Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Lapland
Faculty of Social Science
Political Science
IndigeneityVersus McWorld or
IndigeneityWithin McWorld?
A Barberian View of Indigeneityand globalization
IRGB1307
29.05.15
Student :Kenty
Dubois
Number:0434744
Supervisor : Marjo
Lindroth and
Heidi Sinevaara-
Niskanen
Abstract
My aim by writing this article was to make a dialectical analysis of the relation between
Globalization and Indigeneity. It occurs to me by reading different article that Globalization
(or McWorld to quote Benjamin Barber) was a threat to Indigeneity therefore they have to
adapt. Conversely indigenous peoples have used the tool of McWorld to be heard or to fight
McWorld with its own weapon but by doing so are they not transformed by McWorld?
Also the interplay of McWorld and Indigeneity like the interplay of McWorld and Jihad (for
Barber, Jihad means nationalism/localism) are transforming the role of the State. Where
Benjamin Barber sees the interplay of Jihad and McWorld as being a threat for democracy
and the states, I will argue in this paper that the interplay of McWorld and Indigeneity has an
impact on the states but it is not really a threat to democracy conversely indigenous people
can strengthen democracy. If globalization and Indigeneity has an impact of the states, it is
more complicated than a simple loss of power, it is a shift of the role of states in the global
scene.
According to Marjo Lindroth (2015, 13) the relations between indigenous peoples, states and
others actors are more complicated than winners-losers relations. She also stresses the
merging of different paradoxical subjectivities which makes me thing about using a
“Barberian dialectical framework” for my paper.
Defining McWorld (Globalization)
Nowadays we are into a big McWorld; we are tied together by the market, ecology, resources
and technology. These are the four imperatives of McWorld (Mehlinger 2000, 23).
The faces of McWorld are malls and global theme parks such as Disneyland or McDonald: a
McWorld tied together by commerce, entertainment, communication and information (Barber
1995, 4).
For McWorld the world is small, for example if we take ecology: acid rain and climate change
make national border useless and it is therefore an issue which need to be dealt worldwide
(Barber 1995, 12-13).
Defining Cultural McWorld
According to Benjamin Barber (1995, XXI) McWorld through the culture creates a soft-
imperialism where one has to choose its commercial identity. McWorld creates a trivialization
and a homogenization of the values and cultures (Barber 1995, XII).
Strong terms such as “Coca-colanization” are often used to speak about globalization on
cultural term. Strong vehicles of Western Values are indeed the Multinational. Western ideals
are seen as over-riding and undermining the local values (Southcott 2005, 106).
.
Defining (Neo) Liberal/Economic McWorld
I think these two sentences written by Benjamin Barber defines the “Market imperative” of
McWorld by themselves.
“Markets abhor frontiers as nature abhors a vacuum” (Barber 1995, 13).
“Within their expansive and impermeable domain, interests are private, trade is free,
currencies are convertible, access to banking are open, contracts are enforceable (the state’s
sole economic function) and the laws of production and consumption are sovereign, trumping
the laws of legislature and courts” (Barber 1995, 13).
According to Benjamin Barber, the international commerce has brought peace but has
undermined civic participation, it creates a peaceful world because it needs stability but it is a
peaceful world of consumers not citizen (Barber 1995, 14).
Globalization by giving access to a larger market gives the possibilities to gather more wealth
and technologies and also increases the flows of capital but it has a bad effect on rural
communities namely some little town in the North are reeling from resources (Southcott 2005,
105).
Political and Economic McWorld
Globalization has created a global polity: a multi-level system made of different international
institutions, inter-governments cooperation, intergovernmental and transnational agencies.
Inside of this global polity, globalization itself is discussed, contested and regulated
(Southcott 2005, 105-106).
Foucault defines liberalism through the technology of government and rule of maximum
economy which is its specific signature; Maximum economy means: achieving the best means
by using a cost effective set of actions and policies. Liberalism transform government in a
“conduct of conduct”, a minimal state. To understand liberalism as a way of governance
which creates self-governed and so called “free” subject (Odysseos 2010, 748-749).
According to Louiza Odysseos (2010, 751) liberalism employs a form of pastoral power
which build subject amenable to being directed, subject who use their freedom but along a
predetermined path.
The Spread of Liberal Value (Human Rights, Democracy)
According to Benjamin Barber (1995:XII), there is a trivialization and an homogenization of
the value.
It is important to keep in mind that for Barber (1995, 15) Capitalism and Democracy are not
twins, it is just an historical chance, Capitalism to thrive needs stability and Democracy can
be anarchic therefore Capitalism can thrive as well under a dictatorship like China (Barber
1995, 15).
There is a distinction to make between human rights as a moral framing and human rights as a
legal tool. In liberal ethics, human rights are universal and make people equal. In a pure
fiction they exist independently from all political and legal systems. Human rights are both a
claim for recognition and claim from the people to ask the state to not impinge on their
personal freedom (Odysseos 2010, 754-755).
According to Louiza Odysseos (2010, 755), Human rights are linked to the economic vision
of liberalism which asks the states to not govern too much as to let people being free when it
comes to trade.
Defining Indigeneity
Indigeneity is a difficult to define; actually scholars do not have a common definition.
According to Francesca Merlan (2009, 303), the word indigenous was principally used to
make a distinction between natives and the “others”.
Francesca Merlan (2009, 305) makes a distinction between a “criterial” and a “relational”
definition. By “criterial” she means based on a set of criteria and by “relational” she means
based on a relation with the “others” which the colonial states or simply the states (it is
difficult to know if Scandinavian countries are colonialist or not) (Merlan 2009, 305).
For the UN, indigenous peoples are those who have a historical continuity with precolonial
and preinvasion society and also consider themselves as being distinct from the colonial
states/settlers. For the International Labour Organization defined indigenous peoples on (a) a
cultural, economic and social ground which defers them from the other, (b) descending from
people who lived there before colonialization or/and invasion and (c) people keeping distinct
institutions (Merlan 2009, 305).
According to Emily S Cameron (2012, 105), Indigeneity and nativeness are linked to a local
and intellectual confinement. Indigeneity is a form of ecological ethnicity, they are seen as
being linked to the environment and this identity with closeness to nature give them political
leverages but also make them vulnerable (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 279). Their
knowledge makes them stakeholders but limits their action to a close realm. In fact there is an
opposition between local knowledge seen as primitive and Western scientific expertive
(Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 288-289). Being indigenous is mostly seen as being
linked to a specific place therefore Indigeneity and urban life are often seen as being opposite
(Cameron 2012, 105).
Some indigenous leaders and scholars reject this over-simplistic description of Indigeneity
which does not go further than “peoples linked to territories with special traditions” (Cameron
2012, 105).
I think that the case of Greenland illustrates well this point of view:
The Greenlanders has to choose between being indigenous people or independent states in
aim to write the Greenlandic constitutions. There is two ways to define community in
Greenland: either an ethnical identity of Inuits or a local-territories related identity or a
territorially defined community (Thisted 2013, 236).
In your further reading of this article, you will notice that Greenlanders will not define
Indigeneity and themselves as “doomed” or “at risks to be suppressed” (Thisted 2013, 252).
To summarize : “The modern world-view is structured as a mosaic of delimited territories
with naturalized links with people and place”(Thisted 2013, 229) but defining Indigeneity is
something more complicated because there is more to take in account than just territories and
people.
Indigeneity Vs McWorld
Victimization of Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous people inside the UN are defined as victims and as the poorest people. According
to Lindroth (2011, 552), the states have used the technologies of domination through the
production of a victimized identity of indigenous people. Conversely victimization gives
moral and juridical leverage to indigenous peoples. The last form of victimization is a product
of McWorld: climate change which is also a threat but a source of leverage for indigenous
peoples (Lindroth 2011, 551-552-553).
In a world where everything moves, traditional lifestyle is under threat. Local communities
are transformed and subject to depopulation because the young leaves for the city while the
old stay (Southcott 2005, 110).
Through their indigeneity, indigenous peoples are seen as vulnerable because they are tied to
the land and its resources (Cameron 2012, 108).
Victims of Mc World? Environmental Politics Analysis
To speak about indigenous peoples within environmental politics there is three keys elements
that we have to stress and which empowered indigenous peoples and justify agency:
1. Particular knowledge
2. Being stakeholders
3. Having a close relationships with nature
(Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 275).
Indigenous peoples are victims of environmental injustice: they are the least responsible but
the greatest victims (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 283).
.The Northern Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy, an official paper about Canada’s
foreign policy, makes the links between Globalization and environmental degradation (in the
Circumpolar North). These environmental impacts are the reason why Canada appeals to a
stronger cooperation inside the Arctic Council (Southcott 200, 107).
“Globalization exposes all regions to new political, economic, social and environmental
forces which often diminish national controls over events-even in the most industrialized
ones.” (Canada, n.d., Introduction, paragraph 3).
According to Lassi Heininen (2010, 252), a distinction has to be made between internal and
external sources. Internal pollution result from the use of non-renewable resources and it is a
matter of domestic policies whereas external pollution is often trans-boundaries and need
therefore to be treated on an international level (Heininen 2010, 252).
If we think about Greenland, a great amount of people are at risks to become environmental
refugees. Hunters will probably be relocated in cities where there is a risk for them to become
and underclass (Thirsted 2013, 230).
Climate change can also be an elements which facilitates globalization in place where in
cannot occur without it. If we think about the Vikings which could not stay in Greenland
because of the cold, now industrialization and tourism are well established there (Thisted
2013, 245-246).
Saying than Indigenous peoples are only victims would be too easy therefore I will carry on
my analyzis related to international environmental politics in the second part of my dialectic:
Indigeneity Within McWorld.
Political Resistance (Arctic Council, UN, local/national level)
Indigenous peoples have a subjectivity which leads to agency. Their inclusion into the UN PF
(United Nation Permanent Forum) can be a good example to illustrate the rather complicated
relation between indigenous peoples, national states and globalization. The PF and the UN are
both international structures built by colonial states. We can see that they are put in an
international environment which empowered them but also this environment was built by
colonial states which do not have interest to make indigenous peoples to powerful (Lindroth
2011, 547-548-549).
Also on a national level democracy gives indigenous peoples leverage to be heard, through
the politic of presence they can gain vote due to their ethnicity (O’Sullivan 2010, 88).
Democracy by providing equal rights to every citizen provides way to resist to indigenous
peoples and can be use as medium but its relation with Indigeneity is sometime paradoxical
(O’Sullivan 2010, 90-91).
Indigeneity within McWorld (Playing the game of McWorld/Using the
tool of McWorld)
To introduce the reflection about the second part of the dialectic, I will start by introducing
some considerations which have paved the way for my analysis.
We have to keep in mind that when a process creates subject of power it also brings resistance
(Lindroth 2015, 55)
Indigenous peoples are involved in a neoliberal logic of governance which:
1. “Directs the action of indigenous peoples along one path rather than others.”
2. “May be compatible with the expressed wishes of indigenous peoples themselves who,
naturally, demand compensation for the loss and pollution of their lands and benefit
from the substitute land or money they receive.”
(Lindroth 2014, 352).
Cultural Adaptation
According to Southcott (2005, 110) cultural globalization is actually empowering the local
communities from the North by increasing the value of local culture and identities. Southcott
tends to think that what we see in the Arctic is not a Globalization per se but more a
glocalization (Southcott 2005, 109-110).
Several speeches are given on the PF by indigenous peoples in combination of official UN
languages and indigenous one. This shows how the identity has evolved to include local and
global features (Lindroth 2011: 555-556).
If we take the example given by Kirsten Thisted (2013, 228- 229-230), we can see than even
in the Greenland we have this interplay on a cultural ground. Indigenous peoples are painting
pictures of Manhattan, which shows how much the local is embed in the global (Thisted 2013,
228-229-230).
How (Neo)liberalism is used by Indigenous Peoples? Political and
Institutional Analysis (Arctic Council, UN, local government)
According to some scholars, globalization can have positive effects by freeing local
communities from the colonialism of the nation-states. Indeed the number of local
government has increased in the North and indigenous peoples have more and more to say on
the scientific realm (Southcott 2005, 111).
Democratic States are based on universality and equality of rights which means that
indigenous peoples like the “others” should have the same right (Merlan 2009, 315).
The UN follows a Neo-Liberal framework of self-governed indigenous peoples. Being self-
governed means making efficient choice and being able to manage issue on your own. This
process of responsibilisation creates subjects and objects of governance (Lindroth 2015: 53).
One has to keep in mind that those rights and principle of self-governance are themselves
limited by the liberal architecture which gives more importance to economic actors (Merlan
2009, 315). As explained by Louiza Odysseos (2010, 748-749) liberalism foster people to be
free and self-governed as long as they follow an already shaped path.
If we focus on the UN PF, we can see that indigenous peoples are involved on the
international level by using an institution made by colonial states. In the PF the indigenous
peoples have to adapt to practices built by national states which constrain them. Their
resistance in the PF is mostly a resistance against states’ exercise of power. “However, the
technologies of domination do not exhaustively define the self-technologies of indigenous
peoples; resistance can appropriate of the dominant power for its own ends” (Lindroth 2011,
551).
Marjo Lindroth stresses also the ability of indigenous people of stretching the practice of the
UN PF as to escape categorization and to transform “face-to-face” confrontation with states
(Lindroth 2011, 556).
Liberal Democracy as a Medium
Liberal Democracy in Fidji was seen as a foreign flower brought by colonial power but as
Dominic O’Sullivan (2011, 87) noticed liberal democracy can be used as a medium to return
the balance in favour of indigenous peoples. National sovereignty is a concept which mean
being self-governed, to take the power away from outsiders but for indigenous peoples this
word had a different meaning: it meant the shifting of power from them to the colonial or
post-colonial states (O’Sullivan 2011, 96).
Dominic O’Sullivan (2011, 88) through the concept of politics of presence, noticed that what
is important is not only the ideas of the one holding power but also its identity which is
important. The politics of presence is quite powerful when it comes to indigenous affairs such
as land’s rights and cultural rights (O’Sullivan 2011, 88).
Indigeneity and democracy’s relation is complex and sometime paradoxical. Democracy can
limit the power of exclusion but it can undermine the power of indigenous people. To be
powerful inside a democratic system indigenous people need to be included in the polity or at
least to be seen as belonging to it (O’Sullivan 2011, 90-91).
Democracy constrains the states, it is true to say that the power of coercion remains a state’s
monopoly but coercion is not always bad for indigenous peoples. While the state is a burden it
can still safeguard individual rights (O’Sullivan 2011, 93). In Fidji, democracy has allowed
the Fidjians (local indigenous people) to hold the power but it has also brought corruption (O’
Sullivan 2011, 95).
Democracy foster group of people to pursue their own interest but it is balanced by the rights
of other people or groups to do the same. The ideal of a strong civil society allows indigenous
peoples to act through official forum and to enjoy public political expression (O’Sullivan
2011, 99-100).
In the City Council of Auckland, there was a discussion to know if a forum of regional tribes
(the Great Council of Chiefs) can make an appointment. Democracy cannot make difference
between people based on race so the criterion for this tribes’ forum was the first occupancy
(O’Sullivan 2011, 92).
Climate change, Empowerment and Power : International Environmental
Politics and Indigeneity
As mention before there is three key elements to take in account:
1. Indigenous peoples have a particular knowledge when it comes to environmental
issues.
2. They are stakeholders.
3. Given their close relationships with nature they have knowledge but they are also
expected to act as responsible.
(Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 273).
When we speak about environmental politics, we have to take in account to type of
responsibility:
1. The responsibility of the polluters: the liability for past degradation.
2. Responsibility of the one who have the knowledge, for example: indigenous peoples
who are expected to adapt and act accordingly.
(Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 279).
International environmental politics takes at concern adaptation, this term has nothing neutral
it empowers indigenous peoples but impose on them certain expectation such as adaptation
and responsibility in adaptation (Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 284).
To govern and solve issues linked to climate change, some knowledge were needed. This
where the indigenous peoples come into play by providing specific knowledge relevant to
climate change (Lindroth 2015, 31).
Climate change in itself is a threat to indigenous people because it affects their way of live.
Climate change also gives moral obligations to states to improve the condition of indigenous
people. Meanwhile environmental degradation transforms indigenous people as subject of
power given their related knowledge (Lindroth 2011, 551-552-553). This relation between
indigenous peoples and environment which makes them stakeholders and subject of powers
can be studied in the UN PF and the Arctic Council. The discourse held in these institutions
define what are the problems and which actors can be included in the decision making process
and the problem solving (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 276).
Indigenous peoples decided by them to become stakeholders, being stakeholders empowered
them but in the meantime they are transformed in subjects of power (Lindroth & Sinevaara-
Niskanen 2013: 279).
International environmental politics is also linked to neoliberal philosophy: indigenous
peoples are seen as being self-governed and able to manage their land in a sustainable way
(Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 282).
If we take the Greenland to illustrate my analysis: the Greenlanders are in fact in favour of
oil-drilling as long as it does not result in environmental degradation. So holding a discourse
of pure victimization would be over simplistic (Thisted 2013, 237).
To summarize the role taken by indigenous peoples on environmental issues is a proactive
self-governed one but the relation with national states remains complicated and their power
remain in small area. The local knowledge is still seen as being opposed and in some way
inferior to Western rationality “The peoples’ role as environmental knowledge, but also
requires them to constantly “increase their understanding” reconcile local knowledge with
Western science, and educate themselves.” (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 288-289).
The Question of Human Rights as a Tool of Neoliberalism
In its rhetoric human rights defines all the people as “being the same but yet different.” The
existence of endangered rights creates new area of human rights such as women’s rights or
indigenous rights or to say it like it is mentioned in the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People: “Rights holder in waiting”. Rhetorically speaking, human rights are
concerned with self-government and foster lobbying and action (Odysseos 2010, 756-757-
758).
According to Louiza Odysseos (2010, 761) human rights discourse encourage people to call
beyond the states and to raise their problem on an international level. What is important to
keep in mind with human rights and the UN Declaration is that they put in which terms
indigenous peoples can be free and within which instrument and institutions they can bring
their claim (Lindroth 2014, 346 Odysseos 2010, 763). Also with the framing of human rights
people fighting for revolutionary ends as land’s right fight now for more rights (Odysseos
2010, 763).
Because indigenous peoples are stakeholders or to said it differently: rights claimers they
obtain moral, political and legal leverage as well. Their claim of self-determination and
recognition is linked to resources management which put the states in a rather uncomfortable
place (Lindroth 2014, 345-346).
The reports made by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights (SRIP) have a role to play in
the governance of indigenous people although they are thought as being political neutral. The
knowledge produced by the SRIP made them governable. It is because the rapports are seen
as being neutral that they have a power, the SRIP is legally speaking independent from the
UN but enjoys its unofficial linkage (Lindroth 2014, 341-344-347).
The Case of Greenland and Act on Greenland Self-Government
With the Act on Greenland Self-Government, the Greenlanders have taken control on the
energy production and industry therefore we have to acknowledge that indigenous peoples
can be more than simple victims. What is sadly harmful for the hunters can be good for the
fishers and the agriculture (Thirsted 2013, 231).
Greenland is ruled by local on a neo-liberal/self-governance basis through the Act on
Greenland Self Government which according to Thirsted (2013, 234) goes further than the
UN Declaration. This act recognizes the importance of the culture, the language and seeks to
eliminate the relation of subservience. The term “indigenous people” is nowhere to be seen in
this act, in fact it makes up to the Greenlanders to choose their way of governance whereas
the UN Declaration establish global governance seeking to protect the local from the global
(Thirsted 2013, 234).
The new slogan of Greenland “People-Planet-Profit”, this slogan aims at unifying two
discourses which seems opposite: a global discourse with ecology and sustainability at
concern and a local one emphasizing development and economic independence. Greenland is
a good example of what I am trying to show with this article, what we witnessed with
indigenous governance is coexistence where we thought we will find oppositeness (Thisted
2013, 244-245).
Glocalization of Indigeneity
These lines from Marjo Lindroth (2011, 555) could not introduce the reflection about
glocalization and Indigeneity better: “The implementation of international political and legal
instruments concerning indigenous peoples, for example the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, gives indigenous peoples increasingly better chance to collectively resist
state encroachments and to connect local struggle to the global level.”
Indigenous people bring local concern on a global level through the PF. The representants of
indigenous peoples inside the PF emphasizes that all the issues brought by the indigenous
peoples are connected: environmental issue, conflict with (former) colonial states but also
economic and social issues. The problem is that these vision of collectivity forces them to
produce the same qualities in order to fit in the UN framework (Lindroth 2011, 553-554-555).
Impacts of McWorld and Indigeneity on National States
Some states feel the need to redeem from the colonial past and the UN seems to be the
platform to pursue this goal. But the indigenous people bring the states under scrutiny
(Lindroth 2015, 15). What is witnessed is more complicated than shift towards the UN PF and
the indigenous peoples; it is more a partnership but that means than the states has to take other
opinion in account (Lindroth 2015, 29). Also inside the Arctic Council, the relations between
states and indigenous peoples are transformed and the understanding of participation is
changed (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013, 281).
Self-determination is the main request of indigenous peoples that is a Neoliberal way of
thinking: to be self-governed. Self-determination was seen as a threat for the state (Lindroth
2006, 244).
Denmark was willing to improve the life in Greenland by fostering a Greenlandic identity as
long as it did not challenge Denmark sovereignty. This is a perfect illustration of how a states
has interest to improve indigenous people rights but in the meantime try to avoid to empower
them to much (Thirsted, 2013). We have to notice than Greenlanders are not only indigenous
peoples but that they were put in the same administrative group.
Finally what is to be noticed is that liberal democracy despite its ups and downs can be used
as a medium between indigenous rights and aspiration of self-governance and national
sovereignty and leaders (O’Sullivan 2011, 86-87-88-89).
Conclusion
What I was trying to do with this article was applying the framework developed by Benjamin
Barber in his book Jihad Vs McWorld as to analyze the relation between indigeneity,
globalization and the states in a dialectical way.
Step 1 called IndigeneityVs McWorld: Indigenous peoples are impacted by globalization and
colonial states (McWorld to use Benjamin Barber’s vocabulary).
Step 2 called Indigeneitywithin McWorld where I try to show how indigenous people use the
tool given by McWorld but also by the states since the international institutions are mostly
composed and built by them.
Step 3 in dialectic the third step is always called “the synthesis” or the convergence of the two
previous phases. The convergence occurs in a transformation of the power’s relation and the
role of the different level of power: local, national and global.
Bibliography
Books
Barber, Benjamin R. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld, New York: Ballantines Books.
Heininen L. 2010. Chapter 8. Globalization and Security in the Circumpolar North. In
Heininen L, Southcott C. Globalization in the Circumpolar North. Fairbanks: University of
Alaska Press, pp.221-264.
Lindroth M. 2015. Governing IndigeneityGlobally : Indigenous Peoples in the United
Nations. Acta Universitaris Lapponiensis 293. Lapin Yliopistopaino. Rovaniemi
Muhlinger Howard D. 2000. Globalization and the Challenge of a New Century: A Reader.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp 23 -60.
Kirsten Thisted, 2013.Chapter 9. Discourses of Indigeneity: Branding Greenland In The Age
Of Self-Government And Climate Change. In Sverker Sörlin (ed.) Science, Geopolitics and
Culture in the Polar Region: Norden beyond Borders. Farnham: Ashgate, p. 227-258.
Article
Cameron E S. 2012. Securing Indigenous politics: a critique of the vulnerability and
adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic.
Global Environmental Change, Vol 22 pp103-114.
Lindroth M. 2006. Indigenous-states relations in the UN: establishing the indigenous forum.
Polar Record Vol 42, No 222, pp. 239-248.
Lindroth M 2014. Indigenous Rights as Tactics of Neoliberal Governance: Practices of
expertise in the United Nations. Social & Legal Studies Vol 23 No 3, pp341-360
Lindroth M. 2011. Paradoxes of power: Indigenous peoples in the Permanent Forum.
Cooperation and Conflict Vol 44, No 4, pp543-562.
Lindroth M, Sinevaara-Niskanen H. 2013. At the Crossroads of Autonomy and Essentialism:
Indigenous Peoples in International Environmental Politics. International Political Sociology,
Vol 7, pp 275-293.
O’Sullivan. 2011. Democracy, Power and Indigeneity. Australian Journal of Politics and
History: Vol 57, No1 pp86-101.
Merlan F. 2009. Indigeneity: Global and Local. Current Anthropology, Vol 50 No3, pp 303-
333.
Odysseos L. 2010. Human Rights, Liberal Ontogenesis and Freedom: Producing a Subject
for Neoliberalism? Journal of International Studies Vol 38 No 3 pp747-772.
Southcott C.2005. Globalization, Cultures and Northern Identities: Some Considerations for a
Northern Dimension foreign Policy. Polar Geography. Vol 29 No2 pp103-118
Legal/official documents
Canada Northern Dimension Foreign Policy
