43 Whether at the national or international level, efforts to minimize or maximize the importance of the Convention are part of the game. The presence of negotiations already reflects the open potential between hegemonic and anti-hegemonic approaches to indigenous rights (Rodriguez-Garavito, 2010, 28-29). This is particularly important for understanding in the context of a corporate-oriented and government-oriented mega-development, whether in the form of infrastructure, energy or extractors (Baluarte, 2004; RAISG, 2012). New forms of governance can lead to a reduction in democratic policy spaces (Randeria, 2007), as they can lead to innovation and transformation in the areas of autonomy and autonomy. The question is no longer whether states encourage the participation of indigenous states; Nor is it a question of whether efforts are coordinated and systematic, as Convention 169 suggests. States are doing all of this more and more. Rather, the issue is one of the quality and emerging models of systematic, but also systemic, rights practices. Instrumental approaches to new forms of consultation and consent appear, for example, to run the risk of a sharp shrinkage of the claim space. The agitation and redefinition of indigenous rights policy is now essential for the process of challenging the pitfalls of major declarations, the coloniality of power (Quijano, 2000) and entrenched development practices. Only 21 nations have ratified Convention 169, less than the previous Convention 107. The decline of signatories can be partly attributed to the integration of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination by Convention 169. Many national states are concerned about such provisions and claim that indigenous autonomy undermines their sovereignty and governance.
Most of the nations that have ratified the Convention of 169 are in Latin America, where implementation is low3 Non-signatories, such as Canada and the United States, cite the inability of the international community to enforce these international instruments as justifying not ratifying them. This article examines the relationship between indigenous rights, international norms and development in Latin America, with particular emphasis on ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples and their application in the region. While, on the one hand, democratic change, constitutional reforms and the recognition of indigenous peoples indicate the emergence of a new legal form, on the other hand, deep inequalities, the persistence of poverty and development conflicts reveal structural tensions and ambiguities in recognition. While these ambiguities often end as a result of poor implementation and compromised rights standards, this article analyzes trends in both orthodox and heterodox policies and on the international scene, in order to draw more attention to the renegotiation of legal systems. The rights under this “new jungle law” are no longer characterized by neglect and lack of implementation, but by reappropriation, strategic attention and regulatory negotiations, which indicate a scale of possibilities evolving between empowerment and standardization. 24In 1992, after a two-week march, the government responded to the land claims of indigenous organizations, along with thousands of people. This has led to the recognition of 19 blocks of territory with an area of more than one million hectares and about 138 legally recognized communities (Yashar, 2005, 294).