Inalienability as the foundation of freedom and Indigenous right to veto. Intercultural translation in Ecuadorian and Colombian Constitutions

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España))
Published: Mar 24, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21676/16574923.4545
Keywords:
inalienability, indigenous, property, right to veto, intercultural translation

Main Article Content

Isabela Figueroa
Universidad del Magdalena
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9119-3615

Abstract

The notion of inalienability applied to indigenous lands in the Ecuadoran and Colombian Constitutions is an intercultural contact zone that allows the method of translation proposed by Santos, as well a cultural mistake to be explored according to Viveiros de Castro’s perspectivism.  It affords communication between Indigenous land tenure systems and the liberal private property regime.  Despite being created to eliminate the Indigenous land and traditional tenure, inalienability rules worked as a tool for protecting it, for which their constitucionalization was claimed by the indigenous movements in Ecuador and Colombia.  The Constituent Assemblies were the proper place to start intercultural dialogues in the field of what we call Law, however they preserved power asymmetries as they maintain the liberal legal frame.  Departing from an intercultural translation exercise in the field of Law, this article defends the Indigenous right to veto and proposes imagining an intercultural negotiation frame where Law can be seeing as a wide system of communication.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Figueroa, I. (2022). Inalienability as the foundation of freedom and Indigenous right to veto. Intercultural translation in Ecuadorian and Colombian Constitutions. Jangwa Pana, 21(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.21676/16574923.4545
Issue
Vol. 21 No. 1 (2022): Constitucionalismo Latinoamericano, Derecho Indígena y Estatal II
Section
Premier Dossier

References

Anguie, A. (2005). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. New York, Estados Unidos: Cambridge University Press.

Calabresi, G. y Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089 - 1128.

Césaire, A. (2006). Discurso sobre el colonialismo. Madrid, España: Ediciones Akal.

Beuchot, M. y Arenas-Dolz, F. (2008). Hermenéuticas de la encrucijada. Analogía, retórica y filosofía. Barcelona, España: Anthropos.

Figueroa, I. (2014). Soberanía nacional, pueblos indígenas y trauma civilizatorio en Colombia y Ecuador, Jurídicas, 1(11), 181-205.

Figueroa, I. (2016). Legislación marginal, desposesión indígena, civilización en proceso: Ecuador y Colombia, Nómadas, 45, 43-57.

Ferrajoli, L. (2000). El garantismo y la filosofía del derecho. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Kuflik, A. (1986). The Utilitarian Logic of Inalienable Rights. Ethics, 97(1), 75-87.

Naciones Unidas (2007). Declaración sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, AG Res. 61/295, UN Doc A/61/L.7.

Naciones Unidas (1993). Comisión de Derechos Humanos, The right of everyone to own property alone as well as in association with others, Final report submitted by Mr. Luis Valencia Rodríguez, independent Expert, UN ESCOR, 49th Sess., UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/15.

Pratt, M.L. (2008). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. Nueva York, Estados Unidos: Routledge.

Radin, M.J. (1987). Market-Inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100, 1849-1937.

Rappaport, J. (2000). La política de la memoria: interpretación indígena de la historia en los andes colombianos. Popayán, Colombia: Editorial Universidad del Cauca.

Rose, C. M. (2004). “Economic Claims and the Challenge of New Property. En Katherine Verdery, Property in Question: Value Transformation in the Global Economy (pp. 275-296). Oxford, Engalnd: Berg Publishers.

Santos, B.S. (2009). Una epistemología del Sur. México D.F, México: CLACSO, Siglo veintiuno.

Smith, J. C. (1974). The Concept of Native Title. University of Toronto. Law Journal, 24, 1-16.

Taiaiaki, A. (2005). Sovereignty, En Joanne Barker (ed.), Sovereignty Matters (pp. 33-49). Lincoln, Estados Unidos: University of Nebraska.

Tapia, L. (2007). La igualdad es cogobierno. La Paz, Bolivia: Plural Editores.

Tapia, L. (2006). La invención del núcleo común. Ciudadanía y gobierno multisocietal. La Paz, Bolivia: La Muela del Diablo.

Tully, J. (1995). Strange Multiplicity. Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge, Inglaterra: Cambridge University Press.

Safatle, V. (2020). O circuito dos afetos. Corpos políticos, desamparo e o fim do individuo. Belo Horizonte, Brasil: Autêntica.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). Metafísicas canibais. São Paulo, Brasil: Cosac Naify.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (1996) “Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo ameríndio”. Mana, 2(2), 115-144.

Walsh, C. (2009). Interculturalidad, estado, sociedad. Luchas (de)coloniales de nuestra época. Quito, Ecuador: UASB y Abya Yala.

Weiner, A. B. (1985). Inalienable Wealth. American Ethnologist, 12, 210-227.