The right of indigenous peoples under international human rights law to give or withhold their Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to natural resource extraction in their territories is increasingly recognized by intergovernmental organizations, international bodies, and industry actors, as well as in the domestic law of some States. This book offers a comprehensive overview of the historical basis and status of the requirement for indigenous peoples’ consent under international law, examining its relationship with debates and practice pertaining to the acquisition of title to territory throughout the colonial era. Cathal Doyle examines the evolution of the contemporary concept of FPIC and the main challenges and debates associated with its recognition and implementation. Drawing on existing jurisprudence and evolving international standards, policies and practices, Doyle argues that FPIC constitutes an emerging norm of international law, which is derived from indigenous peoples’ self-determination, territorial and cultural rights, and is fundamental to their realization. This rights consistent version of FPIC guarantees that the responses to questions and challenges posed by the extractive industry’s increasingly pervasive reach will be provided by indigenous peoples themselves. The book will be of great interest and value to students and researchers of public international law, and indigenous peoples and human rights.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.