Objectives: This article aims to revisit the interrelationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), in honour of their respective normative scopes and in order to carry out an analysis of their complementary or supplementary application, towards the construction of a more appropriate tool for the protection of human beings in extreme situations, as it occurs during armed conflicts. This is because, amid the multifaceted vulnerabilities that accumulate in today's conflicts, it is essential to provide the most effective source of protection - proportional to the demands for protection that are manifested today, particularly in military occupations around the world, whose occurrence will be the focus of this research

The foundation of the modern corporation is built upon the separation of labor and capital. These entities were anathema to most Indigenous peoples when the Virginia Company was chartered in 1606 for the purpose of settling American lands. Over centuries of colonization federal law worked to assimilate Native Americans. Tribes were encouraged, even forced, to create their own corporate entities. Indelibly, consistent with their inherent sovereignty, Indigenous groups fused autochthonous legal principles into these corporate structures. Today, in the shadow of the #BLM movement and societal demands that corporations become more responsive to their communities and to the environment, shareholder primacy has reached its nadir. As corporate governance seeks to replace it with something stakeholder centered autochthonous principles gleaned from Indigenous corporations offer a way forward. These proposed reforms are as varied as the chthonic law they are built upon and range from making nature itself a corporate shareholder to issuing shares that gain voting rights only after they have been held to maturity.