The Argentine State has a historical debt to indigenous communities. Argentine society has been shaped by constant conflict with anything deemed to differ from the \u2018Argentine\u2019 ideal that was sought to be constructed during the nineteenth century. These \u2018othernesses\u2019 comprised both immigrants and the native communities of the territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That idealised model of \u2018being Argentine\u2019, which was fictitiously constructed two centuries ago, forced the creation of internal enemies out of anything that deviated from that role. Indeed, Rita Segato speaks of a society forged on the basis of \u2018ethnic terror\u2019, of vigilant and punitive institutions, of mockery of accents and of banned indigenous languages (2002, p. 253). What was so earnestly sought was a Western society, one that had nothing to do with the indigenous peoples who were so far removed from that idyllic society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The idea took hold, therefore, that progress was linked to the Western hemisphere, and that anything that differed from it represented a step backwards for the country. The process of homogenisation to which the inhabitants of the territory were subjected in order to create a nation amounted to a systematic and punitive extermination of indigenous cultures. Thus, the idea was successfully instilled, an idea that today is encapsulated in the popular saying that \u2018we Argentines come from the ships\u2019 (Trentini and Gui\u00f1az\u00fa, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attempts have been made, to a greater or lesser extent, to settle this historical debt through the country\u2019s successive governments. With the reform of the National Constitution in 1994, formal recognition of indigenous communities was incorporated into the State\u2019s supreme law. Article 75, paragraph 17, establishes recognition of \u2018the pre-existing ethnic and cultural identity of Argentina\u2019s indigenous peoples\u2019, listing their rights, amongst which is the recognition of their communities\u2019 land ownership<\/em>; it also implies the obligation to grant legal personality to these communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was on the basis of this constitutional obligation that Resolution 4811\/1996 established the National Register of Indigenous Communities (Re.Na.Ci). This body was responsible for granting legal personality, so that indigenous communities could exercise their specific rights. Consequently, whether or not a community was registered with the Re.Na.Ci determined its access to the other remedies provided for under Argentine law to protect these communities. One example of such measures is Act 26160, which suspended evictions from the lands of indigenous peoples pending the completion of a cadastral survey of the lands they occupied (Act 26.160, 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the constitutional commitments still enshrined in the National Constitution, Javier Milei\u2019s government in 2024 has taken two decisions in particular, amongst many others, which run counter to these commitments and which today highlight the vulnerability to which indigenous communities have been exposed. Firstly, in October 2024, the Re.Na.Ci was repealed, thereby ceasing to grant legal status to the communities, which had previously enabled them to access their rights. Secondly, in December of that same year, Law 26160\u2014the Emergency Law on Land Possession and Ownership\u2014was also repealed, thereby allowing for the eviction of indigenous peoples from the lands they have historically inhabited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The authors Trentini and Gui\u00f1az\u00fa (2025) carried out a very interesting analysis of Decree 1083\/2024, which brought about the repeal of the Emergency Land Act. The Decree states that the Act had created a situation of \u2018legal uncertainty\u2019 which affected the right to private property of the \u2018legitimate<\/em> owners\u2019 of the land (p. 19). Furthermore, at one point it explicitly distinguishes indigenous communities from Argentine citizens, stating that differential regulations applicable to indigenous peoples have resulted in an encroachment to the detriment of citizens (Decree 1083\/2024, cited by Trentini and Gui\u00f1az\u00fa, 2025). The decree constantly seeks to delegitimise indigenous communities by casting doubt on their roots and portraying them as a common enemy of the Argentine people. Of course, it also refers to the economic loss suffered by the Argentine territory due to the fact that it has not been exploited by its \u2018legitimate owners\u2019, and the resulting blockage of investment (p. 21).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decree begins by reviving that historical otherness which took root in the nineteenth century, when the Argentine nation was still taking shape, by demonising indigenous peoples and stripping them of their legitimacy. In its justification, the text ultimately escalates this discrediting to highlight, in the end, the economic benefits that will result from the ease with which these communities can be expelled from their lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wealth to be gained from dispossession<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conquest of the Desert was the 19th-century military campaign through which the Argentine State\u2019s dominion over the Pampas and Patagonia was finally consolidated, eliminating the indigenous population that inhabited the region. The possession of these lands, now in the hands of an established nation, led to the exploitation of the natural resources they offered. From oil extraction to their use for livestock farming and mining, the defining feature of the Patagonian region has always been its economic potential (Galafassi and Composto, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This military campaign of two centuries ago is one of the most obvious examples of what is known as the \u2018act of dispossession\u2019, characterised as a \u2018violent process through which new definitions of capital encroach upon common goods, social relations and regional economies outside the most dynamic core of capitalist accumulation, recolonising territories and redefining the exploitation of their resources\u2019 (Galafassi and Compost, 2013, p. 94).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Through this process, the driving force becomes, therefore, the accumulation of wealth by those leading the act of dispossession. It thus becomes a systematic, violent and oppressive dynamic directed against indigenous peoples, separating them from the lands and resources they have relied upon since long before the arrival of the newcomers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Territorial Emergency Act was intended to serve as a safeguard to overcome this dynamic. The suspension of evictions until the status of the occupied lands had been clarified provided legal protection for the communities inhabiting those lands. Once this legal protection was removed from the equation, the consequences began to become apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In July and August 2026, multiple police operations took place simultaneously to evict indigenous peoples from their lands, in the north, east and south of the country. In the provinces of Misiones, Jujuy and Neuqu\u00e9n, the communities living on land in those provinces clashed with police officers who went so far as to fire rubber bullets at them (Guarinoni, 2026). The territories under dispute all shared the common feature of being located in strategic areas with the potential to generate significant economic returns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time as these events, in August, Javier Milei\u2019s government pushed through the \u2018Law on the Inviolability of Private Property\u2019, which aims to facilitate \u2018express evictions\u2019. In other words, rather than waiting for all legal avenues to be exhausted, the law proposes the use of summary proceedings that could speed up eviction orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are faced with a reality that not only deepens the historical divide which the Argentine state exploited in order to establish itself, but also exacerbates it. The fact that a decree challenges the special rights designed to protect indigenous peoples \u2013 whose recognition is enshrined in the National Constitution \u2013 calls into question their legitimacy and criminalises the occupation of their lands by designating third parties as the \u2018legitimate owners\u2019, reigniting a debate that had begun to be resolved in 1994.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its judgement in the case of Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina, ruled that the State had violated the rights of 132 indigenous communities in the province of Salta. And, amongst the many other rights listed as having been violated, the right to communal property is mentioned. The judgement recognises indigenous territory as a collective right, encompassing the community\u2019s relationship with the habitat that sustains it. If the fundamental right \u2013 that of territory \u2013 is violated, a domino effect is created that infringes upon other economic, social and cultural rights (Foradori, 2021). This results in a snowball effect that increasingly infringes upon indigenous rights, which the Argentine State has a duty to protect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Five years after the ruling, Argentina appears to have backtracked on the rights of indigenous peoples. This is not only a matter of repealing the Re.Na.Ci and Law 26.160, but also of introducing legal mechanisms such as \u2018express evictions\u2019 to further exacerbate the vulnerability of these communities. Not only does this historical debt remain unpaid, but there is now an attempt to promote a legal framework that will allow it to continue to grow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By Ana Nerea Saad Mois\u00e9s, a graduate in International Relations and a Master\u2019s student in Governance and Human Rights at the Autonomous University of Madrid, and a contributor to FIBGAR\u2019s Observatorio Alerta LATAM.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bibliographical references<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n NATIONAL CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION<\/strong> [Const.] (1994). Article 75. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.congreso.gob.ar\/constitucionNacional.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/strong> (2020). Judgment in the case of \u201cIndigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina\u201d. https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/casos\/articulos\/seriec_400_esp.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n FORADORI, M. L.<\/strong> (2021). The IACHR judgment in the case of Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) v. Argentina: economic, social and cultural rights in the context of ethno-environmental conflicts. Law and Health Journal, 5(6), 95\u2013114. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.37767\/2591-3476 (2021)07<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n GALAFASSI, G., and COMPOSTO, C.<\/strong> (2013). Accumulation through dispossession and new enclosures: the case of large-scale mining in Argentine Patagonia. Cuadernos del Cendes, 30(83), 75\u2013103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GUARINONI, L.<\/strong> (20 August 2026). Evictions of indigenous people are on the rise in Argentina whilst a bill facilitating expulsions is being debated. SWI swissinfo.ch. https:\/\/www.swissinfo.ch\/spa\/desalojos-ind%C3%ADgenas-avanzan-en-argentina-mientras-se-discute-ley-que-facilita-expulsiones\/91930353<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n