INTRODUCTION

This article analyzes developments in international law relating to the rights of mobile and nomadic peoples. It begins by presenting a detailed overview of the legal situation of these communities, highlighting the urgent need for international engagement that is adapted to their realities. The article then offers a critical analysis of the response of international law to the violations suffered by these groups, highlighting the limitations of an approach focused exclusively on the rights of mobile indigenous peoples. The 2024 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, which focuses on mobility, is a notable exception in international law. As a general rule, nomadic peoples remain largely invisible in this legal system, which tends either to ignore them or to marginalize them by favoring norms that promote sedentary lifestyles.

Historically, nomadic peoples have seen their spaces for mobility reduced in favor of sedentary societies. International law has contributed to this loss by relying on territorial rules that value sedentary lifestyles. The definition of state rights, centered on criteria such as a stable population and fixed borders, has disadvantaged nomadic peoples, whose way of life does not meet these criteria (Moretti 2006; Meier 2020:69-74). This conception has led to their exclusion from the scope of international law. However, recent developments in international law, particularly through the gradual recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples, are beginning to take into account the fundamental rights of mobile peoples and to recognize the legitimacy of non-exclusively sedentary use of territory. Nevertheless, as the 2024 report of the Special Rapporteur points out, these advances remain very limited.

Before reviewing international law, it is necessary to clarify two fundamental semantic aspects in order to contextualize the analysis. The first concerns the terminology of « mobility. » In this special edition and in the Special Rapporteur’s report, the term « mobility » is preferred to « nomadism » in order to avoid the stereotypes associated with nomadism, which is often perceived as obsolete or synonymous with uprootedness. On the other hand, « mobility » emphasizes sophisticated adaptation rather than a lack of home or connection to the land. However, this article also uses the terms « nomadic » and « nomadism » to emphasize that, for some peoples, nomadism remains an essential component of their socio-economic and cultural life, despite repression and persistent stereotypes.

The second point concerns the approach focused solely on « indigenous peoples, » which risks excluding mobile and nomadic groups that are not recognized as such. This issue is part of the broader debates on the definition of indigenous peoples, a subject that has hindered many advances in indigenous peoples’ rights for several decades. Many governments, particularly those with large mobile or nomadic populations, oppose this definition, arguing that there are no indigenous peoples in their states and that the concept of indigenous peoples is Eurocentric. As a result, many mobile and nomadic peoples are excluded from the category of indigenous peoples. For example, communities that maintain a mobile and seasonal way of life in Mongolia are not recognized as indigenous peoples. The Mongolian government, as well as several international institutions such as the World Bank, have refused this recognition, thereby limiting their access to international law (Ahearn et al. 2025; Dovchin and Dovchin 2024).

Similarly, the Indian government has refused to recognize many nomadic communities living in India as indigenous peoples (Bokhil 2002; Naryanan, Sinha, and Sowmyaa 2020). Another controversial example concerns groups from the Roma, Gypsy, and Tsigane movements, which are not considered indigenous peoples (James and Southern 2019; Howarth 2022). Although self-identification is a central principle in international law for defining indigenous peoples, many states and international institutions continue to exclude mobile and nomadic populations from this category. These examples illustrate that, in practice, the current definition of indigenous peoples and mobile peoples excludes many groups living in situations of cultural, ancestral, or seasonal mobility, thereby depriving them of the protection of international law.

Although these reflections serve primarily to introduce the concepts used in this article, which focuses on the evolution of international law, they highlight the complexity and controversies inherent in analyzing the status of mobile peoples in international law. From the outset, questions of definition and categorization constitute major obstacles to these groups’ access to international law, and also highlight the sedentary biases of international law and its actors.

I. OVERVIEW: THE SITUATION OF NOMADIC PEOPLES

In general, nomadic peoples around the world face numerous forms of discrimination and violations of their rights. Although it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the number of nomadic peoples in the world, their mobility-based lifestyles are in danger, with nomadism itself threatened with extinction. Mobile peoples are generally subject to pressure from the predominant sedentary world with regard to mobility, access to water resources, control of natural resources, and migration routes.

Comparative data and analysis on nomadic communities remain scarce, as studies are often limited to specific contexts. Nevertheless, mobile indigenous peoples frequently encounter similar challenges, including loss of access to territories that enable mobility. Development policies generally favor sedentary modes of exploitation, such as agriculture, mining, and commercial livestock farming. In this context, governments often perceive the territories of nomadic peoples as vast and underdeveloped. Due to their mobility-based lifestyle, these populations’ land rights and access to natural resources are neither recognized nor protected. In most countries, legislation is developed by and for sedentary populations, requiring a permanent residence in order to obtain land and property rights.

In addition, many nomadic communities face systemic discrimination from public institutions, which often results in a lack of access to citizenship or classification as « second- class » citizens. Furthermore, many nomadic communities face systematic forms of discrimination, stereotyping, and stigmatization. Discrimination against nomadic and mobile peoples is generally widespread in all areas of public and private life, including access to public places, education, employment, health services, and housing. This widespread discrimination often leads to severe economic marginalization and social segregation. Discrimination against nomadic and mobile communities is particularly evident in their lack of access to essential public services such as health care and education. Nomadic populations generally have limited access to public health facilities, making them disproportionately vulnerable to infectious diseases. The lack of primary health care results in very poor health, high morbidity and mortality rates, and much higher maternal mortality rates in nomadic communities than in the rest of the population (Sangare et al. 2021). Access to education is another area where nomadic communities face extreme marginalization (Ali 2019). Many nomadic communities do not have access to formal education or schooling, and many governments have adopted the « solution » of placing children in « specialized » educational institutions (Gardelle and Zhao 2019). School segregation is often practiced against mobile and nomadic communities (Dyer 2006).

More generally, lack of access to services is often linked to sedentarization policies. Forced or imposed sedentarization is a common problem for nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. Although sedentarization can be the result of a voluntary process, it is often the consequence of government policies or legislation that make nomadism illegal or impossible. The assimilation of nomadic populations into sedentary society remains a central government objective in most countries. Sedentarization is also often the result of government-induced policies, such as the schooling of children or the provision of social and health services. Sedentarization programs are often justified by governments with the promise of socioeconomic benefits, but these services rarely materialize, leading to greater marginalization of nomadic communities (Koot and Hitchcock 2019).

Another significant problem facing some nomadic communities is increasing violence. The dichotomy between sedentary and mobile populations is often the source of violent conflict. For example, the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur highlighted that one of the main reasons for the conflict in the Darfur region was « competition between various tribes, particularly between sedentary and nomadic tribes, for natural resources due to desertification » (International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur 2005, p. 57). Throughout the Sahel and in many parts of West and East Africa, the cycle of violence between herders and farmers has worsened. The Sahel is the scene of permanent nomadic migrations in search of pasture, which have often led to violent confrontations between nomadic herding communities and sedentary farming communities. This situation is often due to the scarcity of resources, particularly as a result of worsening droughts, climate change, rapid population growth, and environmental degradation, which lead to increased competition between herders and farmers for access to land, water, and other resources. Climate change has led many herders to alter their transhumance routes in search of new pastures, forcing them to travel greater distances to find grazing land and water sources, which creates intense pressure on resources (Tugjamba, Walkerden, and Miller 2023, p. 28). Climate change and accelerated environmental degradation affect nomadic communities more directly, as they impact their life cycles and resource use (Ahmed, Iqbal, and Antahal 2023).

II. INTERNATIONAL LAW, NOMADISM, AND MOBILITY: HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION

Despite widespread violations of fundamental rights, discrimination, and precarious socioeconomic conditions, nomadic peoples remain invisible in international law . The contemporary international legal framework is strongly influenced by its historical evolution. Historically, international law has been an extremely negative and oppressive force against nomadism and mobility, particularly during the period of colonization by European states, which established many of the territorial principles of law. Most nomadic peoples were generally considered legally « uncivilized, » which led to their territories being considered « empty » or open to colonization under the racist fiction of terra nullius (Gilbert 2007). In this regard, international law, by promoting territorial rules based on concepts articulated around the principle of « effective occupation, » contributed to the victimization of nomadic peoples. These rules were largely inspired by European thinkers such as Locke, who defended what can be called the « culture criterion » or « agricultural argument. » The « agricultural argument » implies that only the cultivation of the land can be considered « proper » occupation of the land, and that only agriculture can be considered the basis of a true land tenure system. The « agricultural argument » has had an enormous impact on international law, infusing it with a bias toward a sedentary approach to land. This legacy is still widely visible today, as most national laws around the world do not recognize the rights of nomadic communities to land and natural resources.

In terms of international law, it was not until 1975 that the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the status of Western Sahara, implicitly reexamined the position of international law with regard to nomadic peoples by recognizing their possible legal existence. Nevertheless, this recognition did not lead to any significant changes in the prevailing legal approach, as international law remains largely silent on the rights of nomadic peoples, a silence that favors a sedentary approach to international law. In general, international legal rules on territory remain very sedentary, failing to take into account the mobile and non-exclusive use of land and natural resources. International standards are based on the idea that borders and subjects of law are stable in space. It is a legal system centered on states, which are themselves defined by a sedentary population, a fixed territory, and a stable government. International legal frameworks still struggle to fully integrate the needs and rights of mobile populations, with international law remaining largely sedentary in its foundations and in the way it defines its subjects and regulates rights and obligations. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the introduction, certain areas of international law, particularly in the field of human rights, are seeking to move beyond this vision by developing a specific approach for nomadic peoples.

III.  HUMAN RIGHTS: TENTATIVE PROGRESS LIMITED TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Despite the widespread discrimination highlighted in the first part of this article, the invisibility of nomadic and mobile peoples is also reflected in international human rights law. No human rights treaty specifically mentions nomadism or mobility, and no international human rights body has positively affirmed the right to lead a nomadic or mobile lifestyle. International human rights institutions have addressed the issue of nomadic and mobile peoples only marginally, with only a few generally non-binding statements from international human rights treaty monitoring bodies. For example, although the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has repeatedly emphasized the need for states to pay special attentio ly to the specific situation of nomadic populations, in general, human rights institutions have not addressed the specific violations faced by nomadic populations around the world. Overall, apart from a few general statements by certain United Nations Charter monitoring bodies concerning the specific situation of certain groups, there has been no adequate and systematic support for the critical situation of nomadic and mobile peoples within the framework of international human rights law. UN human rights bodies have given very little consideration to nomadic peoples as « subjects » of international human rights law who deserve cross-cutting and systematic attention.[1]

The only exception is under the banner of indigenous peoples’ rights, notably Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (1989) of the ILO (International Labor Organization), which, in Article 14 concerning land rights, emphasizes that « special attention should be paid in this regard to the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators. » Nevertheless, in practice, this article has not had any significant impact on the development of international law and has remained largely ineffective (Larsen and Gilbert 2020). In general, the specific situation of mobile and nomadic indigenous peoples has remained largely invisible, as reflected in the fact that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes no mention of mobility or nomadism. In this regard, the 2024 report of the Special Rapporteur offers a rare first study focusing on the specific situation of mobile indigenous peoples,highlighting the urgent need to adapt legal and policy frameworks to the reality of mobile autonomies.

Nevertheless, as already pointed out in the introduction, this tentative first recognition of the specific situation of mobile indigenous peoples has inherent limitations, linked to the difficulty encountered by many nomadic peoples in being recognized as indigenous peoples. It is therefore important to determine whether mobile peoples can aspire to be recognized as indigenous peoples. Although there is no officially binding definition in international law, the working definitions proposed by the UN, the ILO, and the World Bank are generally considered authoritative. These definitions are based on a combination of « objective » criteria, such as « historical continuity, » and « subjective » criteria, primarily self-identification. Four characteristics are common to all these definitions: (i) indigenous peoples are the descendants of the first inhabitants of territories colonized by foreigners; (ii) indigenous peoples have distinct cultures that differentiate them from the dominant society; (iii) they have a strong sense of identity and a deep attachment to their ancestral territories; and (iv) they have experienced enslavement, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, or discrimination. Most nomadic peoples could meet these criteria: they often predate the state in which they live; they have a deep attachment to their ancestral territories; they have a strong sense of identity and often live on the margins of mainstream political and economic systems. Most nomadic peoples have a deep attachment to their ancestral territories because of their commitment to a mobile pastoral, hunting, or gathering culture and identity. Similarly, most nomadic peoples are communities that live in a situation of non-domination, often on the margins of dominant political and economic systems due to their non-agricultural economic base and traditional cultural identity. Thus, in light of these criteria, the situation of nomadic peoples would correspond to the definition of indigenous peoples in international law.

However, equating nomadic peoples with indigenous peoples may have certain limitations. The entire system for protecting indigenous peoples is based on the notion of continuity: indigenous peoples are those who were there before the state, and who are still there. This notion of continuity in a specific territory could be restrictive for nomadic communities because of their mobility, which is often perceived as not constituting an attachment to a defined territory. Furthermore, the concept of indigeneity is linked to the idea of being the first inhabitants of a place, and here again, this concept is restrictive for many nomadic communities who may have been present for a very long time but who traditionally share the use of the territory with other sedentary societies. Most nomadic communities do not have exclusive use of a specific territory. Historical, sociological, and anthropological studies have described complex migratory patterns for many nomadic pastoral communities, which could run counter to the notion of indigeneity. The issue has been raised, for example, in the context of the Maasai in East Africa. Asserting priority in time and continuous occupation of specific territories may therefore prove difficult for some nomadic communities.

Furthermore, the legal framework relating to indigenous peoples is based on the protection and recognition of ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities. While in most cases it is true that nomadism is linked to issues of ethnicity, religion, or language, as most nomadic communities constitute a specific ethnic, religious, or linguistic group, these « markers » are not always adequate. For many mobile and nomadic peoples, one of the main cultural identifiers is in fact their nomadic status. Mobility and nomadism seem to be a very important aspect of their identity, both for themselves and for the rest of society, which identifies nomads primarily on the basis of their nomadism rather than their religion or ethnicity. In this regard, there is clearly a lack of attention in international law to the issue of nomadism and mobility and how the rights protected by various instruments could include nomadism and mobility and promote a nomadic identity. It should be noted, however, that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas refers to nomadic and semi-nomadic communities in its first article.[2] As such, the declaration explicitly applies to people engaged in small-scale agricultural production, including livestock farming and pastoralism, who depend on land, water, and natural resources for their livelihoods. Nevertheless, as the title of this declaration indicates, it only concerns the « peasant » or rural worker aspect of nomadism. Furthermore, most states have not incorporated the standards of the declaration into their national legislation, and there is no international mechanism to monitor or enforce compliance. Therefore, in general, there is still no positive right in international law for nomadic peoples to maintain a mobile, nomadic way of life. Human rights law does not yet explicitly recognize the right to mobility in the context of nomadism. In the future, special thematic attention by United Nations human rights institutions to the situation of nomadic peoples would provide a better understanding of the need to develop a body of law specifically dedicated to the rights of mobile and nomadic peoples.

CONCLUSION

Overall, international law largely ignores the concerns and rights of nomadic and mobile peoples. Historically, it has even acted as a negative force, imposing on mobile peoples a system that values sedentarism and stable borders. This preference for sedentarism has recently been challenged, with international law now placing greater emphasis on the fundamental rights of individuals rather than solely on the power of the state to control its territory. However, international human rights law remains silent on the specific situation of nomadic peoples, and no treaty grants them specific rights. Guided by the principles of universality, non-discrimination, and equality, human rights are tentatively beginning to recognize the need to address the unique reality of nomadic peoples, particularly through advances concerning indigenous peoples. However, as analyzed in this article, this focus on the rights of indigenous peoples leaves out those who, due to the political complexity of their recognition, do not have access to this status.

The invisibility of nomadic and mobile peoples in international law can be explained in particular by the fact that nomadic groups are often under-represented in the processes of developing international law, which makes them invisible in most international policies. Nomadic communities, often marginalized socio-politically and characterized by great heterogeneity and dispersion, do not have unified representation at the international level. This situation results in the virtual absence of nomadic peoples in representative bodies of international law. One notable exception concerns pastoral peoples, with the UN having proclaimed 2026 as the « International Year of Pastures and Pastoralists » to highlight the preservation of pastoralism, mobility-related ecosystems, and innovations in sustainable management by nomadic and mobile pastoral peoples.

In the face of accelerating environmental degradation and rapid climate change, it is essential to remember that nomadism and mobility offer ingenious and sustainable responses to environmental stress. These ways of life, in harmony with the rhythms of nature, encourage careful and respectful management of resources and ecological cycles. Far from being relics of the past doomed to disappear, nomadic societies today demonstrate that mobility, combined with cyclical and thoughtful use of resources, embodies a way forward. International law could then become a powerful lever for recognizing and promoting the rights of nomadic peoples, whose disappearance would threaten not only human diversity but also the ecological balance of the planet.

References

Ahearn, Ariell, Batjav Batbuyan, Munkherdene Gantulga, Sainbayar Enkhbat, and Eric Thrift. 2025. « Mobile pastoralist geographies of care: nomadic relationalities between the global pandemic and environmental risks. » The Journal of Peasant Studies:1-22.

Ahmed, Sharief, Zaffar Iqbal, and Prakash C. Antahal. 2023. « Impact of climate change on nomadic herders’ livelihoods: Evidence from Bakarwal community in the Western Himalayas in India. » Environmental Development 48:100930.

Ali, Ahmed Ismail. 2019. « Challenges of Nomadic pastoralists in availing primary education to their children, focusing on Hawd Region of Somaliland. » American Research Journal of Humanities Social Science:28-47.

Bokil, Milind. 2002. « Facing exclusion: The nomadic communities in Western India. » Indian Journal of Social Work 63(1):33-45.

International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2005). Report to the Secretary-General. Dovchin, Ulemj, and Sender Dovchin. 2024. « The discourse of the Anthropocene and posthumanism: Mining-induced loss of traditional land and the Mongolian nomadic herders. » Ethnicities 24(4):536-59.

Dyer, Caroline (ed.). 2006. The Education of Nomadic Peoples: Current Issues, Future Prospects. New York: Berghahn Books.

Gardelle, Linda, and Zhenzhou Zhao. 2019. “Being a herder in contemporary Mongolia: Nomadic identity and nationhood building at school.” Asian Ethnicity 20(3):364-85.

Gilbert, Jérémie. 2007. « Nomadic Territories: A Human Rights Approach to Nomadic Peoples Land Rights. » Human Rights Law Review 7(4):681-716.

Howarth, Anthony. 2022. “Not Quite the End of Nomadism: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Contemporary Europe.” Nomadic Peoples 26(2):243-67.

James, Zoë, and Rebekah Southern. 2019. “Accommodating nomadism and mobility: Challenging the sedentarist binary approach to provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 39(3/4):324-36.

Koot, Stasja, and Robert Hitchcock. 2019. « In the way: perpetuating land dispossession of the indigenous Hai//om and the collective action lawsuit for Etosha National Park and Mangetti West, Namibia. » Nomadic Peoples 23(1):55-77.

Larsen, Peter Bille, and Jérémie Gilbert. 2020. “Indigenous rights and ILO convention 169: Learning from the past and challenging the future.” The International Journal of Human Rights 24 (2-3):83-93.

Meier, Daniel. 2020. Les Frontières au-delà des cartes : Sécurité, migration, mondialisation. Paris:Le Cavalier Bleu.

Moretti, Marco. 2006. International Public Law and Nomadic Peoples. Editions Publibook. Naryanan, Pradeep, Mayank Sinha, and Sowmyaa Bharadwaj. 2020. « Participation, social accountability, and intersecting inequalities: challenges for interventions to build collective identity with De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribal communities in India. » Community Development Journal 55(1):64-82.

Sangare, Moussa, Yaya Ibrahim Coulibaly, Siaka Yamoussa Coulibaly, Housseini Dolo, Abdoul Fatao Diabate, Kueshivi Midodji Atsou, Abdoul Ag Souleymane, Youssouf Ag Rissa, Dada Wallet Moussa, Fadimata Wallet Abdallah, Sekou Fantamady Traore, Seydou Doumbia, and Samba Diop. 2021. « Factors hindering health care delivery in nomadic communities: a cross-sectional study in Timbuktu, Mali. » BMC Public Health, 21(1), 421.

Tugjamba, Navchaa, Greg Walkerden, and Fiona Miller (2023). « Adapting nomadic pastoralism to climate change. » Climatic Change 176(4).

[1] A systematic review of the recommendations and other statements of the UN system was undertaken by the author in the publication of the book Nomadic Peoples and Human Rights (Routledge, 2014).

[2] See Article 1 (3): « This Declaration also applies to indigenous peoples and local communities working the land, transhumant, nomadic, and semi-nomadic communities, and landless peasants engaged in the above-mentioned activities. »