The international human rights discourse as a strategic focus in socio-environmental conflicts: the case of hydro-electric dams in Brazil

Social mobilization against large hydroelectric dams: A comparison of Ethiopia, Brazil, and Panama

“…This made it harder for activists to leverage the TANs because pressuring funding agencies, such as the WB or others, would not prevent the project (Bratman, , p. 285). Brazil's strong political and financial position as an important regional player helped in its blunt rebuttal of the ruling by the IACHR, which demonstrated the limitations of the inter‐American system of supranational law (Riethof, , p. 493). Although Brazil is a functioning democracy with a vibrant civil society sector, activists are often threatened with violence.…”

“…In documents justifying Belo Monte, development is the most common frame. In the government's response to the IACHR ruling, it emphasized that electricity was fundamental for “Brazil's development goals,” including the goals to “promote human dignity, eradicate extreme poverty, and reduce inequalities” (Riethof, , p. 491). Such claims are explicitly rejected by anti‐dam activists: “[W]e feel affronted in our dignity and disrespected in our fundamental rights by the Brazilian state and private groups through the construction of dams on the Xingu […]” (Encontro Xingu Vivo para Sempre, ).…”