Abstract

The 2010s saw an increasing demand for autonomous territorial governments from Peruvian Indigenous communities. On November 29, 2015, the first autonomous territorial government was created in Peru – the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampís Nation (GTANW) – by the representatives of several Indigenous communities. It was the result of a process which took many years and signified a historic moment for Indigenous people in the country. Although not still formally recognized by the government, it has inspired other communities in Peru to follow the same steps. The research suggested that the concept of territorio is central in defining Indigenous political identity, and their relations with the Peruvian state.

Peru’s landscape is dominated by the Amazon rainforest, taking up almost three quarters of the territory. The region is called selva to distinguish it from the other two traditional geographical regions: costa and sierra. In the last national census (2017) (Censos Nacionales 2017 2017), one fourth of Peruvians self-identified as Indigenous, confirming Peru as one of the countries with the largest Indigenous population in Latin America (Ríos Indacochea 2020). In 2021, there were 5.060 Indigenous territories in the Peruvian Amazon, officially covering a sixth of the national territory (Science Panel for the Amazon 2021). This significant share of the population and national territory considered as “Indigenous” raises the question of the relation between territorial and Indigenous rights.

Peru is currently home to 55 Indigenous or native peoples, 51 Amazonian peoples and 4 Andean peoples. The majority of Indigenous people live in the Sierra. While the Indigenous of the Sierra are recognized as comunidades campesinas (rural community), those from the Peruvian Amazon are organized in comunidades nativas (native communities). Their existence revolves around their lands and territories. These spaces are the starting point for the construction of their identity as a group and the source of the resources they need for their subsistence (Arroyo 2020). Indigenous people use the term territorio (translated here as territory) rather than tierra (land), to express their ancestral connection to the land they occupy.

There are different definitions of what constitutes the Indigenous territory, and this plurality is significant because it gives rise to different forms of legal recognition of territorial rights, which in turn shape distinct systems of governance.

According to (Mazurek 2005), it is “the portion of the terrestrial surface area appropriated by a social group to ensure that they can reproduce and meet their vital needs”.

Other definitions distinguish between land and territory. Norms referring to land are related to a right to property and possession of the Indigenous people over a specific area of ground. However territory is a wider concept and implies a special spatial relation between the people and the area they live in. In the latter, they also exercise the right to self-determination and autonomy, Indigenous justice, spiritual life, cultural identity, resource procurement, among others. (Snoeck 2013)

Indigenous territorial rights are grounded in international law, especially in the Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). According to the ILO Convention, Indigenous peoples have the right to property and possession of the lands they traditionally occupy. In addition, they have the right to participate in the use, administration, and conservation of the natural resources found in their territories. This right is affirmed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (Snoeck 2013) In the case of Peru, the ratification of the Convention has led to the recognition of Indigenous and of campesino communities. This legal status enabled the exercise of the collective rights of Indigenous people. (Arroyo 2020) The UN Declaration recognizes instead the right to self-determination of Indigenous people.

According to (Arroyo 2020), former president of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, two elements add complexity to the legal framework that protects the right to the land and territories of Indigenous people. (Arroyo 2020) On the one hand, culture is fluid and dynamic while the law needs to define precise categories. A clear definition of what is the integral territory of Indigenous communities is lacking, thus making more difficult the full recognition of territorial rights within the Peruvian legal framework. On the other hand, the problem lies in the Peruvian juridical order. The 1993 Constitution of Peru protects the land of campesino and comunidades nativas, while the recognition of the right to lands and territories of Indigenous peoples has been in force since 1995 with the ratification of the ILO Convention. As a result, the Peruvian state recognizes domestically the territorial rights of native and campesino communities, but in a series of norms that do not guarantee all the rights recognized at the international level. (Snoeck 2013)

Due to the crucial role the territory plays in defining Indigenous identity, the social and legal fight for the (re)appropriation of Indigenous land has proceeded in parallel to the recognition of political rights. As a result, at least 10 Indigenous peoples out of 55 have begun the process of full recognition of their legal personality and the integral entitlement of their ancestral territories. (Niezen 2018)

@inproceedings{antoldi2026,
  author = {Antoldi, Lorenzo},
  title = {Tierra and {Territorio:} {Territorial} {Rights} of
    {Indigenous} {People} in {Peru}},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1st Conference Cycles of Cytopia},
  date = {2026-10-01},
  url = {https://cytopia.fr/antoldi2026},
  isbn = {TBA},
  langid = {en}
}

Migration can be motivated by diverse reasons ranging from escaping persecution, conflicts and political instability to searching for better living conditions and economic stability. From an economic perspective, migration can be seen as a compensation mechanism whereby workers from countries with shortages of employment opportunities move to countries with a shortage of labour force. Similarly, from a demographic standpoint, it can be considered a mechanism for population regulation, as people tend move from countries with younger and rapidly growing populations (and thus an overabundance of workers) to countries with older and more stagnant populations. This can be inferred from Figures 1 and 2, which show that countries with lower median age, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, tend to be the countries with lower values of net migration and vice versa.

As a consequence, the phenomenon of migration brings significant benefits to both sending and receiving countries. In host countries, the influx of the labour force contributes to the growth and expansion of the local economy, as well as the acquisition of new skills and perspectives. For sending countries, emigration alleviates overpopulation pressures on available resources and improves employment opportunities for those who stay. If emigrants decide to return to their countries, they bring back with them higher human capital and often savings. Furthermore, remittances sent back by emigrants to their families can contribute significantly to the GDP of the country of origin, as shown in Figure 3. For example, in 2018, remittances amounted to 30.51% of Kyrgyzstan’s GDP.

It is also important to notice that the distribution of migratory fluxes has changed from a geographical point of view. For instance, Figure 4 shows the gradual evolution of Europe from a place of emigration to a destination for immigration, as its population growth declined and its median age rose due to the demographic transition.

Over the years, the ILO has consistently prioritised the protection of migrants, particularly migrant workers, acknowledging that they inherently possess certain rights solely by virtue of being workers and that their protection is fundamental for sustained economic growth.

The two most important conventions on the theme are (International Labour Organization 1949) and (International Labour Organization 1975), both stipulated before the 1980s. Nevertheless, shifts in the approach of the ILO have emerged since the 1980s, reflecting the impact of globalisation on the displacement of migrants. In particular, four elements were the key drivers of this adjustment process (Vittin-Balima 2002).

1. The discovery of serious discrepancies between national practices and key provisions included in Conventions No. 97 and 143.
2. A reduction of the role of the State in orienting labour markets, causing the emergence of profit-making private recruitment agencies.
3. A rise in the number of female migrant workers, who currently account for half of the migrant population. Women are particularly vulnerable, as they are particularly exposed to the risk of being recruited as sex workers.
4. The modernization of means of transport fosters the phenomenon of illegal migration.

In response to these emerging challenges, the ILO introduced new measures to address the evolving complexities surrounding migration. Notably, the ILO played a significant role in the development of two pivotal conventions adopted by the United Nations.

Firstly, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (United Nations 1990), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1990. This convention stands as a landmark initiative aimed at safeguarding the rights of migrant workers and their families on a global scale.

Secondly, it is relevant to highlight the adoption of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (United Nations 2000) on November 15, 2000. This convention, along with its two supplementary protocols, specifically targets the prevention, suppression, and punishment of human trafficking, particularly focusing on vulnerable groups such as women and children. Additionally, it aims to combat the illicit smuggling of migrants across international borders, whether by land, sea, or air.

The ILO acknowledges numerous rights inherent to migrant workers, including freedom of association and collective bargaining, the eradication of forced labour, equality and non-discrimination, and the elimination of child labour (International Labour Organization 2007). The Organization recognizes a direct link between the entitlement of these rights for migrant populations and the development of the countries receiving them. Without the acknowledgement and protection of these labour rights, migrants are unable to unleash their full potential and contribute effectively to the development of their host countries.

For instance, forced labour can have far-reaching negative consequences, including the depression of income levels and hindrance to the formation of human capital, both of which are essential for sustained economic growth. Therefore, addressing issues such as human trafficking becomes imperative as it is intrinsically linked to labour exploitation. Similarly, the eradication of child labour holds significant implications; the ability for children to access education instead of being employed contributes to the development of human capital, which is vital for long-term growth. Moreover, the implementation of anti-discrimination measures is fundamental as it not only enhances the living conditions of migrants and their families but also fosters inclusivity and social cohesion within destination countries. Additionally, these measures play a crucial role in preserving the competitiveness of national workers by preventing the undercutting of labour costs. In essence, by ensuring that migrant workers are granted their rights and protections, societies can mitigate adverse effects on both their economic development and social fabric.

Similarly, the ILO emphasises the idea that migrants hold fundamental importance for their countries of origin. Firstly, migration enables citizens to acquire skills and capital abroad, which can later be reinvested in their home country upon their return. Secondly, the contributions of remittances to GDP are often more substantial than those of development aid (the aid given by governments and NGOs to developing countries in order to support their economic and sociopolitical development). Figure 5 provides an overview of the phenomenon, showing the significant increase in personal remittances relative to the amount of official development assistance.

In conclusion, migration of workers from countries with rapidly growing populations to countries with ageing populations is a rather efficient way of allocating the labour force internationally. Benefits can be reaped by both sending and receiving countries, but only insofar as host countries are willing and able to implement policies that enable the correct integration of migrant workers in their society. Because of this, the ILO has been proactive in fostering international conventions that facilitate the adoption of such policies worldwide, adapting their approach to the challenges that increased globalisation generates.

@inproceedings{chiara_liviano_d’arcangelo2026,
  author = {Chiara Liviano D’Arcangelo, Maria and Muscarà, Federico},
  title = {ILO {International} Conventions on Migrants’ Rights Since the
    1980s},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1st Conference Cycles of Cytopia},
  date = {2026-10-01},
  url = {https://cytopia.fr/liviano2026},
  isbn = {TBA},
  langid = {en}
}

The modern international development system was shaped by 20th-century geopolitical realities, and consolidated in the post-World War II (WWII) order. Before WWII, there were examples of international financial assistance, such as humanitarian relief in the wake of disasters (Bracho et al. 2021, 75). However, it was the Marshall Plan, which provided substantial funds to rebuild war-torn Europe, that marked a transformative moment in the international development cooperation system. The plan led to the establishment of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) in 1948 to administer the funds, which later became the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961.

The same year, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was created with a mandate to discuss development policies and best practices regarding aid flows and poverty reduction in developing countries. The DAC became a key platform for formulating development aid policies and setting global cooperation standards, including defining Official Development Assistance (ODA)¹.

Nonetheless, the dominance of European and North American powers in these major international development institutions has underscored tensions between former colonial powers and newly independent states in the post-war period. Mexican diplomat and academic Gerardo Bracho explores this donor-recipient dynamic, sustaining that post-WWII aid systems continued indirect colonial influence in the post-colonial world. Bracho suggests that recipient countries often faced a dilemma between accepting aid and preserving sovereignty (Bracho et al. 2021). The development cooperation status quo has maintained these tensions relatively stifled in the past decades, but more recipient countries are now openly questioning the role of traditional donor-recipient relations and reconsidering sovereignty in the face of sometimes vital development aid transfers.

The rise of emerging donors, particularly China, offers an alternative for recipients wary of over-reliance on traditional donors. In 2023, China provided an estimated $3 billion in aid, rivaling traditional donors such as Australia and South Korea (OECD 2023). This shift challenges the established order, forcing traditional donors to rethink their strategies. While traditional donors emphasise governance, China focuses on technical assistance, forming partnerships based on shared priorities, even at the expense of governance or human rights. This approach has raised concerns among leaders and experts who link economic development with democratic resilience.

Moreover, emerging economies are becoming increasingly influential in international development cooperation, reshaping the traditional donor-recipient paradigm. For instance, forums like the Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD)², which provide a more comprehensive development measure than ODA, have rapidly gained traction among emerging donors and attracted widespread participation. Additionally, these donors are spearheading significant development finance initiatives through institutions like the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), actively shaping the global development architecture. In addition, alternative development cooperation models, particularly South-South and triangular cooperation, are gaining prominence. This growing influence underscores the need for traditional donors and institutions to adapt to a more diverse and multipolar development landscape.

While traditional donors have shared clear signals of openness to exploring new cooperation frameworks, as seen in the 2025 DAC High-Level Meeting, which highlighted a commitment to strengthening dialogues with all development co-operation stakeholders (OECD 2025), the long-term outcomes of these collaborations remain uncertain and require major dialogue between traditional and emerging donors to ensure that all perspectives are considered to guarantee sustainable development for all.

The future of international development cooperation depends on its stakeholders’ ability to adapt to this changing global reality. For traditional donors, staying relevant means transcending the donor-recipient framework and exploring innovative approaches that address 21st-century complexities. This involves aligning domestic policies and ensuring policy coherence between domestic priorities and global development goals, addressing concerns about colonial legacies and recipient country sovereignty, and rebuilding trust with international partners. Emerging donors and recipients, meanwhile, must continue to bring fresh perspectives and energy, especially in areas where traditional donors may fall short.

Ultimately, the new global landscape demands a genuine global conversation, with stakeholders working together to redefine the parameters of development cooperation and overcome the donor-recipient dichotomy. Shared goals, mutual benefit, and inclusive collaboration must underpin this dialogue to ensure “no one is left behind” becomes more than a slogan but a reality.

@inproceedings{villegas2026,
  author = {Villegas, Sebastian},
  title = {The {Future} of {International} {Development} {Cooperation}
    in a {Complex} {Global} {Landscape}},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1st Conference Cycles of Cytopia},
  date = {2026-10-01},
  url = {https://cytopia.fr/villegas2026},
  isbn = {TBA},
  langid = {en}
}