Cornell International Law JournalThe preeminent source for scholarship on foreign and international law

In 2007, the United Nations adopted The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”), a landmark instrument affirming that Indigenous peoples, among other things, “have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs.” Despite passing with an overwhelming majority, UNDRIP was met with mixed global reception. Among its opponents at the time of adoption was the United States, which had voted against the declaration alongside Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
The United States would formally reverse its position in 2010 when it announced support for UNDRIP with significant caveats.3 U.S. officials emphasized that UNDRIP is a non-binding, aspirational document and stated that their endorsement was consistent with existing U.S. legal frameworks, not a commitment to new obligations or reforms. As such, the U.S. adoption of UNDRIP has not resulted in any significant changes to the structure or function of its Tribal Court Systems.
In contrast, several South and Central American countries embraced UNDRIP’s principles and incorporated them into domestic legal and constitutional reforms. Bolivia adopted a new constitution in 2009 declaring itself a “plurinational state” recognizing the jurisdiction of Indigenous courts as equalin status to that of ordinary courts. These reforms drew directly from international legal standards, including UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169, and were shaped by the mobilization of the Contemporary Indigenous Movement (“CIM”). Bolivia’s Ley de Deslinde Jurisdiccional further defined mechanisms for coordination between Indigenous and ordinary jurisdictions, operationalizing Bolivia’s 2008 Constitution’s commitments to intercultural legal pluralism.
The differences in how the United States and Bolivia received the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are indicative of underlying differences in legal structures, political ideologies, and historical relationships with Indigenous communities. While both regions share colonial histories, the legal and constitutional frameworks within which Indigenous peoples’ right to self-governance are recognized differ significantly. This note analyzes how these differences have shaped the methods and institutions through which Indigenous peoples are allowed to adjudicate disputes, and how these models can improve through exchange.

Continue Reading