This article focuses on the convergence of the corporate power of Yanacocha Mine with the Peruvian State's public power, studied in relation to two interrelated and fundamental sites of power: Indigenous land rights and the regulation of the use of force. The analysis presents two international human rights litigation initiatives: the Negritos Case and the GRUFIDES Case, which illustrate the complex relationship between Peru's colonial history, Yanacocha's current status as one of the most profitable goldmines in the world, serious land rights violations, and the emergence of widespread social protest and the escalating use of private security companies by multinational mining companies. The analysis addresses four legal processes flowing from the private-public convergence: (1) the dispossession of Campesino communal land; (2) the production of Campesino consent; (3) the privatization of coercive force; and (4) the absence of effective legal remedies. The conclusion considers the significance of the case study for those who seek to use the law to engage in practices of resistance to the power configuration represented by the private-public convergence.

In the last decade, Canada has become the most important home jurisdiction for mining companies operating globally. Certain Canadian NGOs, faith groups and labor unions argue that these activities systematically give rise to conflicts between companies and local communities in circumstances where companies frequently enjoy effective impunity for the human rights violations they may commit. This assessment has prompted these groups and other likeminded actors to advocate for a series of law reform proposals.

No abstract

No abstract

This article tracks the activism of the mining justice social movement since the late 1990s. As a starting point, this movement is conceptualized as a transnational political project that seeks to transform the terms of corporate resource extraction pursuant to the political and legal arrangements of neo-liberal economic globalization. In this context, the author reflects on the movement’s most significant human rights-oriented law reform projects in the Americas: Indigenous peoples’ right-to-consultation legislation in several Latin American countries and a series of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Canada in response to the right to remedy norm in international law. Drawing on existing research, the author concludes that in both cases the state has responded with law and policy reforms that fall far short of achieving advocates’ objectives. The author argues that these shortcomings are due in part to the persistence of three liberal/neo-liberal ideologies in the reforms in question: formalism, voluntarism, and privatism. To better understand and explain these findings, the author turns to three critical theories of human rights legal activism: pragmatism, left critique/critical legal liberalism, and counter-hegemony. Examining the work of a range of scholars writing under the banner of each theory, the author identifies key debates and insights that may be instructive as the mining justice movement, and related social and environmental justice movements, continue to aspire towards a law reform agenda capable of addressing pressing global environmental and social justice issues.