Back to search

FRIHUMSAM-Fri prosj.st. hum og sam

Institutionalizing Indigenous Peoples Rights in China: From a Paternalistic Evolutionist Paradigm to Self-determined Development

Alternative title: Institutionalisering av urfolks rettigheter i Kina: Fra et paternalistisk evolusjonistisk paradigme til selvbestemt utvikling

Awarded: NOK 3.3 mill.

The objective of this project is to describe and analyze the constraints and potentials of institutionalizing the rights of indigenous peoples for approaching self-determined development in China. Institutionalizing indigenous peoples’ rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in China is a competing and/or complimentary process of interactions among the regimes of the Party-state, the UN human rights, and the peripheral peoples mainly referred to as minority nationalities in China. The critical challenges to this process are especially, the non-recognition of indigenous peoples’ legal status, non-acknowledgment of the cultural-spiritual significance of their lands in natural resources management, and non-respect of land rights as the material basis of their way of life. This process requires a substantial governance change from a paternalistic State paradigm to an indigenous peoples’ self-determined development. This research observes the institutionalizing process through an empirical study on the governance of natural resources and hydropower development in the indigenous peoples' homelands. The main findings highlight the following three aspects. (1) Rights of Indigenous peoples in international law are relevant in China. Although the terms that Chinese policy and law use are different, they do not exclude the core elements of the notion of indigenous peoples in international law. This research reveals primordial and instrumental bases for some peripheral peoples in China to claim their status as indigenous peoples. The empirical evidence exposes the possibilities of identifying the status of ´indigene´ among peripheral peoples in certain regions. In reality, the State has to make compromises between the self-identification claims of peripheral peoples and individuals and the existence of 55 minority nationalities in China is a result of an unaccomplished state project. There is an increasing number of actors and events that continuously construct a space of re-thinking and re-making indigenous presence in China. (2) International actors, including UN organs, multilateral development banks, and NGOs have taken flexible approaches accommodating the various terms of state law in their instruments concerning indigenous peoples. However, the Chinese State plays a dominant role in the process of interactions. Substantive rights including self-determination and free prior informed consent (FPIC) under UNDRIP, are the unspoken rationales of the state to deny the existence of indigenous peoples for pursuing their self-determined development. The tendency towards nation-state building by using the “Chinese Nation” in the newly revised Constitution (2018) and the discourse on “the second generation ethnic policy” confine the institutional space for strengthening group (peoples) rights in China. On the other hand, the new normative development on indigenous peoples as rights holders and contributors in the fields of climate change and biodiversity conservation, create important international fora for the peripheral peoples of China to claim their rights. This research demonstrates that indigenous peoples are continuously a relevant category of rights holders in China. The process of such interactions will continue with some outcomes depending on the changing capacities and wiliness of a multitude of actors involved. (3) The study on disputes related to the beliefs and customs of indigenous communities in the state’s natural resources management with a focus on the Tibetan mountain cult reveals the conflicts between the community spiritual governance and the state resources governance. By analyzing the institutional constraints to, and the potential of recognizing the spiritual significance of, sacred mountains and the rights of indigenous communities, this research suggests a turn towards a ‘rights-based governance’ for managing the conflicts. The newly improved normative frameworks in the field of biological diversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and public interest litigation extend social space for involving multiple actors in the process. Further exploring the ways of institutionalizing the rule of FPIC, free, prior, informed, consent, and implementing cultural impact assessment under the Convention of Biodiversity Conservation could be an entry point towards the self-determined development of indigenous peoples in China.

Project results: There are diversified results under the project including five research articles (4 published and 1 in peer review), ten popular scientific reports (8 published and 2 in review by editors), two audio and video publications, policy/law recommendations, lectures for four master programs at universities in Norway and China, presentations at conferences, and one research proposal for future international cooperation. These results entail various outcomes and impacts in the short and long-term changes. Achieved outcomes and impacts: To the researcher and institutions involved in the project, their enhanced competency of developing interdisciplinary research and teaching in the project field are observable. Researchers involved collectively developed a three years’ plan of a comparative study on indigenous peoples in the green transition in Norway and China. This new research proposal responding to the RCN call is partly based on the results and the academic network strengthened by the project. The academic and popular scientific publications are presented in in English (5), Chinese (3), and Spanish (4), which can reach wider users including academic and educational institutions, indigenous communities, NGOs, companies, governmental and inter-governmental organs. The video and audio products (The UN media web TV and The Nordic Asia Podcast) can also spread a boarder audience, especially in the UN media with six languages. Anticipated Potentials: The project researcher presented parts of the findings to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the discussion of making the Global Action Plan for the UN decade of indigenous languages (2022-2032). Together with the planned publication of the Beijing-Oslo Recommendations on the Protection of the Rights of Linguistic Minorities, these activities will potentially affect the engagements of multi-actors and stakeholders such as indigenous communities, NGOs, domestic authorities and international organs (esp. UNESCO, UNPFII, UNEMRIP). The research findings of this project may have potential impacts of the implementation of international conventions on climate change and biological diversity conservation when the mitigation and adaptation measures are taken on the indigenous lands.

The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was a milestone achievement of global human rights protection, but challenges remain to make these widely acknowledged norms a reality in the dual Party-state structure of China. China denies the existence of indigenous peoples as well as the relevance of UNDRIP within its jurisdiction. The lack of implementation of these rights domestically result in the failure of achieving the interlinked global agendas on human rights, sustainable development and climate change. This project shall study the process of institutionalizing indigenous peoples' rights of UNDRIP in the Party-state China. It attempts to answer these questions: What are the constraints of institutional change from a paternalistic evolutionist governance paradigm to one of self-determined development? Which are there possibilities of institutional change, and how to make such a change? This research establishes a descriptive-analytical framework for observing the complexity of implementing law in the Chinese Party-state context. This framework identifies five essentials for institutional change: institutionalized knowledge or beliefs; normative frameworks; organizational structure; actors and techniques of institutionality. They are key variable elements for observing the dynamic interactions in the process of institutionalizing UNDRIP within the Party-state, and externally between it and the UN human rights and peripheral peoples' regimes. Through the empirical study of development of hydropower on indigenous peoples' homelands, this research inquiries into these tensions: "State recognition vs self-identification", "paternalistic governance vs self-determined development" and "application of free, prior, informed consent vs involuntary resettlement". It reveals possibilities as well as explains the uncertainties of such an institutional change in China. It provides knowledge for policy/law recommendations.

Funding scheme:

FRIHUMSAM-Fri prosj.st. hum og sam