1. Introduction
Mineral resources are essential for economic development and welfare. However, large-scale extraction projects transform the natural environment, local communities, and the economy. These generate negative environmental and social impacts during mining, representing human rights (HR) transgressions, conflicts, and political instability [1,2]. Frequently, decision-making authorities do not enforce rules in developing countries, and mining companies force the minimum requirements for mining exploitation [3,4]. Following the UN’s Goal 16 of Sustainable Development (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), the rule of law and socio-economic progress is essential to ensure equal access to justice for all at a national and international level.
HR are fundamental and universal values that must be at the top of public policies. Their implementation is mandatory for society, the state, and governmental institutions and cannot be granted nor taken away arbitrarily [5]. Laws protect property and safety, but environmental rights are at a lower rank, and these cause continuous claims. HR fulfill the law’s application and compliance in a suitable environment and its public or private character [6].
Environmental rights might restrict socio-economical activities oriented to development with the potential view of intervening in natural cycles, structures, functions, and processes [6]. HR design continues restrained by continuous confrontation with industrial capitalism structures. A suitable environment involves a complex network of natural resources, habitat, security, and other essentials for human survival [5,7]. However, the international community has not defined the threshold of environmental quality before a breach of individual human rights will have occurred [8].
The HR–environment relationship constitutes a legal and innovating tool that can be tackled from different approaches. Both topics are frequently analyzed independently, but each has its limitations. HR is complemented with environmental demands and decision-making to exert pressure against harmful policies and regulations [9].
Several countries show progress in environmental protection policies to guarantee the right to a healthy nature. However, HR transgressions occur mainly in developing countries, where transnationals with extractivist tendencies generate disputes and conflicts. Some notorious cases occurred in Sierra Leone, Africa, where diamond mining finances criminal organizations with consequences in the HR of the civil population [10]. Other examples are the forced migration of Colombian indigenous people in order to steal their lands for illegal crops [11]; and the murders of environmental activists in Latin America and Southeast Asia [12]. Those represent some violent cases where HR transgressions are evident, as is their relationship with the environment and response to social resistance.
The expansion of extractive activities is recognized as a strategy to stimulate economic growth and support Latin American public finances [13]. Currently, this region is going through more intense mining extraction, with a high presence of transnational enterprises. However, such extractivism has been strongly questioned because it leads to dispossession, appropriation, and accumulation of natural resources to benefit some power groups. In addition, it detriments life conditions, which become fragmented and disarticulated [14]. Moreover, with governmental corruption and the intentional omission of a legal framework, this situation generates disputes called socio-environmental conflicts (SECs). Currently, there are no Latin American countries without SECs related to mining.
In 2011, Mexico made a constitutional reform to extend the HR hierarchy to international treaties. As a result, Mexico experimented with increased conflict during the first 15 years of the new millennium [13,14,15]. Furthermore, due to incompatibilities between the Mexican Constitution and the Mexican Mining Law, Mexican mining’s legal regulations are considered unsustainable [16].
This research aims to analyze the transgression of HR related to the mining industry’s impact on Mexico’s environment and determine the factors that cause SECs.
The sections of this document are the following: the current Introduction, along with Motivation and Scope, explain the relevance of this research. Methodology describes the PRISMA criteria applied. Results illustrate the reports about general aspects of SECs. Discussion analyzes the development encouraged by mining activity, and Conclusions remark the main findings and outcomes. In addition, Appendix A and Appendix B compile relevant data.
2. Motivation and Scope
The study of HR is a field with a broad approach. Today, universal HR aspects still have no national legal support, making them difficult to consult and apply. In addition, environmental injustice highlights the need to relate HR to nature [17].
The scope of this review goes from 2000 to 2020. It includes the search in the Scopus search engine with keywords “human rights and (environment and mining),” which afforded the first set of bibliographic references (174). All were further refined by removing documents about “data mining,” “marine mining,” and duplicated references, resulting in 162 (Figure 1).
Because this topic has not been widely explored in the last 20 years, it is the responsibility of scientific research to provide a deep insight into the HR environment and the mining sector through a systematic review of information. In addition, systematic reviews can be identified.
3. Methodology
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important tools in research, as they are often used as a point of reference to justify any research. Initially, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) was published in 1999. It included a checklist of 18 items and provided essential information to interpret the results of meta-analysis. However, its modest success may be due to the lack of studies demonstrating its impact on improving the quality of meta-analyses after publication [18].
After QUOROM’s publication, the necessity of a periodic review and update of their guidelines was established. Due to this, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement was published in 2005 as an update and extension of QUOROM, and has been widely accepted by researchers to report systematic reviews in several fields [18,19]. The original PRISMA statement is a checklist of 27 stages and a flow diagram. It is used to improve reporting standards of systematic reviews, using inclusion criteria to establish which studies are selected and rejected [20]. PRISMA statement is a guideline designed to improve systematic reviews.
Using PRISMA may ensure the addition of critical methodological aspects and provide freedom to undertake specific stages or select appropriate methods or processes [20]. However, a systematic review depends mainly on the scope and quality of the research studies included. Therefore, it may be necessary to modify the original protocol during its performance [20,21].
Page and Moher already published an updated review about the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline [21].
The original PRISMA statement’s permitted documents database was created by searching in Google Scholar and Scopus engines (English, Spanish, and Portuguese) using keywords “socio-environmental conflicts, mining, human rights, Latin America & Mexico” in Google Scholar engine, and the previous database from Scopus engine, both during the period 2000–2020. However, other information sources were also included, such as SECs in Mexican print news consulted from journals and other media websites via the Google search engine.
The methodology in this review is represented as follows in the scheme of Figure 2.
Inclusion criteria: Started by combining the following pairs of keywords: “mining conflicts and environment”; “human rights and environment”; “mining conflicts”; and “Mexico or Latin-American”. Sources were articles, books, book sections, and websites. The languages were English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The rough database (not clean) compiled 5704 references.
Exclusion criteria: Artifacts or undesired documents about working incidents, administrative issues, “marine mining”, and “data mining”. In addition, all information about technology and mining processing was removed, and the final clean database of 110 documents was analyzed.
Print News and Media. The Mexican mining SEC Data (66 records) can be consulted at
Any investigation is based on what was done, what has been found, and the clarity of the reported findings. Unfortunately, information quality can limit the reader’s ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the publications [19]. According to Urrutia and Bonfill, the PRISMA statement is not an instrument to assess document quality. Therefore, other kinds of unpermitted references were considered, such as book sections and news, due to the research subject in this paper. However, PRISMA has a better performance than QUORUM [18].
4. Results
4.1. Socio-Environmental Conflicts
The confrontation between multinationals and society is increasingly caused by globalization and neoliberalism for the movement of capital among national boundaries [3]. Identifying the cause of a conflict explains its existence [22], and the perception of risk motivates them [1]. SECs are based on environmental damage, and the threat is generally public. However, there are no static processes for linearly or cyclically developing, neither partially nor totally [23]. SECs show the participation of resistance groups, national and international (non-governmental organizations, parties, institutions, media, and individuals), making it challenging to measure the impact in the results once they are achieved [24]. Local resistance movements often have links with multiple international actors and networks [25].
The social, governmental, and economic sectors, including private enterprises, are fundamental actors denoting HR affectation, overexploitation of natural resources, and negative environmental impacts in SECs. The influence of public opinion characterizes these conflicts during their development through activist campaigns, journalism, policies, and industrial and commercial activities [26]. Usually, international actors have more resources to express their ideas, to broaden their scope to wider human rights and environmental justice agendas, to anchor justice movements in a local context [25].
Before an endless variety of contexts where SECs can emerge, some aspects of their dynamics are identified, as shown in Table 1.
This classification did not consider historical context—situations where disputes are extended for long periods, minimizing the interest of society. This stage is before the pre-conflict, without claims and manifestations even when negative environmental impacts occur due to mining activity. Enterprises and governments usually deny the adverse effects on social, economic, and ecological sectors [27].
Some authors establish a difference between environmental conflicts and SECs. The former cover environmental damage and its appropriation by activist organizations. However, there are no conflicts without a social dimension [23]. On the contrary, SECs are confrontations against extractivism and cover multiple expressions of public politics, corporate initiatives, regional and global projects, and social governance strategies [29].
The defensive response of social groups is a common factor in all SECs. It emerges as opposition and resistance against the mining industry’s affectations that threaten the ecological balance [14,28]. Because of these actions, the media take a fundamental role that supports the formation of public opinion [24].
SECs and their omission of HR are corporative phenomena with a high capacity to subordinate regional and national governmental organisms and omit any moral, cultural, or humanitarian consideration during entry into vulnerable communities and deprive them of their resources [13,28]. Moreover, economic growth with imperial purposes does not consider any respect for human life and its relationship with the environment; it pursues the appropriation of natural resources with an extractivist end [30].
Some of the market’s imperfections encouraging SECs are: (I) the lack of defined property rights; (II) a difficulty to value natural resources; (III) the high transaction costs that allow maintaining natural resources and increasing social welfare; (IV) the lack of information; (V) the costs of externalities generated during the extraction stage; and (VI) fragmentation of markets and the difficulty of moving resources due to physical or political barriers [31]. In addition, Paz et al. consider that lack of environmental regulations also causes affectations [32].
4.2. Violations to Human Rights of the Mining Sector in Latin America
SECs are not a new issue. Latin America has an extensive history of mining conflicts motivated by extractivism since colonial times. According to the central principle of decolonial theory, much of the world’s political and economic systems which formed during centuries of European colonization have transitioned to global colonization, driven by capitalism. Colonization is not an epoch of the past [25]. However, social resistance against the colonial model of power and domination is relatively new, and challenges the idea that nature must be conquered [25,33].
Neo-extractivism, where the state plays a more participative role in collecting surpluses and redistribution, allows analyzing critical situations in democratic systems, with respect to HR [13,15,17,29]. However, due to the lack of population concerns, environmental controls, or state action (or collusion with mining companies), popular participation is manipulated to control collective decisions. It is a way to quote “more extractivism, less democracy” [15].
As long the governments of Latin America encourage development projects, the abuse of HR and overexploitation of natural resources will increase. In 2008 and 2009, the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia recognized and included nature’s rights in their constitutions, which converts neo-extractivism into a questionable phenomenon [17]. Furthermore, compensation and indemnification allow recognition thresholds with a low tolerance limit on forbidden extraction activities, regardless of the benefits and improvement perspectives [27].
Environmental HR is considered the Third Generation (the term implemented after World War II, 1945), which covers people’s rights or solidarity. This generation perceives the people as a subject who is a beneficiary of rights compliance, and who was born in the current context: (I) disappointment generated by the unfulfillment of the state to protect individual rights; (II) lack of guarantee on social and economic rights at a regional and international level; and (III) HR degradation before new technologies. This last point considers the relation of the human being with the environment [34]. Table A1 presents a brief description of the rights of the Third Generation.
Despite Latin American progress and left-wing governments’ positions, their productivist vision of development does not appreciate the limits of the planet’s sustainability, justifying the neo-extractivist trend [15]. Therefore, it will generate conflicts of interest between society and industries. Every dispute causes victims due to struggles and confrontations between private interests and social welfare where the state justifies itself through progress and development to favor society [35].
4.3. Violations to Human Rights in the Mining Sector in Mexico
The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) considers Mexico one of the countries with the highest number of SECs related to mining (Table 2). Due to the growth of the mining industry in its national territory, social inequality conditions remain in several states [36].
Considering the long mining history of SECs in Latin America, Mexico and Bolivia present more recent conflicts registered in the same period (38 years). Chile reports a more recent SEC than Brazil. Modern mining ambitions discriminate against social groups, promote radical cultural destruction, health damages, pollution, forced displacement of entire towns, and block interaction with other land uses in order to express political power [14,28].
The Mexican government attracts foreign investment through deregulation and tax exemptions [33]. In addition, the land is usurped by unfair mining companies, which receive multiple advantages, formally and informally granted. This generates territorial disputes with local inhabitants, leaving few alternatives for interaction (Table 3). All this converts Mexico into the most prominent receptor of foreign investment [33].
Several rights violations may appear in SECs to those who participate in the resistance movement [33]. The violence in SEC is proof of the tension between extractivism and HR, as are socio-environmental protests and the assassinations of environmental activists. In Mexico, 117 homicides of ecological activists were registered from 2010 to 2018 [14,15].
The relations and omissions between the SEC and the HR established in the Mexican Constitution are described in Figure 3 and complemented in Table A2.
From 2006 to 2019, the press reported 879 violent conflicts in Mexico, of which 374 (42%) were related to the mining industry [38]. In addition, approximately a quarter of Mexico’s territory (50 million hectares) is conceded to mining, granted by the government during the last decade, and 70% of the national toxic emissions correspond to mining [35].
Some of the SECs reported in journalistic sources in Mexico are shown in Table 4.
Several organizations have monitored SECs in Mexico [37,39,40]. However, the exact number is unknown. Considering the variety of SECs, extractivist mining and the governmental sector’s complicity promote the crisis increase [14].
The study published by Ramirez shows that 30% of all kinds of SEC in Mexico (between 1990–2015) have an undetermined resolution, or it is unknown if it is still going on [41]. Within the mining activity in Mexico, high levels of corruption have been detected. Mining companies and authorities operate under impunity and opacity, allowing the deterioration of labor conditions and negatively impacting the local population [14]. When corruption attempts are not enough to buy privileges, the violent omission of HR is depicted through unjustified imprisonment, kidnapping, threats, and deaths towards leaders, farmer defenders, indigenous people, or government officers with environmental conservation [35].
The presence of mining activity supposes suits and claims of HR without allowing previous consultations. Internal factors such as weak legal frameworks and difficulties for their implementation and enforcement favor the violation of HR [42].
5. Discussion
Under the premise of improving the quality of life and promoting regional development, the mining industry has carried out practices which drive conflicts of interest with society, threatening the environmental quality. Therefore, this constitutes the basis of sustainable development and respect towards HR [8,33].
Environmental management is based on political processes; any action requires political will and a legal framework. These actions or decisions need to be based on available and appropriate scientific evidence [20]. Due to this, Mexico has been suffering from mining exploitation for years without limits or conditions that guarantee society’s welfare and environmental quality. The mining industries have formal advantages justifying actions against HR. The Mining Law in Mexico (of which the last reform was in 2014) includes legal provisions for mining activities over any other use or land exploitation, except for (initially) petroleum extraction, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, allowing the rules of coexistence.
The adoption of sustainable mining is perceived as a lie. The mining industries have not been required to pay for the environmental damage caused [14]. This generates misunderstanding and an uneven perception of nature as a source of financially devalued goods and services. It is possible to assign a monetary value to natural resources. However, the damage value was not reflected in monetary figures for compensation agreements with the SEC’s communities.
The mining industry provides economic benefits and regional development for the population. However, the most vulnerable sectors suffer from externalities and are opposed to mining, without mentioning non-planned adverse situations (accidents and incidents). Contrary to the context in Latin America and other developing regions, the most developed countries are less susceptible to violent manifestations due to their governmental institutions’ strength, which guarantees the fulfillment of HR. Poverty is the main destructive factor for the environment. Nevertheless, wealth creates waste, pollution, and resource-using inefficiency [8]. Therefore, Mexico should prioritize the needs of society, keeping inclusion and coordination with susceptible communities to establish liability frameworks.
A highly valued resource represents the opportunity to obtain social and economic benefits; therefore, extraction possibilities remain, and SECs endure for long periods. Therefore, it is crucial to implement exploitation plans with a positive impact, but this goes against the idea that sustainable mining is a lie or simply an agreement beyond strictly legal compliance. Despite all the adverse effects and legal frameworks that benefit mining, resistance movements in Mexico are gaining strength. Social networks of scientists, mining victims, and civil members have emerged. These movements press the government to meet the demand for constitutional and legal reforms to end neo-extractivism in Mexico [33].
SECs are emblematic of HR omissions. The lack of effective mining legislation covering penalties is one of the causes of SEC due to the non-compliance of the Sustainable Development and the Objectives of the New Millennium established by the UN. Although it is impossible to anticipate all the risks, maintaining a preventive approach has always been an essential point for the attention of environmental contingencies and preventing any conflict.
Environmental destruction processes in Mexico and the rest of the world are mainly attributable to the dismantling of the nationalist state and the neoliberal ideology of the policies. It represents an expansion without a pre-established limit of the corporations and favors the government’s and private sector’s consent, causing ecological deterioration, social exploitation, and cultural exclusion [35].
HR can claim sovereignty, and the state’s power stops them [5]. It is wrong to think that good laws and fines are enough to solve environmental problems because, in Mexico, the charges for ecological damages are too small in relation to the harm caused. Hence, there is no real intention to quantify a fair amount [43].
Social participation is a press tool for the acceptable use of natural resources through a system that demands the governmental sector to guarantee solutions beyond currently valid laws and regulations. Otherwise, an economic system is encouraged based on exploitation and HR suppression [8].
While governments do not lead SECs, the beneficial solution for society and the environment cannot be granted. Such conflicts do not stop the state’s economic development through the total omission of mining activity. On the contrary, the potential benefit of the mining industry may improve the quality of life of communities in poverty conditions if compliance of the current environmental legislation, the HR, and society’s integration is guaranteed.
It is required to reinforce the Constitution regarding environmental HR. While the economic and political paradigm based on the separation of the human being from nature exists, HR concerning a good environment will not be taken seriously [5].
6. Conclusions
Environmental destruction and the lack of social and economic benefits show that mining is unsustainable. Instead, conflictive situations between mining and society have occurred where the government sometimes encourages neo-extractivism and the omission of HR. Due to this conspiracy, social movements raise conflicts as a primary tool when the political system’s capacity is not enough and challenges the risk of criminalizing them, since Article 17 of the Mexican Constitution states that no-one can claim their rights through violence.
As shown in Table 4, due to the interdependence principle, the transgression of the right to an adequate environment engages all HR frameworks. Beyond the environmental detriments, both individual and collective factors are related to other guarantees. The non-compliance of ecological legislation and HR violations are based on the omission of adequate penalties to the mining industry.
The shreds of evidence about environmental rights violations in Mexican mining show that SECs can return them to a good environment, as stated in Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution. However, these situations empower the affected social sector and stop economic activities. Therefore, it can be summarized in this phrase: Attacking the environment violates HR.
From a comprehensive point of view, HR-violating factors are related to the industry’s impact on the environment in Mexico involving the current imperialist paradigm, where a strong economy dominates a weak one. It creates neocolonial situations through a political system that ignores responsibilities and benefits transnationals and private companies, while generating economic interdependence based on extractivism.
Warranty of continuous communication and transparency of information leads to the prevention of conflicts and eases the immediate attention for contingencies and emergencies. However, Mexican law does not obligate mining companies to submit and approve environmental audits, leaving them without supervision and surveillance programs for mining operations. In the absence of public policies to follow up and mediate Mexican HR violations due to economic activities, it is possible to forecast SEC increase and other violent situations where society has a negative perception of environmental damage, which represents a latent risk, as shown in Table 1.
The perception is often reactive in society, generating mobilizations based on misinformation.
Conceptualization, A.C.-G., and O.A.A.-S. and methodology A.C.-G., E.M.O.-S., A.D.R.-G., and F.P.-G.; software, A.C.-G., and E.M.O.-S.; validation, O.A.A.-S.; formal analysis, O.A.A.-S., E.M.O.-S., A.D.R.-G., and F.P.-G.; investigation, A.C.-G.; resources, A.C.-G.; data curation, A.C.-G., and E.M.O.-S.; writing-original draft preparation, A.C.-G.; A.D.R.-G.; writing-review and editing, E.M.O.-S.; visualization, O.A.A.-S., E.M.O.-S., A.D.R.-G., and F.P.-G.; supervision, O.A.A.-S., E.M.O.-S., A.D.R.-G., and F.P.-G.; project administration, O.A.A.-S.; funding acquisition, A.C.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research was funded by the Mexican Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT), grant number 623877. And the APC was funded by authors.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: [
The primary author thanks the Mexican Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) for his doctoral scholarship No. 623877, and Autonomous University of Hidalgo State by its support. The authors value the support of the Language Center of the Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo for the manuscript translation and to Eleanor Occeña. Finally, we appreciate the anonymous reviewers and Editor R.C., whose suggestions enlighten the content of this paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Publications at an international level about human rights related to mining and the environment per year (162). Consulted in Scopus on 21 July 2020.
Stages of socio-environmental conflicts.
| Stage | Characteristic | Manifestation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-conflict | Requisitions and claims privately. | Letters to companies or government offices. | |
| Defensive reaction | Low-intensity conflict | Use of formalized institutional frameworks to express themselves publicly. | Press. |
| Medium intensity conflict | Greater public exposure. |
Marches and events in public areas. |
|
| High-intensity conflict | More energetic actions. |
Mobilizations of large groups. |
|
| Resolution | Absence of claims and social demonstrations. | Agreements and/or compensation between social actors and mining companies. | |
Source: adapted from [
Reports of mining conflicts in Latin America.
| Country | Mining Conflicts | Period |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 55 | 1980–2018 |
| Chile | 49 | 1985–2018 |
| Peru | 42 | 1992–2018 |
| Argentina | 28 | 1997–2016 |
| Brazil | 26 | 1979–2012 |
| Colombia | 19 | 1983–2012 |
| Bolivia | 10 | 1972–2010 |
| Guatemala | 10 | 1999–2011 |
| Ecuador | 9 | 1995–2017 |
| Nicaragua | 7 | 2005–2017 |
Source: [
Pros and cons of the mining industry in Mexico.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Reforms aim for the free flow of goods and capital. |
Corrupt politicians, police officers, and weak institutional ethics. |
Source: adapted from [
Socio-environmental conflicts of mining in Mexico.
| State | Municipality | Year | Cause of Conflict | Human Rights Violated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aguascalientes | Asientos | 2015 | Pollution. | W |
| Asientos | 2016 | Fauna. | HE | |
| Baja California | Mexicali | 1990 | Illegal exploitation. | W |
| Mining waste. | HE | |||
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Ensenada | 2010 | Overexploitation. | W | |
| Environmental damage. | HE | |||
| Baja California Sur | La Paz | 2019 | Public force. | LI |
| La Paz | 2010 | Attempted environmental damage. | HE | |
| Bahía de Ulloa | 2014 | Marine fauna. | HE | |
| Illegal environmental activity. | LE | |||
| Freedom of press and expression. | F | |||
| Santa Rosalia | 2016 | Marine fauna. | HE | |
| Campeche | Champoton | 2011 | Logging. | HE |
| Illegal environmental activity. | LE | |||
| Chiapas | Motozintla | 2007 | Threats of death. | LI |
| Arrests. | F | |||
| Escuintla | 2015 | Health problems. | H | |
| Environmental damage. | HE | |||
| Chihuahua | Madera | 2007 | Mining waste. | HE |
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Murders. | LI | |||
| Kidnappings. | F | |||
| Samalayuca | 2015 | Environmental damage. | HE | |
| Pollution. | W | |||
| Guadalupe y Calvo | 2016 | Displacements. | P | |
| Murders. | LI | |||
| Coahuila | Ocampo | 1980 | Breach of agreements. | LE |
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Arrests | F | |||
| Colima | Manzanillo | 2016 | Fauna. Mining waste. | HE |
| Damage to buildings. | P | |||
| Ejido Los Potros | 2016 | Health problems. | H | |
| Displacements. Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Aggressions. | LI | |||
| Zacualpan | 2014 | Omission of public assembly. | LE | |
| Criminalization. | F | |||
| Threats. | LI | |||
| Durango | Gomez Palacio | 2017 | Illegal environmental activity. | HE |
| Repression. | F | |||
| Torture. | LI | |||
| Tlahualilo | 2011 | Illegal occupation. | P | |
| Repression. | F | |||
| Guanajuato | Mineral del Cedro | 2008 | Mining waste. | HE |
| Pollution. | W | |||
| Guerrero | Cocula | 2007 | Pollution. | W |
| Harassment. | LI | |||
| Mezcala | 2007 | Health problems. | H | |
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Breach of agreements. | LE | |||
| Arrests. | LI | |||
| Hidalgo | Molango | 1964 | Environmental damage. | HE |
| Health problems. | H | |||
| Pachuca de Soto | 2016 | Mining waste. | HE | |
| Jalisco | Cuautitlan de Garcia Barragan | 2013 | Pollution. | W |
| Breach of procedures. | LE | |||
| Repression. | F | |||
| Mexico State | Temascaltepec | 2007 | Illegal environmental activity. Mining waste. | HE |
| Torture and murderer. | LI | |||
| Michoacan | San Miguel de Aquila | 2000 | Breach of agreements. | LE |
| Criminalization. | F | |||
| Morelos | Micatlan | 2012 | Risk of pollution. | W |
| Risk of environmental damage. | HE | |||
| Nayarit | Buenaventura | 2018 | Breach of procedures. | LE |
| Murderer. | LI | |||
| Oaxaca | Ocotlan de Morelos | 2002 | Environmental damage. | HE |
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Repressions. | F | |||
| Murderer. | LI | |||
| Pollution. | W | |||
| Tlacolula de Matamoros | 2013 | Pollution. | W | |
| Arrests | F | |||
| Puebla | Tetela de Ocampo | 2012 | Environmental damage. | HE |
| Public participation. | F | |||
| Tlatlauquitepec | 2015 | Scarcity. | W | |
| Omission of information. | LE | |||
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Tlatlauquitepec | 2015 | Mining concessions. | P | |
| San Luis Potosi | Cerro de San Pedro | 1995 | Breach of procedures. | LE |
| Illegal occupation. | P | |||
| Public force. | LI | |||
| Sonora | Cananea | 2014 | Pollution. | W |
| Health problems. | H | |||
| Breach of agreements. | LE | |||
| Arrests. | F | |||
| Sahuaripa | 2005 | Damage to buildings. | P | |
| Health problems. | H | |||
| Pollution. | W | |||
| Breach of agreements. | LE | |||
| Mining waste. | HE | |||
| Veracruz | Alto Lucero | 2011 | Illegal environmental activity. | HE |
| Zacatecas | Mazapil | 2009 | Pollution. | W |
| Health problems. | H | |||
| Environmental damage. | HE | |||
| Omission of information. | LE | |||
| Chalchihuites | 2014 | Displacements. Damage to buildings. | P | |
| Threats. | LI |
H = health; LE = legal; HE = healthy environment; W = water; P = property; F = freedom; LI = life. Source: own elaboration with information from [
Appendix A
Third generation rights.
| Third Generation Rights | |
|---|---|
| To peace | Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Not recorded in Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. |
| To economic development | Declaration on the right to development (1986), Article 1: “The right to development is an inalienable human right under which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” Not recorded in Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. |
| To self-determination | Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960), Declarations 2 and 4: “2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; under that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.”; “4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.” Not recorded in Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. |
| To a healthy environment | Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, Article 4: “Any person has the right to a healthy environment for their development and well-being. The State will guarantee respect to such rights. But, on the other hand, environmental damage and deterioration will generate liability for whoever provokes them in terms of the provisions by the law.” |
| To benefit from the common heritage of humanity | United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): “Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970, in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared among other things that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration, and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,”. They are not recorded in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. |
| To solidarity | It is not a clear right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 22: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and under the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.” Not recorded in Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. |
Source: Own elaboration.
Human rights in the Political Constitution of the Mexican United States.
| Right | Textual Quote | Reference in the Constitution | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health | “Every person has the right to health protection. The law shall determine the bases and terms to access health services. It shall establish the competence of the Federation and the Local Governments concerning sanitation according to the item XVI in Article 73 of this Constitution.” | Article 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The last reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. The added paragraph in the Official Journal of the Federation on 2 February 1983. | |
| Legal | According to the principle of legality, the authorities must adhere to the Constitution, laws, and international treaties established and not to the will of the people: |
Article 16 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The last reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. The added paragraph in the Official Journal of the Federation on 15 September 2017. | |
| “Restriction or suspension of constitutional rights and guarantees should be based and justified on the provisions established by this Constitution, should be proportional to the danger, and should observe the principles of legality, rationality, notification, publicity, and non-discrimination.” | Article 29 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. | ||
| Environment | Water | “Any person has the right of access, provision, and drainage of water for personal and domestic consumption in a good, healthy, acceptable, and affordable manner. The State will guarantee such right and the law will define the bases, subsidies, and modality for the equitable and sustainable access and use of the freshwater resources, establishing the participation of the Federation, local governments, and municipalities, as well as the participation of the citizens for the achievement of such purposes.” | Article 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. The added paragraph in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 February 2012. |
| Healthyenvironment | “Any person has the right to a healthy environment for their development and well-being. The State will guarantee respect to such rights. Conversely, environmental damage and deterioration will generate liability for whoever provokes them in terms of the provisions by the law.” | Article 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. The added paragraph in the Official Journal of the Federation on 6 June 1999. | |
| Property | “The property of all land and water within national territory is originally owned by the Nation, who has the right to transfer this ownership to particulars. Hence, private property is a privilege created by the Nation.” |
Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. Reformed paragraph in Official Journal of the Federation 6 February 1976; 10 August 1987; and 6 January 1992. | |
| Freedom | “No one can be deprived of his freedom, properties or rights without a trial before previously established courts, complying with the essential formalities of the proceedings and according to those laws issued beforehand.” | Article 14 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. Reformed paragraph in Official Journal of the Federation on 9 December 2005. | |
| “No arrest summons may be issued except for the judicial authority upon previous accusation or commission complaint because of an act which is described as a crime by the law, punishable with imprisonment. Unless there is evidence to prove a committed crime with enough elements to believe that the suspect committed it or was an accessory.” | Article 16 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. Reformed paragraph in Official Journal of the Federation on 6 June 2009. Errata in Official Journal of the Federation on 25 June 2009. | ||
| “No arrest before a judicial authority may exceed seventy-two hours from the time the defendant is brought under custody, without a formal order of entailment. The process must set forth the crime he is charged with, the place, time, and circumstances of the crime, as well as the evidence furnished by the preliminary criminal inquiry, which must be sufficient to establish that a crime has been committed and the potential liability of the suspect.” | Article 19 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. | ||
| Life | “Death penalty, mutilation, and infamous penalties, as well as branding, flogging, beating with sticks, and torture of any kind, the imposition of excessive fines, confiscation of property and any other cruel, unusual and transcending punishments are prohibited. Furthermore, every penalty shall be in proportion to the crime committed and the legally-protected interest.” | Article 22 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. | |
| “In the issued decrees, the exercise to non-discrimination rights, for the recognition of legal personality, life, personal integrity, family protection, name, which may not be restricted or suspended, nationality; child rights, political rights; freedoms of thinking, conscience and religious belief. The principle of legality and retroactivity; death penalty prohibition, slavery, and servitude; enforced disappearance and torture; and the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights.” |
Article 29 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The latest reform was published in the Official Journal of the Federation on 8 May 2020. | ||
Source: [
References
1. Franks, D.M.; Davis, R.; Bebbington, A.J.; Ali, S.H.; Kemp, D.; Scurrah, H. Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business cost. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2014; 111, pp. 7576-7581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405135111]
2. Mancini, L.; Sala, S. Social impact assessment in the mining sector. Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resour. Policy; 2018; 57, pp. 98-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002]
3. Haalboom, B. The intersection of corporate social responsibility guidelines and indigenous rights: Examining neoliberal governance of a proposed mining project in Suriname. Geoforum; 2012; 43, pp. 969-979. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.06.003]
4. Idemudia, U.; Kwakyewah, C.; Muthuri, J. Mining, the environment, and human rights in Ghana: An area of limited statehood perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 2919-2926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2581]
5. Westorn, H.B.; Bollier, D. Toward a recalibrated human right to a clean and healthy environment: Making the conceptual transition. J. Hum. Rights Environ.; 2013; 4, pp. 116-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2013.02.01]
6. Kotzé, L.J. Human rights and the environment in the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev.; 2014; 1, pp. 252-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2053019614547741]
7. Mendezcarlo, V.; Lizardi-Jiménez, M.A. Environmental Problems and the State of Compliance with the Right to a Healthy Environment in Mining Region of Mexico. Int. J. Chem. Reac. Eng.; 2020; 18, 20190179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2019-0179]
8. Korsah-Brown, D. Environment, human rights and mining conflicts in Ghana. Human Rights & the Environment. Conflicts and Norms in a Globalizing World; Zarsky, L. Routledge: Oxfordshire, London, UK, 2001; pp. 79-85.
9. Hajjar Leib, L. Human Rights and the Environment: Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal Perspectives; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2011.
10. Devia, C.; Leguizamón, J. Procesos de paz y conflicto en África: Angola, República Democrática del Congo y Sierra Leona (Peace and Conflict Processes in Africa: Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone). Rev. Análisis Int.; 2014; 5, pp. 87-103.
11. Arias, J.E.; Gobernador, C. El territorio como elemento fundamental de la resistencia al desplazamiento forzado de los pueblos indígenas de Colombia (The territory as a fundamental element of the resistance to forced displacement of the indigenous peoples of Colombia). Destierros y Desarraigos, Proceedings of the Memorias del II Seminario Internacional. Desplazamiento: Implicaciones y Retos Para la Gobernabilidad, la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos, Bogota, Colombia, 4–6 September 2003; CODHES, OIM-Misión Colombia: Colombia, 2003; pp. 71-80. Available online: https://repository.iom.int/handle/20.500.11788/875?locale-attribute=en (accessed on 6 January 2022).
12. Knox, J.H. Defensores de Derechos Humanos Ambientales. Una Crisis Global (Defenders of Environmental Human Rights. A Global Crisis); Universal Rights Group: Versoix, Switzerland, 2017.
13. Tetreault, D.; McCulligh, C.; Lucio, C. An Introduction to Social Environmental Conflicts and Alternatives in Mexico. Social Environmental Conflicts in Mexico. Resistance to Dispossession and Alternatives from Below; Tetrault, D.; McCulligh, C.; Lucio, C. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018; pp. 3-41.
14. Uribe, S.; Rodríguez, G. México (Mexico). Conflictos Mineros en América Latina: Extracción, saqueo y agresión. Estado de la situación en 2018 (Mining Conflicts in Latin America: Extraction, Looting and Aggression. State of the Situation in 2018); OCMAL: Chalchiuites, Mexico, 2019; pp. 74-84.
15. Svampa, M. Las Fronteras del Neoextractivismo en América Latina: Conflictos socioambientales, Giro Ecoterritorial y Nuevas Dependencias (The Borders of Neo-Extractivism in Latin America: Socio-Environmental Conflicts, Ecoterritorial Shift and New Dependencies); 1st ed. CALAS Maria Sibylla Merian Center: Guadalajara, Mexico, 2019.
16. Sbert, C. Amparos Filed by Indigenous Communities against Mining Concessions in Mexico: Implications for a Shift in Ecological Law. Mex. Law Rev.; 2018; 10, pp. 3-26.
17. Raftopoulos, M. Contemporary debates on social-environmental conflicts, extractivism and human rights in Latin America. Int. J. Hum. Rights; 2017; 21, pp. 387-404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1301035]
18. Urrutia, G.; Bonfill, X. Declaración PRISMA: Una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis (PRISMA statement: A Proposal to Improve the Publication of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Med. Clínica; 2010; 135, pp. 507-511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015]
19. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Span. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet.; 2014; 3, e1000097.
20. O’Leary, B.C.; Bayliss, H.R.; Haddaway, N.R. Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy. Mar. Policy; 2015; 62, pp. 261-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.026]
21. Page, M.J.; Moher, D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Syst. Rev.; 2017; 6, 263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29258593]
22. Bartos, O.J.; Wehr, P. Using Conflict Theory; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
23. Walter, M. Conflictos ambientales, socioambientales, ecológico distributivos, de contenido ambiental… Reflexionando sobre enfoques y definiciones (Environmental, Socio-Environmental, Ecological Distributive, Environmental Content Conflicts … Reflecting on Approaches and Definitions). Boletín Ecos; 2009; 6, pp. 2-9.
24. López, R.; Somuano, M.; Ortega, R. David contra Goliat: ¿cómo los movimientos ambientales se enfrentan a las grandes corporaciones? (David vs. Goliath: How Do Environmental Movements Confront Big Corporations?). Am. Lat. Hoy; 2018; 79, pp. 41-58.
25. Hanson, S.; Mallet, A. Unhearthing power: A decolonial analysis of the Samarco mine disaster and Brazilian mining industry. Extr. Ind. Soc.; 2020; 7, pp. 704-715.
26. Carranza, D.M. Socio-environmental conflicts: An underestimated threat to biodiversity conservation in Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2020; 110, pp. 46-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.006]
27. Gudynas, E. Conflictos y extractivismo: Conceptos, contenidos y dinámicas (Conflicts and extractivism: Concepts, contents and dynamics). Rev. Cienc. Soc.; 2014; 27, pp. 79-116.
28. Garibay, C. Paisajes de acumulación minera por desposesión campesina en el México actual (Landscapes of mining accumulation by peasant dispossession in present-day Mexico). Ecología política de la minería en América Latina. Aspectos socioeconómicos, legales y ambientales de la mega minería (Political Ecology of Mining in Latin America. Socioeconomic, Legal and Environmental Aspects of Mega Mining); UNAM, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades: Federal District, Mexico, 2010; pp. 133-182.
29. Seoane, J. Neoliberalismo y ofensa extractivista. Actualidad de la acumulación por despojo (Neoliberalism and extractivist offensive. Actuality of accumulation by dispossession). Theomai; 2012; 26.(second semester)
30. Porto, M.F.; Milanez, B. Eixos de desenvolvimiento económico e geração de conflitos socioambientais no Brasil: Desafios para a sustentabilidade e a justiça ambiental (Axes of Economic Development and Generation of Socio-Environmental Conflicts in Brazil: Challenges for Sustainability and Environmental Justice). Ciência Saúde Coletiva; 2009; 14, pp. 1983-1994. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20069167]
31. Rodríguez, N.; Gómez, C. La maldición de los recursos naturales (The Curse of Natural Resources). Ens. Rev. Econ.; 2014; 33, pp. 63-90.
32. Paz, M.F. Deterioro y resistencias. Conflictos socioambientales en México (Deterioration and Resistance. Socio-Environmental Conflicts in Mexico). Conflictos Socioambientales y Alternativas de la Sociedad Civil (Socio-Environmental Conflicts and Alternatives of Civil Society); ITESO: Guadalajara, Mexico, 2012; pp. 27-48.
33. Tetreault, D. Social Environmental Minings Conflicts in Mexico. Lat. Am. Perspect.; 2015; 42, pp. 48-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022429415585112]
34. López, E.E. Derechos de Tercera Generación (Third Generation Rights). Podium Notar.; 2006; 34, pp. 249-257.
35. Toledo, V.; Garrido, D.; Barrera-Basols, N. Conflictos socioambientales, resistencias ciudadanas y violencia neoliberal en México (Socio-Environmental Conflicts, Citizen Resistance and Neoliberal Violence in Mexico). Ecol. Política; 2013; 46, pp. 115-124.
36. González, S. La Jornada. México, uno de los Países de AL con más Problemas con Mineras: Cepal (Mexico, One of the Latin American Countries with the Most Problems with Mining Companies: Cepal). 2013; Available online: https://www.jornada.com.mx/2013/10/20/economia/024n1eco (accessed on 12 January 2021).
37. Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros de América Latina (OCMAL) (Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America). Available online: https://www.ocmal.org/ (accessed on 7 September 2020).
38. Zaremberg, G.; Guarneros-Meza, V.; Flores-Ivich, G.; Torres Wong, M. Conversing with Goliath: Hemerographic Database on Conflicts in Mining, Hydrocarbon, Hydroelectric and Wind-Farm Industries in Mexico. 2019; Available online: http://observandoagoliat.com/ (accessed on 26 July 2020).
39. Environmental Justice Atlas. Available online: www.ejatlas.org (accessed on 2 May 2021).
40. Grieta, Medio para Armar (Crack, Medium to Assemble). Available online: www.grieta.org (accessed on 3 May 2021).
41. Ramírez, N.L. Mapeo y Análisis Espacial de Conflictos Ambientales en México (Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Environmental Conflicts in Mexico); PNUD: Mexico-INECC, Mexico City, Mexico, 2017.
42. Muñoz-Duque, L.; Pérez, M.; Betancour, A. Spoliation, socio-environmental conflicts and human rights violation Implications of large scale mining in Latin America. Rev. UDCA Actual. Divulg. Científica; 2020; 23, pp. 1-10.
43. González, J.J. Tratado de Derecho Ambiental Mexicano. La Responsabilidad por el daño Ambiental (Mexican Environmental Law Treaty. Liability for Environmental Damage); UNAM: Azcapotzalco, Mexico, 2017.
44. Federal Government. Political Constitution of the United Mexican States; Last Reform Published DOF 28-05-2021 Official Journal of the Federation: Mexico City, Mexico.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Acevedo-Sandoval, Otilio A
; Elena Ma Otazo-Sánchez; Roman-Gutiérrez, Alma D
; Prieto-García, Francisco