The right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is a crucial manifestation of indigenous self-determination. In an era of unabated extractive development activity, indigenous peoples may be less focused on secession, compared to giving or withholding consent to such activity. Despite its recognition inter alia in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, FPIC falls short conceptually, as it presently fails to provide adequate safeguards for indigenous peoples opposed to development activities on their lands. Responding to this broad problem, this thesis aims to reconceptualise FPIC so that it can embody a full right to veto. It must fundamentally contribute towards dismantling 'development aggression' in practice as well as the ideological preoccupations of states. This is achieved by framing the problem and finding solutions according to the terms of counter hegemonic resistance, using selected Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). The use of 'insider-outsider' strategies are considered to shed light on development aggression in different contexts. 'Inside' institutional spaces, tactics are primarily based on sharper, counter hegemonic indigenous agendas, encouraging states to gradually adopt a new consensus against development aggression. 'Outside' tactics focus on indigenous activism that can reshape public perceptions on development aggression. Proposals include forging strategic alliances with other social movements and campaigning for greater indigenous inclusion in media and educational settings. Reconceptualising FPIC is imperative to challenge a major source of tension that often contravenes indigenous peoples' right to self-determination. The use of a TWAIL framework forms the thesis' original contribution to literature, by offering indigenous peoples a unique theoretical grounding from which they can challenge previously settled aspects of human rights. In return, indigenous peoples could offer TWAIL an important practical 'case study' on how it might operate, as it is a perspective often neglected by mainstream international legal research and opinion.