Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document serves as a tool to democratize international law by grouping fragmented legal provisions into an integrated framework of 'Traditional Resource Rights'. It categorizes rights into substantive (e.g., land tenure, cultural integrity, and food sovereignty) and procedural (e.g., free, prior and informed consent and impact assessments), while analyzing the legal weight of binding 'hard law' versus non-binding 'soft law'.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • International law is often inaccessible and fragmented, which creates a 'procedural injustice' for indigenous peoples and local communities by obscuring their rights and responsibilities.
  • The document adopts an 'integrated rights' approach, based on the concept of Traditional Resource Rights (TRR), which recognizes the inextricable link between cultural and biological diversity.
  • State laws frequently conflict with customary laws, particularly regarding property; state law emphasizes private individual ownership, whereas community systems emphasize collective values and relationships.
  • Indigenous peoples' rights are primarily anchored in their ancestral connection to land, whereas the rights of 'local communities' under international law (specifically Article 8(j) of the CBD) are generally dependent on whether their lifestyles are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
  • The compendium identifies 'Free, Prior and Informed Consent' (FPIC/CLPI) as a critical procedural right across multiple instruments, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Nagoya Protocol.
  • Decisions made by the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) occupy an ambiguous legal space; while some are explicitly voluntary, others are treated as mandatory through state practice and mutual understanding despite lacking formal treaty-based binding status.
  • The document outlines specific rights regarding the non-forcible removal of peoples from their lands, stating that no relocation should occur without FPIC and a prior agreement on fair and equitable compensation.

Cite the original document

APA
Jonas, H., Makagon, J. E., & Shrumm, H. (2013). LA CONVENCIÓN VIVIENTE. Natural Justice. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Living-Convention-Spanish.pdf
Chicago
Jonas, Harry, J. Eli Makagon, and Holly Shrumm. LA CONVENCIÓN VIVIENTE. Natural Justice, 2013. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Living-Convention-Spanish.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Jonas |first1=Harry |last2=Makagon |first2=J. Eli |last3=Shrumm |first3=Holly |title=LA CONVENCIÓN VIVIENTE |publisher=Natural Justice |date=May 2013 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Living-Convention-Spanish.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{jonas2013convencin, author = {Jonas, Harry and Makagon, J. Eli and Shrumm, Holly}, title = {{LA CONVENCIÓN VIVIENTE}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2013}, month = may, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Living-Convention-Spanish.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated