Legal Pluralism and Indigenous Cultural Rights: Recognition, Resistance, and Reform
Keywords:
legal pluralism, Indigenous cultural rights, customary law, recognition, resistance, legal reform, human rights, qualitative researchAbstract
This study aimed to explore how legal professionals, policy actors, and civil society participants understand the recognition of Indigenous cultural rights within legally plural orders and how they interpret the tensions between state law, Indigenous normative systems, resistance practices, and reform pathways. This qualitative study was conducted in Tehran using semi-structured interviews with 24 purposively selected participants, including legal academics, lawyers, policy specialists, civil society actors, cultural-rights advocates, and judicial/legal practitioners. Participants were selected based on their professional familiarity with legal pluralism, cultural rights, minority protection, Indigenous peoples’ rights, or comparative human rights law. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 45–75 minutes. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, generate initial codes, compare patterns, and develop final categories. Analysis produced five main categories: conditional recognition of Indigenous cultural rights, resistance against state-centered legal authority, institutional friction in rights implementation, tensions between collective autonomy and individual human rights, and reform toward dialogic legal pluralism. Participants emphasized that recognition often remains symbolic when Indigenous legal traditions are translated into state-approved categories without genuine authority, resources, or procedural guarantees. Resistance was described not only as political protest but also as cultural continuity, community-based dispute resolution, strategic litigation, and refusal of assimilation. Participants also identified barriers including weak consultation, limited judicial understanding of customary law, evidentiary problems, and insufficient protection of land, language, and ritual practices. The study suggests that effective protection of Indigenous cultural rights requires moving beyond formal recognition toward participatory, accountable, and institutionally supported legal pluralism. Reform should include meaningful consultation, recognition of Indigenous juridical authority, culturally competent adjudication, safeguards for vulnerable members within communities, and mechanisms for shared governance.
Downloads
References
Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous peoples in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Borrows, J. (2002). Recovering Canada: The resurgence of Indigenous law. University of Toronto Press.
Borrows, J. (2010). Canada’s Indigenous constitution. University of Toronto Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
De Sousa Santos, B. (2002). Toward a new legal common sense: Law, globalization, and emancipation (2nd ed.). Butterworths LexisNexis.
Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18(24), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
International Labour Organization. (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). International Labour Organization.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Clarendon Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and social change: The semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 719–746.
Sieder, R. (2017). Legal pluralism and Indigenous women’s rights in Mexico: The ambiguities of recognition. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 48(4), 1021–1085.
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2008). Understanding legal pluralism: Past to present, local to global. Sydney Law Review, 30(3), 375–411.
Thornberry, P. (2002). Indigenous peoples and human rights. Manchester University Press.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295). United Nations.
Von Benda-Beckmann, F. (2002). Who’s afraid of legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 34(47), 37–82.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
