Abstract: This chapter addresses the way in which impunity granted to Israel to enforce its illegal expansion and ethnic cleansing of Palestine has been made possible due to permissiveness around the dehumanisation of Arabs. International acquiescence about the genocide of Palestine has been intimately tied to border making and imperial interests in the region. The first section will explore the continuities in British criminalisation of Arabs in the twentieth century and how this shifted to conceptions of Palestinian terrorism in Israeli security discourse. The normalisation of punitive measures towards Arabs under colonialism demonstrates that the genocide in Gaza is a calculated, long-term strategy to erase the Indigenous people of Palestine. The second section moves on to demonstrate how the segregation of Gazans behind a fortified border coincides with this racialisation of Palestinians as terrorists. It shows how settler colonialism, which is founded on the elimination of the Indigenous population, has endured through Israeli actions in Gaza and is reinforced by narratives of Palestinian criminality. The acquiescence to Israel’s actions has demonstrated the inequality of life under international law and the permissiveness about genocide, in the service of “security narratives” in Israeli expansionist policy. Ignoring the continuities in settler colonialism and its violent border-making processes normalises violence against Indigenous populations as seen in the ongoing genocide in Palestine today.


Abstract: This study examines why democratization efforts in the Global South often fail to deliver meaningful self-determination for indigenous peoples. Focusing on the Cordillera region in the Philippines, where indigenous communities waged a successful insurgency against the Marcos dictatorship in the 1970s, I investigate why the post-conflict transition, despite constitutional and legal reforms, failed to realize the movement’s central demands. For development practitioners and scholars, this case offers critical insights into how even democratic institutional and legal frameworks may entrench, rather than resolve, historical injustices against indigenous communities. The central question explored is how do postwar constitutional frameworks shape the capacity of indigenous movements to secure autonomy? Why do legal reforms sometimes weaken, rather than empower, these movements? Using qualitative fieldwork and over 50 interviews with activists, civil society leaders, and government officials, I reveal some of the unintended consequences of the 1986 peace agreement between the indigenous rebellion and the Philippine state. I find that while the postwar democratic transition created new legal pathways for advocacy, it simultaneously entrenched neocolonial mechanisms, such as the Regalian Doctrine, that preserved state control over ancestral domains and shifted bargaining disadvantages onto the indigenous opposition. These findings challenge dominant assumptions that democratization and legal recognition automatically empower marginalized groups. Instead, I show how postwar frameworks can fragment movements, co-opt moderate factions, and repress dissenting ones, thereby reinforcing state dominance. This study reveals how states are better positioned during critical periods of democratization and can use peace negotiations to institutionalize control without meaningful concessions. Broadly, this research demonstrates how democratic constitutional orders can legitimize the deferral, and erosion, of indigenous self-determination in the Global South.






Abstract: During the nineteenth century an intense exploitation of natural resources such as wood and timber in what was considered “marginal” or remote regions started, and was driven by an ever-increasing demand in industrialized regions. One common denominator for the timber exploitation that opened the global expansion of capitalism beyond the borders of Europe was the brutal intrusions into Indigenous territories. The overall aim of this study is to analyse two timber frontier movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: one in northern Sweden and one in southern Chile, intruding into previously un-logged old-growth forests on ancestral Indigenous territories. The large-scale commercial logging began around the mid-nineteenth century in both regions. It was driven by external demand and financed by national and/or international capital. New logging entrepreneurs moved into the territories and established sawmills, brought in workers to run the sawmills, cut trees in the forest and transported the timber to the sawmills. In northern Sweden the logging industry was the main economic activity, while in southern Patagonia the logging of timber was one of several forms of natural resource exploitations complemented by mining, rangeland sheep herding and trade through the region. In both regions, the logging frontier was often intertwined with agricultural expansion promoted by the state and global capitalism. In both studied regions the colonial legacy of the nineteenth century timber frontiers has left a heavy burden on the forest landscapes, on the rights of the Indigenous peoples whose lands were exploited and on the present legal situation. Challenges for the future are to re-establish recognition of Indigenous heritage and land tenure rights in both regions, according to international conventions, as well as restoring ecological qualities to the associated forest ecosystems for the sustainability of Indigenous practices.