korsten, M. R. Kortram, A. R. Lamur and H. C. Limburg. Their enthusiasm, which never faltered even through the trying periods when the data were being gathered, afforded me great support. I owe them my warm est thanks. I am also grateful to Mr. J. Pinas for his assistance. For permis sion to collect the data for this study 1 wish to thank the District Commissioners, the Heads of the Offices for Population Administration and the Head of the Central Office for Population Administration. When subjecting some of the data to statistical analysis I enlisted the aid of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Saramaka Maroons on the Brazilian Frontier Richard Price College Of
    Saramaka Maroons on the Brazilian Frontier Richard Price College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA, and Anse Chaudière, Martinique Maroons in the Americas have always been champions at seizing the moment, whether in battles against their colonial enemies or in carving out imaginative economic niches in more recent times. This essay focuses on Maroon men from central Suriname who, in the second half of the nineteenth century, migrated to French Guiana where they monopolized the river transport system that supplied thousands of non-Maroon goldminers in that colony and, in the process, created a new of way of life for themselves and their descendants. The Oyapok region of French Guiana, which borders the Brazilian state of Amapá, might best be considered the distant frontier of a distant frontier B many thousands of kilometers from the metropolitan political center of Paris, many hundreds through the forest from the colonial capital of Cayenne, and, from the perspective of the Saramaka Maroons of central Suriname, at the farthest edge of the known geographical universe. In 1900, the mayor of the Commune de l=Oyapok gave the total population as 304. (He did not include members of the Aindigenous tribes of autochthonous or African origin living in the region@ which, according to a 1901 document, lived there Aunder the administrative protection of the customs service.@) Despite plans on the drawing board in 2002 for a bridge between St.- Georges-de-l'Oyapok and the Brazilian town of Oiapoque and for a road between St.- Georges-de-l'Oyapok and Cayenne (which would in theory permit direct road travel between, say, Macapá and Cayenne) the region has long remained a backwater B in 1971, for example, the largest town in the region, St-Georges-de-l'Oyapok, boasted only two cars.1 By 1900, when Saramaka Maroon migrants from Suriname (the main Atribe .
    [Show full text]
  • Bilby Small Axe.Pdf
    Book Discussion: Richard Price, Travels with Tooy: History, Memory, and the African American Imagination; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008; 452 pages; ISBN 978-0-2266-8058-3 (paper). African American Memory at the Crossroads: Grounding the Miraculous with Tooy Kenneth Bilby Travels with Tooy may be both the most readable and the most complex and demanding of Richard Price’s works on the Saramaka people of Suriname.1 Gone are the relatively transpar- ent and somewhat mechanical textual devices—the dialogical juxtapositions of clearly demar- cated alternating passages in differing fonts—that presented readers with a certain narrative consistency and progression (even while carrying challenges of their own) in First-Time and Alabi’s World.2 In their place is a kind of multitextured narrative patchwork, a loosely stitched crazy quilt of time-coded stories and “teachings” that jump across eras and locations, both imagined and literal. The stories and lessons, presented less as chapters than as excursions within and across interlinked timescapes, lead through an ever-thickening evocation of the African American temporal-spiritual worlds inhabited by Price’s partner in this enterprise, a very knowledgeable Saramaka Maroon óbiaman (healer and spiritual practitioner) known as Tooy. Only toward the very end of the book does Price attend to the matter of what his and Tooy’s extended dialogue might tell us about some of the much-debated larger questions that continue to preoccupy students of African American societies and cultures. It is on these 1 Richard Price, Travels with Tooy: History, Memory, and the African American Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); hereafter cited in text.
    [Show full text]
  • African Names and Naming Practices: the Impact Slavery and European
    African Names and Naming Practices: The Impact Slavery and European Domination had on the African Psyche, Identity and Protest THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Liseli A. Fitzpatrick, B.A. Graduate Program in African American and African Studies The Ohio State University 2012 Thesis Committee: Lupenga Mphande, Advisor Leslie Alexander Judson Jeffries Copyrighted by Liseli Anne Maria-Teresa Fitzpatrick 2012 Abstract This study on African naming practices during slavery and its aftermath examines the centrality of names and naming in creating, suppressing, retaining and reclaiming African identity and memory. Based on recent scholarly studies, it is clear that several elements of African cultural practices have survived the oppressive onslaught of slavery and European domination. However, most historical inquiries that explore African culture in the Americas have tended to focus largely on retentions that pertain to cultural forms such as religion, dance, dress, music, food, and language leaving out, perhaps, equally important aspects of cultural retentions in the African Diaspora, such as naming practices and their psychological significance. In this study, I investigate African names and naming practices on the African continent, the United States and the Caribbean, not merely as elements of cultural retention, but also as forms of resistance – and their importance to the construction of identity and memory for persons of African descent. As such, this study examines how European colonizers attacked and defiled African names and naming systems to suppress and erase African identity – since names not only aid in the construction of identity, but also concretize a people’s collective memory by recording the circumstances of their experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Results from a School Survey Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge
    Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Results from a School Survey Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge To cite this version: Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge. Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Re- sults from a School Survey. In and Out of Suriname. Language, mobility, Identity., Brill, 2015, 9789004280113. hal-01134998 HAL Id: hal-01134998 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01134998 Submitted on 24 Mar 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. In and Out of Suriname Language, Mobility and Identity Edited by Eithne B. Carlin, Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge, and Paul B. Tjon Sie Fat LEIDEN | BOSTON Contents Acknowledgments vii List of Tables and Figures viii List of Contributors x 1 Looking at Language, Identity, and Mobility in Suriname 1 Eithne B. Carlin, Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge and Paul B. Tjon Sie Fat 2 Language Practices and Linguistic Ideologies in Suriname: Results from a School Survey 13 Isabelle Léglise and Bettina Migge 3 Small-scale Gold Mining and Trans-frontier Commerce on the Lawa River 58 Marjo de Theije 4 Movement through Time in the Southern Guianas: Deconstructing the Amerindian Kaleidoscope 76 Eithne B.
    [Show full text]
  • In and out of Suriname Caribbean Series
    In and Out of Suriname Caribbean Series Series Editors Rosemarijn Hoefte (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies) Gert Oostindie (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies) Editorial Board J. Michael Dash (New York University) Ada Ferrer (New York University) Richard Price (em. College of William & Mary) Kate Ramsey (University of Miami) VOLUME 34 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/cs In and Out of Suriname Language, Mobility and Identity Edited by Eithne B. Carlin, Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge, and Paul B. Tjon Sie Fat LEIDEN | BOSTON This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-NC 3.0) License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The realization of this publication was made possible by the support of KITLV (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies). Cover illustration: On the road. Photo by Isabelle Léglise. This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface issn 0921-9781 isbn 978-90-04-28011-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28012-0 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by the Editors and Authors. This work is published by Koninklijke Brill NV. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect the publication against unauthorized use and to authorize dissemination by means of offprints, legitimate photocopies, microform editions, reprints, translations, and secondary information sources, such as abstracting and indexing services including databases.
    [Show full text]
  • Saramaka People V. Suriname
    Saramaka People v. Suriname 1 ABSTRACT This case addresses indigenous peoples’ rights to their land and their struggle against encroachment by mining and logging companies carrying out activities on their territory on the basis of concessions granted by the State without consultation with the indigenous people. The Court found State committed violations of the American Convention against the members of the Saramaka people, a tribal community living in the Upper Suriname River region, by failing to adopt effective measures to recognize the Saramaka people's right to the use and enjoyment of the territory they traditionally occupied and used. The State also failed to provide the Saramaka people with the right to effective access to justice for the protection of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to own property in accordance with their communal traditions. Lastly, the State failed to adopt domestic legal provisions in order to ensure and guarantee such rights to the Saramaka people. I. FACTS A. Chronology of Events June 15, 1982: Suriname adopts Decree L-1, which provides that the State will respect indigenous and tribal people’s property rights when land is allocated to indigenous groups.2 1986: The State adopts decrees on mining that dictate property owners must be compensated when the State grants mining concessions on their 1. Hayley Garscia, Author; Heather Hassan, Editor; Elise Cossart-Daly, Chief IACHR Editor; Cesare Romano, Faculty Advisor. 2. Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 172, ¶¶ 108-110 (Nov. 28, 2007). 2305 2306 Loy.
    [Show full text]
  • Wayana Advance About the Project, and This Is Indicated by the Letter ‘P’ (Which Stands for the English Word: Prior)
    FPIC ( Free, Prior,Informed, Consent) What is FPIC? FPIC is following the rules so that your community can take well considered decisions. A well considered decision is for example a decision: 1. Where you have the freedom to be for or against a project and you may openly say this. The decision you make may not have been imposed and you take that out of your own free will. This is indicated by the letter ‘F’ (which stands for the English word: free). INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF SURINAME 2. The project has been completely explained before it has started, and not when the project is already in operation. So, you are informed in Wayana advance about the project, and this is indicated by the letter ‘P’ (which stands for the English word: prior). FPIC are rules to protect the rights of the community in a project. FPIC stands for Free: free will and freedom. CONSULTATION PROTOCOL: Protection of the rights of the Wayana’s in the field of 3. The project has been explained clearly, and all information has been passed on to your community. You have been informed about the project self-determination, participation and decision-making. about how the activities will take place, the people who will be involved, who makes the decisions, how much money is available, and how reports will be made. So you are informed of all details of the project and this is indicated by the letter ‘I’ (which stands for the English word: informed). 4. You may finally decide whether or not to participate in the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Rights, Tenure and Use of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname
    SUPPORT FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIOR -COLLECTIVE RIGHTS LAND RIGHTS, TENURE AND USE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND MAROONS IN SURINAME FINAL REPORT December 2010 THE AMAZON CONSERVATION TEAM Doekhieweg Oost 24, PARAMARIBO, SURINAME, PH: (597) 568606 FAX: (597) 6850169. EMAIL: [email protected]. WEB: WWW.ACT-SURINAME.ORG TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………… 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………… 5 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. 7 1.1 SURINAME’S INTERIOR…………………………………………… 8 1.2 LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS…………………………. 10 1.3 FRAMEWORK FOR LAND AND RESOURCE USE……………….. 11 2. CUSTOMARY LAW ON LAND TENURE AND RESOURCE USE IN INDIGENOUS MAROON AREAS…………………………………………..…………….. 13 2.1 CUSTOMARY LAW ON LAND TENURE AND RESOURCE USE IN MAROON COMMUNITIES………………………………… 13 2.2 CUSTOMARY LAW ON LAND TENURE AND RESOURCE USE IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ……………………………… 16 3. HISTORIC LAND USE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND MAROONS IN SURINAME….19 3.1 BUILT UP LAND……………………………………………………… 19 3.2 FOREST USE…………………………………………………………. 22 3.3 AGRICULTURE……………………………………………………….. 25 3.4 GOLD AND BAUXITE MINING……………………………………. 29 3.5 LAND USED FOR PROTECTED AREAS AND FOR TOURISM…. 30 3.6 UNSUSTAINABLE LAND USE……………………………………… 32 4. RIGHTS TO LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES…………………………… 33 4.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM……………………………….. 33 4.2 COMPETING CLAIMS FOR RESOURCE USE………………………. 35 4.3 CONFLICTS OVER LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES…………. 40 4.4 ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND LAND STEWARDSHIP..…………. 46 2 5. DEMARCATION OF LANDS……………………………………………………. 49 5.1 DEFINING DEMARCATION ………………………………………….. 49 5.2 DEMARCATION IN SURINAME……………………………………… 53 5.3 GUIDELINES TO DEMARCATION…………………………………... 62 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ……………………………….… 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………… 75 ANNEX 1: FORESTRY APPLICATION PROCESS……………………………… 81 ANNEX 2: CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS……………………………………… 82 ANNEX 3: TEAM OF CONSULTANTS…………………………………………… 83 ANNEX 4: METHODOLOGY TO THE STUDY………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the Situation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Suriname and Comments on Suriname’S 13Th - 15Th Periodic Reports (CERD/C/SUR/13-15)
    A Report on the Situation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Suriname and Comments on Suriname’s 13th - 15th Periodic Reports (CERD/C/SUR/13-15) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 87th Session (2015) by The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname The Association of Saramaka Authorities The Forest Peoples Programme 14 July 2015 Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Suriname: Basic Information 3 III. Comments on Suriname’s 13th - 15th Periodic Reports 3 A. Judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 4 B. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 5 C. The ‘Working Visit’ of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 7 D. There is no Extant Process to Implement the IACTHR’s Judgments or to Recognise Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights more Generally 9 IV. Additional Information 13 A. Rights to Lands, Territories and Resources 13 B. The Saramaka People, Moiwana Village, and Kaliña and Lokono Peoples Cases 18 1. Saramaka People: a “prolonged condition of international illegality” 19 2. Moiwana Village 23 3. The Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples 26 C. Baseless Excuses to Justify Non-Compliance and Ongoing lack of Recognition of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights 31 V. Conclusion and Requests 35 VI. Suggested Questions 36 VII. Annexes 38 A. Affidavit of Loreen Jubitana, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, 27 January 2015 B. Communication of the IACHR, 18 June 2015 C. Draft Law on Traditional Authorities The Submitting Organisations: The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname (VIDS)): VIDS is the traditional authority structure of the indigenous peoples of Suriname, uniting all indigenous village leaders (also known as Captains) from each of the 51 indigenous villages in Suriname.
    [Show full text]
  • ORGANIZATION of AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
    0 ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of 12 Saramaka Clans (Case 12.338) against the Republic of Suriname DELEGATES: Paolo Carozza, Commissioner Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary ADVISERS: Ariel Dulitzky Victor H. Madrigal Borloz Oliver Sobers Manuela Cuvi June 23, 2006 1889 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 II. PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION ................................................................................. 1 III. REPRESENTATION ..................................................................................................... 2 IV. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.................................................................................... 2 V. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION ............................................................................ 3 1. Petition 12.338............................................................................................... 3 2. Precautionary Measures ................................................................................... 6 3. Procedure for Friendly Settlement...................................................................... 8 4. Issuance of Report 09/06 and follow-up............................................................. 9 VI. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS....................................................................................
    [Show full text]