Legal Pluralism in Practice: Colombia’s New Framework for Indigenous Territorial Self-Government

In May 2025, the Colombian government took a historic step toward realising a long-delayed constitutional promise: by means of a decree, it recognised the right of indigenous peoples to establish autonomous territorial entities with their own governments, legal systems and control over land and resources. This decree operationalises Articles 7 and 246 of the Colombian Constitution, which embraced the country’s ‘multiethnic and multicultural’ identity and pledged respect for indigenous jurisdiction.

The implications of this move extend far beyond Colombia’s borders. It directly engages international legal norms on internal self-determination, legal pluralism and environmental governance. It also raises critical questions: can domestic constitutional pluralism coexist with extractivist state models? How does this recognition advance or complicate international law’s engagement with indigenous autonomy? Can Colombia’s decree serve as a model for other States facing similar demands?

This post examines such questions from the lens of international law, situating Colombia’s experiment within a broader struggle for indigenous peoples’ rights and a more pluralist legal order.

Background: Constitutional Foundations

Colombia’s 1991 Constitution marked a foundational shift in the State’s relationship with indigenous peoples. Replacing a traditionally assimilationist framework, it recognised the country as “a social State under the rule of law, organised in the form of a unitary republic, decentralised, with autonomy of its territorial entities, democratic, participatory and pluralist” (Art. 1). Article 7 explicitly affirms the State’s obligation to protect ‘ethnic and cultural diversity’, whilst Article 246 grants indigenous communities the right to exercise jurisdiction within their territories according to their own norms and procedures, provided these are not contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the Republic.

Despite this constitutional recognition, the promise of legal pluralism remained largely unrealised in practice. Indigenous communities, however, did not remain passive. Through sustained mobilisation, they have demanded implementation of their rights, invoking international legal instruments such as the ILO Convention No. 169 (ratified by Colombia in 1991) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The May 2025 decree can thus be seen as the result of persistent indigenous advocacy finally meeting a moment of political will.

From Recognition to Regulation: Decree no. 488/2025

The decree issued by the Colombian government in May 2025 establishes a legal framework for the formal recognition of ‘entidades territoriales indígenas’ (indigenous territorial entities) with political, administrative and fiscal autonomy. These entities are empowered to create their own internal governance structures, administer justice through customary law, manage natural resources and, crucially, approve or veto development projects that affect their territories. The decree is not merely declaratory: it outlines a procedure for communities to request recognition, defines minimal institutional criteria and sets out coordination mechanisms with national authorities.

This represents a fundamental reconfiguration of the Colombian State’s territorial and legal architecture. For the first time, indigenous governance will not operate at the discretion of central authorities or through ad hoc accords, but as part of a recognised and regulated system of plurinational governance. It also implicitly challenges the long-dominant model of centralised state control over land, natural resources and development priorities, potentially altering the balance of power in Colombia’s historically unequal State-communities relations.

International Law Perspectives

Decree no. 488/2025 can be understood not only as a constitutional development but as part of Colombia’s evolving obligations under international law. It intersects with three key areas: indigenous peoples’ right to autonomy and self-government, recognition of legal pluralism and the link between indigenous rights and environmental protection.

a. Self-Determination and Autonomy

Colombia’s recognition of indigenous territorial autonomy speaks directly to the international norm of internal self-determination. Whilst international law remains cautious about recognising external self-determination (i.e., secession), there is growing recognition that indigenous peoples have a right to control their own affairs within existing state boundaries.

This is codified most clearly in ILO Convention No. 169, Articles 7 and 8, which require States to respect indigenous peoples’ institutions and decision-making processes, and to consult them on matters affecting their lives. The UNDRIP goes further: Article 4 recognises their right to autonomy and self-government “in matters relating to their internal and local affairs”, whilst Article 19 demands free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before adopting legislative or administrative measures affecting them.

By providing a domestic mechanism for self-government and territorial management, Colombia’s decree gives practical expression to these obligations, marking it as a noteworthy example of international law internalised through administrative innovation.

b. Legal Pluralism and Customary Law

Decree 488/2025 advances a model of governance in which indigenous law is not merely tolerated or informally exercised, but officially recognised within the legal architecture of the Colombian State. Whilst legal pluralism is often viewed through a domestic constitutional lens, it is increasingly taking shape as a principle of international law.

International instruments such as the ILO Convention No. 169 (Arts. 8-9) and UNDRIP (Art. 34) expressly affirm indigenous peoples’ rights to maintain and develop their own legal systems and institutions, in accordance with internationally recognised human rights standards. These provisions reflect a growing recognition that legal diversity is not only compatible with international law, but also a means to realise collective human rights.

As Anaya has argued, indigenous advocacy over the last several decades has contributed to structural shifts in international law – away from the exclusive sovereignty of States and toward a form of global pluralism, where diverse legal traditions coexist within and across state boundaries. In this view, indigenous law becomes part of the ‘global legal and political landscape’, not only a matter of domestic policy. This evolution is particularly visible in the Inter-American human rights system, where cases such as Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, Saramaka v. Suriname and Yakye Axa v. Paraguay affirm that indigenous rights to land and participation are grounded in international human rights law, but must be interpreted in light of the communities’ own customary norms and institutions. Whilst the Court derives these rights from the American Convention, it increasingly recognises the relevance of indigenous normative orders as a source of meaning and legitimacy within the interpretive process.

Scholars such as Quane, Elsana and Perrin further argue that international law should treat legal pluralism not simply as a sociological reality, but as a normative principle guiding interpretation. In this sense, Decree 488/2025 represents not just compliance with international standards, but a juridical instantiation of pluralism: an effort to institutionalise parallel legal orders within a unified legal framework.

In this light, Decree 488/2025 is not merely a national legal development, but part of a broader shift in international law toward pluralist governance. Indigenous legal systems are increasingly recognised as integral to interpreting and implementing indigenous rights. By embedding indigenous norms and institutions within the State’s legal framework, Colombia is operationalising international standards on self-determination and pluralism, aligning with the Inter-American system’s trajectory.

c. Territory, Consent and Environmental Rights

The decree also carries significant implications for international environmental law and climate justice. Colombia’s tropical forests and critical ecosystems largely overlap with indigenous territories. UNDRIP Articles 25-29 recognise indigenous rights to maintain their spiritual and material relationship with traditionally occupied lands and to ensure environmental protection, whilst Article 32(2) obliges States to obtain FPIC before approving potentially harmful development projects.

ILO Convention No. 169 likewise requires consultation (Art. 6), participation in resource planning (Art. 7) and safeguards over natural resources (Art. 15). These obligations have been reinforced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases such as Saramaka v. Suriname and Sarayaku v. Ecuador, which held that FPIC, benefit-sharing and environmental impact assessments are necessary safeguards, affirming that effective protection of indigenous territorial rights is essential for the survival and cultural continuity of these communities.

Decree 488/2025 offers a potential mechanism for implementing evolving international obligations. By recognising indigenous territorial entities as legal-administrative units with governance powers, it moves beyond procedural consultation toward substantive participation, including the ability to shape or withhold consent in environmental decisions. This may strengthen Colombia’s compliance with international law, also in light of the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13 on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (requested by Colombia), which links environmental harm to human rights violations.

Still, tensions remain. Colombia’s Constitution vests ownership of subsoil and non-renewable resources in the State (Art. 332), and the decree does not explicitly resolve this. International law offers tools to mediate this conflict, but not yet a normative resolution. Colombia’s experience may then expose the limits of procedural pluralism in the face of entrenched extractivism. The decree’s effectiveness will likely depend on whether institutions treat indigenous autonomy as a genuine constraint on such policies.

Conclusion: challenges and risks

Whilst Decree 488/2025 signals progress toward indigenous autonomy, its implementation faces serious legal, political and institutional hurdles.

First, recognition alone does not guarantee meaningful self-government. Many indigenous communities face chronic underfunding, limited access to legal and technical expertise and infrastructural deficits. Without sustained support, new territorial entities risk existing only on paper. Second, the decree may encounter resistance from institutions and corporations. Extractive industries remain central to Colombia’s economy and indigenous territories often sit atop strategic resources. If respected, the power to veto or condition projects could disrupt intertwined interests, triggering backlash, litigation or regulatory capture. Third, integrating indigenous governance with national and local systems may generate legal and administrative friction. Coordination probably requires reforms in fiscal policy, conflict resolution mechanisms and intergovernmental relations.

Internationally, Colombia must avoid symbolic compliance. Aligning with ILO 169 and UNDRIP is not enough if implementation is undermined by delays or selective enforcement. True adherence depends on transparent, participatory and well-funded processes. Ultimately, the risks are real, but so are the opportunities. Overall, Colombia’s decree offers not just a legal innovation, but an invitation: to imagine a State not as a uniform space of authority, but as a shared and negotiated project between peoples.