Indigenous People’s Role in Shaping the World

Indigenous people, who represent about 6.2% of our population, protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity, which is far more than designated protected and conservation areas. Their traditional knowledge has preserved ecosystems for centuries. However, rising sea levels, deforestation, and resource extraction threaten their lands, livelihoods, and cultures. Despite international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous lands are often exploited without consultation. As one of the world’s most marginalized groups, Indigenous peoples face poverty, landlessness, and internal displacement, struggling to maintain their way of life and identity.

The Gendered Impact of Climate Change

Climate change disproportionately impacts women, particularly Indigenous women, who are often the primary caregivers and providers for their communities. These women are responsible for securing food, water, and medicine, which are becoming increasingly scarce due to environmental degradation. Extreme weather events and resource shortages force women to travel farther for essentials, exposing them to increased risks of violence, exploitation, and human trafficking. In some areas, economic hardship following climate events has led to an increase in child marriages as families struggle to cope.

Indigenous women also face greater health challenges. Research indicates that rising temperatures contribute to pregnancy complications, while climate-related disasters disrupt access to reproductive healthcare. For example, following Hurricanes Eta and Iota in Honduras, over 180,000 women lost access to essential family planning resources.

The Role of Indigenous People in Fighting Climate Change

Despite these challenges, Indigenous women remain essential to climate action. Their deep connection to nature makes them invaluable in conservation efforts, sustainable agriculture, and the protection of biodiversity. They hold ancestral knowledge about medicinal plants from their areas, water preservation, and farming techniques, that have sustained their communities for generations.

However, their contributions are often overlooked in decision-making spaces. Women, but most particularly Indigenous women, are underrepresented in climate negotiations and policy-making. While they are leaders in their own communities, they are often overlooked on the national or international scene.

Climate Justice: How International Law Is Failing Indigenous Communities and Women

International law protects Indigenous peoples’ rights, however, their recognition is often challenged. Many Indigenous people live in remote areas with little access to legal resources, making it difficult to defend their land rights. Language barriers, discrimination, and a lack of political representation only isolate them from justice.

Even though environmental injustices are internationally recognized, enforcement remains weak. For example, six youth activists sued 33 European countries for failing to act on climate change. While this case gained global attention, Indigenous climate cases rarely receive the same recognition. However, landmark cases such as the the U´wa community´s battle against the oil companies demonstrate the growing role of Indigenous litigants in climate justice.

While such efforts are commendable, more litigation is needed to ensure Indigenous voices are heard and that legal systems uphold their environmental rights. Stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed as Indigenous communities continue to face land grabs, environmental destruction, and human rights violations.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Nancy Fraser is pioneering in defining climate justice, arguing that it relies on the recognition and respect of diverse identities and knowledge; the redistribution of resources; and the meaningful participation of women and marginalized groups in decision-making. Climate change requires new forms of justice, as our current legal system has failed to prevent global warming and states continue to disregard international agreements. Distributive justice and procedural justice are necessary. However, misrepresentation remains a barrier. Political structures prevent directly affected groups from obtaining equitable representation in decision-making processes. Despite women’s significant contribution as leaders, activists, or scholars, they represent only 15% of environmental ministers, limiting the implementation of effective climate strategies. With just over 4 years to limit global warming to +1.5°C, diverse perspectives are needed to address this multifaceted emergency. Gender action has been integrated into the Rio conventions, but remains underdeveloped in climate governance.

True climate reparation requires a transformative framework centered around systemic change, trust, and cooperation. Climate justice is not attainable within existing colonial political systems. It can only be achieved through reforms in governance and constitutional arrangements to re-establish Indigenous natural laws.

From State Sovereignty to International Accountability

The 20^th century radically transformed the Westphalian model of state sovereignty. Absolute state sovereignty was a shield protecting nation states from external intervention in their domestic affairs. Scholars and authors have, however, criticized the Eurocentric roots of international law. The concept of state sovereignty, while ostensibly protecting all nations equally, was often selectively applied. Non-European countries were subject to interference and domination under the name of legal norms created by and for European powers.

A shift appeared in the aftermath of World War II, when the United Nations was created and human rights became inalienable. This transformation challenged the absolute sovereignty of states, as international human rights norms now demanded accountability for the protection of citizens’ rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was a crucial step in this direction, aiming to hold states liable for human rights violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms, often dominated by Western interests within international organizations, have led to criticisms that these institutions selectively apply human rights standards, reflecting broader geopolitical dynamics.

The post-World War II era saw empires dismantled and independent states emerge, yet colonialism’s impact remains significant. Independence movements in the mid-20th century sought to reshape global organizations, challenging Eurocentric views and expanding the international human rights framework to be more inclusive. The 1960s marked a turning point, transforming human rights from selective privileges to a more universal agenda.

Critics like Chandra Mohanty argue that, while colonial legacies persist, Global South countries should move beyond a “victim narrative” and define their own paths. Efforts from the Global North, including acknowledgments of past harms and indebtedness for reparations, indicate progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations. A notable example is King Philippe of Belgium, who in 2020 wrote a letter to the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, expressing his “deepest regrets” for the atrocities committed during Belgium’s colonial rule, making progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations.

The Colonial Legacy: Analyzing the Remaining Power Imbalance

Colonial power dynamics persist, even in forums such as the United Nations Security Council where Western countries hold disproportionate power with instruments like the veto. This structure of such organizations limits Global South’s representation and influence, perpetuating inequalities. Despite the formal end of colonialism, those power imbalances maintain alliances protecting the most powerful nation’s interest. Colonies are left with little support from their former colonial powers.

Human rights became institutionalized within global structures, shifting from a tool made to challenge an oppressive system to one that upholds the status quo. This had diluted its revolutionary roots with interventions, sometimes selectively enforced, based on the interests of powerful nations rather than a consistent humanitarian standard.

For instance, interventions justified by the “Right to Protect” often reflect Global North interests, mirroring colonial practices under the guise of humanitarianism. This dynamic is evident in cases like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 1999 intervention in Kosovo, where the action both brought stability to Kosovo and limited Russian influence in the Balkans. NATO had every reason to participate in this conflict, to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces; however, it also helped to reassert its relevance post-Cold War and define its role beyond the collective defense against the Soviet threat. While this intervention had positive outcomes for local safety and governance in Kosovo, it underscores how such interventions can blend humanitarian goals with strategic motives, reinforcing existing power imbalances.

Toward a More Sustainable Legal Order

Countries in the Global South, while having gained independence from colonizing powers, still suffer from this era, in subtle and more obvious ways. This issue is an ongoing discussion in many organizations where solutions are considered in order to develop and preserve human rights.

To effectively dismantle the legacies of colonialism, efforts must come from powerful states, to establish the equal application of international human rights between them and countries from the Global South.

Many panelists argue that former colonial powers should provide compensation to nations and peoples affected by colonial exploitation and violence. This also includes the return of cultural artifacts looted during the colonial period, but also addresses the psychological and cultural damage inflicted on colonized societies. It is only by acknowledging the remaining legacy of colonialism and actively working against it that international human rights can become a tool for genuine justice and equality, rather than another battlefield for power.