Free and Prior Informed Consent and Legal Pluralism
Wednesday, 14. May 2008, 05:05:22
Today, we discuss about the possibility of legal pluralism and FPIC across each other. The background is legal pluralism seems have the same concern with FPIC on the matter of opening space for community to get, generate and organize their rights. The main question is, does legal pluralism present the answer for social movement concern on indigenous peoples struggle, especially on land and natural resources right?
Inge from UI explained the common pictures of legal pluralism, included history, definition and debates around legal pluralism. While Emil describes FPIC based on field work study in some pilot areas of FPIC Project whereby communities negotiate their rights over the authority, values and norm they have. Both legal pluralism and FPIC talk about local and portrait of local relation. But, legal pluralism looks into the communities as an analytical approach to find the deeper understanding on the real situation in society. In brief, legal pluralism is the way of reading on social field based on what the social field said.
Thus, legal pluralism is not an answer of social movement question about the strategy and ways to strengthen and revitalize Indigenous Peoples rights. Legal pluralism just offers an approach to look better inside social field. FPIC is social movement to make community has their common perspectives and norms on natural resources and by those ways they can have the same voice toward outsiders who initiated the projects inside the border of communities’ territory. Legal pluralism deconstructs the ideology of law-making (authority that seems single, solid and unity) monopolized by state. In addition, law-making could be found everywhere. In this point, legal pluralism sounds contrary against FPIC, because legal pluralism deconstructs things about law, while FPIC precisely construct them.
Firstly, FPIC and LP seem connected to the local constellation. But, reading the legal pluralism introduction again and again, clearly it is closer and indeed born from the womb of postmodernism. This is the reason behind the scattered approach of LP rather than loading and uploading approach. On the contrary, FPIC is used to making consensus among community wherein claim on rights relied on, then those will be negotiated to outsiders. Meaning that FPIC is moved from “building or making” which obviously is the modernism thinking. This is why, to date, it is difficult to push legal pluralism issue in strategy that sounds building something.
Kebagusan, May, 13, 2008
Inge from UI explained the common pictures of legal pluralism, included history, definition and debates around legal pluralism. While Emil describes FPIC based on field work study in some pilot areas of FPIC Project whereby communities negotiate their rights over the authority, values and norm they have. Both legal pluralism and FPIC talk about local and portrait of local relation. But, legal pluralism looks into the communities as an analytical approach to find the deeper understanding on the real situation in society. In brief, legal pluralism is the way of reading on social field based on what the social field said.
Thus, legal pluralism is not an answer of social movement question about the strategy and ways to strengthen and revitalize Indigenous Peoples rights. Legal pluralism just offers an approach to look better inside social field. FPIC is social movement to make community has their common perspectives and norms on natural resources and by those ways they can have the same voice toward outsiders who initiated the projects inside the border of communities’ territory. Legal pluralism deconstructs the ideology of law-making (authority that seems single, solid and unity) monopolized by state. In addition, law-making could be found everywhere. In this point, legal pluralism sounds contrary against FPIC, because legal pluralism deconstructs things about law, while FPIC precisely construct them.
Firstly, FPIC and LP seem connected to the local constellation. But, reading the legal pluralism introduction again and again, clearly it is closer and indeed born from the womb of postmodernism. This is the reason behind the scattered approach of LP rather than loading and uploading approach. On the contrary, FPIC is used to making consensus among community wherein claim on rights relied on, then those will be negotiated to outsiders. Meaning that FPIC is moved from “building or making” which obviously is the modernism thinking. This is why, to date, it is difficult to push legal pluralism issue in strategy that sounds building something.
Kebagusan, May, 13, 2008
WIDGETIZE