What is indigenous internationalization? Why does it matter? And why do states respond with opposition? This presentation walks through a theoretical overview of realism, liberalism, and constructivism rationales for this phenomenon.

1. Indigenous Internationalization:
What is it, and how do states respond?
Theory, Evidence, and Cases in Indigenous Studies

3. Background and Relevance
Historically, internationalization of indigenous groups has been a
forced, “top-down” effort.
• Central and South America
• Colonizing forces
• Artic regions
Since the 1970s, we have seen a reverse, “bottom-up” trend.
• Scandinavia
• Canadian First Nations
• Siberia

4. Literature Review
• Global actors have greater ability to influence states, and need not be states to
be considered legitimate (Finnemore 1996; Simmons 2006).
• States have a stake in the outcome of indigenous internationalization, but do
not perceive it as threatening as hard-line issues (Finnemore 1996; Chatterjee
et. al 2002; Greico 1988).
• There are varying reasons why states will respond differently to threats, each
depending on a different level of analysis (Finnemore 1996; Kier 2007;
Schimmelfenning 2005).
• The Boomerang Model illustrates how TANs attempt to bypass the state (Keck
and Sikkink 1998).

6. The intersection of many domestic and international developments
makes indigenous internationalization a pertinent topic.
• Increase in Human Rights and Justice attention.
• Creation and proliferation of IOs and TANs (Keck and Sikkink,
1998)
• Distinction between indigenous and immigrant minorities.
• Increased importance of land rights and natural resources
…but how do states feel about this?

7. Realism
• States are the only
actors.
• IOs are tools.
• Threats to sovereignty
are intolerable,
whether interstate or
domestic.
• Indigenous groups
are members of the
state.
• Special rights are
unfair to the majority.
• The needs of the
many vs. few is a
pure numbers game
Normative
• States are concerned
about their
reputations.
• International
indigenous actors can
expose states to
shaming, pressure, and
future costs.
Domestic

8. Indigenous groups
attempt to
internationalize
States perceive a
threat and create
barriers
Why do states vary in
how they oppose
internationalization?
BUT

9. State Responses to Internationalization: A Medley
• Russia
• Prevented indigenous groups from attending 2014 UN Forum.
• State-defined group classifications obstructs mobilization.
• Canada
• Provides opportunities for tribes to aggregate in state-nation dialogue, but does not allow this
in international dialogue
• Scandinavia
• Norway
• Indigenous Parliament offers only power of suggestion.
• Sweden
• Ratified ILO Convention 169, but classified Sami as an unofficial state language.
• Denied unconstitutionalism of international funding of the Markbygden wind farms.
• Indigenous Parliament offers only power of suggestion.

10. Individual-Domestic Level
Examination of indigenous group characteristics is a
significant determinant of state behavior in response to attempted
internationalization (Finnemore 1996; Walter 2009).
• Aggregated Indigenous Characteristics
• Motives
• State-Indigenous Group Relationship
• Party Affiliations

11. Aggregated Group Characteristics
States may have multiple indigenous groups. Even when
examining one group in particular, the existence of the other groups
is likely to affect state behavior (Walter 2009).
• Rebel groups in states
• Russian indigenous policy
• Importance of future reputation and capabilities

12. Motives
The most direct articulation of indigenous goals and motives.
Clarity is desired; duplicity is counterproductive (Finnemore 1996).
• There are three audiences: the state, international community, and
themselves.
• The stage where credibility is established and influences future
capabilities.
• Three main categories:
• Cultural
• Political
• Legal

13. State-Indigenous Group Relationship
Historical relationships between indigenous groups and the
state universally include assimilation policies and subjugation. It is
important to process trace the transition to multicultural policies.
• Minority indigenous groups are the most vulnerable.
• Rhetoric language is revealing.
• Historical analogies are prevalent.

14. Party Affiliations
Treatment and rhetoric towards indigenous groups varies
depending on who is speaking and who their constituents are. Party
affiliation can indicate how often the indigenous group uses existing
political channels.
• Sweden/Finland: mainstream political parties do not endorse
candidates on basis of indigeneity, nor do they explicitly promote Sami
issues.
• Norway: candidates may be identified as Sami on the ballot.
• Russia: candidates more frequently run on anti-indigenous rights than
indigenous benefits.
• Canada: First Nation individuals are encouraged to use state channels
sectioned for indigenous needs.

15. Methodology
• Process tracing of state definitions of indigenous groups.
• Process tracing of indigenous self-identified homogeneity.
Aggregated Indigenous
Characteristics
• Narrative interviews with indigenous leadership.
• Text based analysis of indigenous-generated media.Motives
• Text-based media analysis of two major newspapers per state.
• Text-based analysis of post-conflict political speeches.
• Process tracing of each state as a case study.
State-Indigenous Group
Relationship
• Narrative interviews with non-indigenous leadership.
• Process tracing of indigenous political platforms and
constituency.
Party Affiliations

16. “Free” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free”
Heterogeneous Norway (Sami) Russia (Khanty-Mansi, Nenet)
Canada (First Nations) Ukraine (Karaites)
New Zealand (Aboriginals)
Spain (Basque)
Homogenous Estonia (Iznets) Azerbaijan (Lezgins)
Finland (Sami) Tajikistan (Yagnobi, Pamiri)
Sweden (Sami)
Belongs to EU
State Factors:
Level of Democracy
Homogeneity
Human Rights
Record
Membership in IGOs

17. Conclusion
Indigenous rights as an international issue and guided norm is still a
relatively new concept.
Despite the tentativeness of international definitions, indigeneity is
a concrete identity to those who hold it. This identity is the basis for
special needs and rights claims (Alley 2000; Beier 2005; Brysk
2000).
By understanding how states react to attempted
internationalization, it becomes easier for indigenous groups to
react and create effective strategies.