For Eslava, Obregón and Ureña (2016), imperialism possess two dimensions: (1) the restricted, which historically starts with the expansion of the European great empires beyond their territorial limits and ends with the recognition of the self-determination principle by International Law; and (2) the broad, which is associated with a more sophisticated and subtle forms of domination that permeates international institutions and law, and reflects internally in the countries with the support of the elites in the formation of political and juridical institutions of the modern State. This legitimizes "the" idea of “[...] la producción de dispositivos que ponen em situación de inferioridad y subordinación lo descubierto, para así colonizarlo y explorarlo [...]”(SIERRA-CAMARGO, 2017, p. 170).
In this sense, the development of international institutions in the post-colonial era (the restricted dimension) is an intentional political process aimed at the construction of a rhetoric that constitutes an ideological struggle permeating the international system to justify the continuation of the colonial expansion under the old mission civilisatrice argument, based on the universality of values and truths that the natural law imposes on everyone. According to Wallerstein (2007), the appeal to universalism takes three forms: (1) the policy pursued by the leaders of the pan-European world stands for human rights and democracy; (2) there is a civilizational shock; and (3) the market economy is the only alternative, leaving to governments the only option of acceptance and act in accordance to neoliberalism tenets.
The political process as described assumes a tone moralistic, intimidating and arrogant that imposes a pseudo fundamental ideology to guarantee the realization of the national interest of the States by the expansionist way, while at the same time consolidates this ideology in international institutions to ensure that its legitimacy possesses scientific and rational bases. International law plays a fundamental role in this process, which, according to JHW Verzijl, quoted in Anghie (2006, p.739) states:

Now there is one truth that is not open to denial or even to doubt, namely that the actual body of international law, as it stands today, not only is the product of the conscious activity of the European mind, but also has drawn its vital essence from a common source of beliefs, and in both of these aspects it is mainly of Western European origin.

Considering that natural resources constitute the colonial dimension of the nature as a space and object for exploration, the use of international environmental law as the mechanism of legitimacy to maintain development, such as mining, monocultures and large hydropower projects, on a "sustainable" basis is extremely important. As presented by Alimonda (2011, page 22):

I want to begin by highlighting the point that I am interested in developing at this moment: the persistent coloniality that affects Latin American nature. The same, as well as biophysical reality (its flora, its fauna, its human inhabitants, the biodiversity of
its ecosystems) and its territorial configuration (the sociocultural dynamics that articulate these ecosystems and landscapes significantly) appears before global hegemonic thinking and before the dominant elites of the region as a subaltern space, which can be exploited, destroyed, reconfigured according to the needs of the current accumulation regimes.


One of such mechanisms is the prior consultation principle. It is widely used on both international and domestic law, being considered a form of inclusiveness and emancipation due to its nature of reconciling development with damages to the environment (both inevitable) by allowing the participation of local population in projects. The Principle 19 of the Rio Declaration (1992) states:

States shall provide, in a timely manner, to potentially affected States, prior notification and relevant information on activities which may have a significant negative impact on the environment and which shall be consulted as soon as practicable and in good faith.

The central argument of this paper is to point out that the prior consultation as described in Principle 19 of the Rio Declaration is merely a formality to legitimize the exclusion of indigenous peoples, small farmers, among other minorities that depend on the nature for survival. In other words, the legal order reproduces the broad dimension of imperialism by excluding minorities in large projects as placing them in a position “against development”.
Thus, within this framework of international and internal pressures for the adoption of a modern development model, the prior consultation is an instrument of domination of the minorities and disadvantaged that are brought in for prior consultation just as part of an instrumental procedure that does not ensure that their voices will be heard vis-à-vis the "benefits" pointed out by the majority.
In this way, this paper relies on the theoretical framework called TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law), which will help to shed light on international environmental law, thus, pointing out the ambivalence between its language of alleged emancipatory / participatory character and the practice experienced by the communities affected by the development projects.
This paper intends contribute to the understanding of how patterns and models of international cooperation over the environment produce the following imperialistic logic:

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONALIZATION → INTERNAL INCORPORATION IN THE LAW SPONSORED BY THE ELITES → EXCLUSION

The above hypothesis will be tested in the search of empirical evidences in the Samarco case, the environmental accident at the Fundão Basin, which is representative in terms of testing the argument in regards of the prior consultation prior consultation before and after the accident.