![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Over the past couple of decades, the aspirations of Arctic indigenous peoples for a stronger engagement in decision-making have become of crucial importance. Like in many other regions of the world, Arctic indigenous peoples have close links to their traditional lands and surrounding natural environment. The preservation of these links is of notable significance to the survival and identity of these peoples. The rapid transformation of the Arctic resulted mainly from climate change, has caused significant impacts on the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples in the region. Even though indigenous peoples are active in Arctic dialogues, by means of participating in Arctic Council meetings, for example, their collective role in the decision-making process is still a passive one. Southerly situated governments with apparently little knowledge of interaction between indigenous peoples and their unique environment predominantly control governance in the region, which in turn problematises fair decision-making. Consequently, the debate on the extent of indigenous peoples’ say in the decision-making process regarding matters directly concerning and affecting them has remained remarkably significant to both politics and international law. While considering the aspirations of Arctic indigenous peoples for a greater say in the decision-making process, this study concludes that a strengthened role of indigenous actors certainly makes Arctic governance more legitimate. However, the present structure of Arctic governance provides unequal footing for indigenous peoples to effectively engage in decision-making.
Notes
1 First Nations Studies Program http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/global-actions.html?type=123&filename=Global%20Actions.pdf (accessed July 2013).
2 Miranda (2010): 218.
3 ICCPR (1966); ICESCR (1966); UBDRIP (2007); UDHR (1948); ILO Convention No. 169 (1989).
4 Miranda (2010): 218.
5 Barsh (1987): 1.
6 Ibid.
7 Henriksen et al. (2007): 52.
8 IWGIA, http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia (accessed July 2013).
9 First Nations Studies, see above.
10 The WCIP was dissolved in 1996 due to internal conflict. http://www.thearctic.is/articles/topics/samisynopsis/kafli_0300.htm (accessed August 2013).
11 Ibid.
12 The Arctic Peoples Conference was held in Copenhagen where representatives from Greenlandic founding organizations, Canada (both members of Inuit Tapiriitkanatami and the national Indian Brotherhood) and Sámi of Scandinavia participated. See ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 These issues include climate change, Arctic sovereignty, and, particularly in Canada, the recent European ban on seal exports. See ibid.
15 Sámi arrived in the region well before the present majority populations of those states. See Kulonen, et al. (2005).
16 Åhren et al. (2007): Sec 4.2.6.
17 Fallon (2012): 6–7.
18 Norway was the first country to establish a Saami Parliament in 1989, with Sweden to follow in 1993 and Finland in 1996. First Nations Studies Program, see above.
19 UNPFII http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/AboutUsMembers.aspx accessed July 2013).
20 Expert Mechanism (2007).
21 Engle (2011): 151.
22 Ibid.
23 Maranda (2013): 213.
24 Anaya (2005): 217.
25 Alfredsson et al. (1987): 21.
26 Engle (2011): 152.
27 But see General Comment 23 and General Comment 21 on article 15 (1) (a) where a right to enjoy a particular culture and participating in cultural life are interpreted as indigenous peoples’ “community” entitlement.
28 As of June 2012, 22 countries have ratified the Convention.
29 ILO Convention, Art 6.
30 Ibid. Art 1(3).
31 According to the Optional Protocol, only an individual being a victim of the violation of can bring a complaint. A right to self-determination is a people’s collective right, where an individual alone cannot be a victim.
32 For example, in Kitok case, the Committee never addressed the state’s argument that the Sami did not constitute a “people” under Article 1. In the Lubicon Lake Band case, it denied the applicability of Article 1.
33 In 1999 the HRC, while responding to Canada’s country report, urged Canadian government to report on the situation of its Aboriginal peoples in its next periodic report on article 1 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations (1999).
34 Scheinin (2000): 163–72. The Human Right Committee in its Concluding Observations based on the reports submitted by countries observed that at least certain indigenous groups qualify as “peoples”, under article 1.
35 Henriksen et al. (2007): 52.
36 See for example, Jose R. Martinez Cobo on the definition of “peoples”, UNDESA (2004).
37 Art 110(a), Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway.
38 Barsh (1987).
39 Vyver (2000): 17.
40 Klabbers (2006): 189.
41 General Comment 21.
42 Amongst the Arctic countries Russia, however, has not yet endorsed the UNDRIP.
43 Ward (2011): 54.
44 Finnish Sámi Parliament Act: s. 9.
45 Lenzerini (2006): 187–8.
46 Wiessner (2010): 43.
47 Ibid.
48 Wiessner, ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.; Anaya (2008).
51 Grand River Enterprise case (2011).
52 Lenzerini (2006): 181.
53 Indigenous peoples and their unique role in certain matters are today noted with significance in formal international law regime, for example, article 8(j) of the CBD recognizes the role of indigenous peoples in the conservation and management of biodiversity through the application of indigenous knowledge. See CBD (1992).
54 d’Aspremont (2010): 175.
55 Arctic Council Declaration (1996).
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Indigenous peoples and their communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. See Rio Declaration (1992).
59 Duyck (2011): 110.
60 Shaw (1997): 177.
61 Barsh (1994): 33.
62 Pelaudeix (2012): 71–72.
63 Ibid., 73–4.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid., 72.
66 Greenland Act (2009).
67 Diatchkova (2010): 273.
68 Josefsen (2010): 15.
69 Anaya (2011): 15.
70 Inuit Declaration (2009) Art 4(3).
71 Shadian (2013).
72 Lenzerini (2006): 160.
73 Western Sahara case: para 80.
74 The draft of the Convention was developed under the auspices of the Nordic Council, the Nordic Parliamentary Cooperative body and the three states (Norway, Sweden and Finland) with their Sámi inhabitants. After many stages, an Expert Group, with unique composition (three members from each state and each Sámi Parliaments) was established and presented its proposal for a Nordic Sámi Convention in November 2005. Koivurova (2013): 230.
75 Fallon (2012): 21.
76 Lenzerini (2006): 177–79.
77 Pelaudeix (2012): 78.
78 Nuttall (2000): 633.
79 SAR Agreement (2011); Oil Spill Agreement (2013).
80 It is today argued at random that the Arctic Council is gradually shifting from a policy shaping to policy making body, the example being the conclusion of legally binding treaties within is auspices of the Council in recent years.