Even good intentioned reforms can still turn out poorly

1 The Limits of Laws Even well-intentioned legislative revisions that leave unchallenged power relations (e.g. white supremacy) and prevailing ideologies (e.g. colonizer mentalities) fail to advance their targeted triple-helix of rights. For instance, laws putatively established as anti-discriminatory may actually undermine Indigenous sovereignty, as in Australia where the settler state – still presuming its own moral superiority, and unwilling to share power – is not required to consult Aboriginal communities before imposing ‘special measures’ (e.g. criminalizing alcohol possession) to ensure their ‘adequate advancement’ (: 28). Legislative reforms may be further hampered by a lack of appropriate implementation and enforcement by those in power – or with power – who do not support the laws’ ideological underpinnings (). Indeed, American Indian rights activists point out that treaties between tribes and the federal government are inadequately respected (). International law, generally favorable to Indigenous people’s interests and concerns, is notoriously weak as it is largely unenforced, relying (other than rare instances of armed intervention or economic sanctions) on states’ voluntary compliance, often based not in ideological commitment but in their desire to maintain positive diplomatic relations (). Meanwhile, if a law contradicts social norms (), assumed entitlements, or neoliberal expectations, citizens and/or companies will overtly or covertly resist it, reinforcing the conditions it sought to eliminate. In Paraguay, for example, an Indigenous community’s hard-won land rights exacerbated conflicts with non-Indigenous neighbors’ and industries’ (extra-)legal claims to those lands and resources (, ). Nonetheless, legal processes and advocacy can change ideologies (). Ultimately, legal frameworks and decisions shape social norms, moralities, customs, and social structures (; ; ; ). Indigenous leaders’ international legal advocacy shifted discourses about, understandings of, and ideologies surrounding Indigenous people’s rights (). As social expectations shift, so do power dynamics; ideologies can ‘embolden’ groups and individuals ‘to view themselves as rights holders’ and challenge threats (: 58). International law, for instance, imbues localized Indigenous rights struggles with a sense of legitimacy and a ‘base’ from which activists present specific demands in national and international forums (: 447), as the triple-helix’s three strands coevolve.