Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3243
P. W. Lackenbauer, A. Sergunin
This comparative article reveals how the general focus of Canadian and Russian threat perceptions in the Arctic have shifted from a Cold War fixation on hard defence to accommodate soft security issues over the last three decades. Both countries now pay greater attention to threats and challenges stemming from climate change, security, and safety risks associated with resource development and increasingly accessible sea routes. Although concern about military conflict arising from Arctic disputes continues to frame some media discussions in both countries, most strategic analysts and academics have moved away from this line of argument. Instead, military functions now include assertion of Canadian and Russian sovereignty over their respective internal waters, as well as protection of resources in their exclusive economic zones and on and in extended continental shelves; protection of economic interests in the North, including mineral and bio-resources; prevention of potential terrorist attacks against critical industrial and state infrastructure; and dual-use functions, such as search and rescue operations, surveillance of air and maritime spaces, support to safe navigation, and mitigation of natural and human-made catastrophes. The authors argue that analysts should parse two forms of military modernization in the Arctic: one of capability development related to the global strategic balance, where the Arctic serves as a bastion or a thoroughfare; and a second intended to address emerging non-traditional security challenges. They contend that these modernization programs do not inherently upset the Arctic military balance and need not provoke a regional arms race.
{"title":"Canada’s and Russia’s Security and Defence Strategies in the Arctic: A Comparative Analysis","authors":"P. W. Lackenbauer, A. Sergunin","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3243","url":null,"abstract":"This comparative article reveals how the general focus of Canadian and Russian threat perceptions in the Arctic have shifted from a Cold War fixation on hard defence to accommodate soft security issues over the last three decades. Both countries now pay greater attention to threats and challenges stemming from climate change, security, and safety risks associated with resource development and increasingly accessible sea routes. Although concern about military conflict arising from Arctic disputes continues to frame some media discussions in both countries, most strategic analysts and academics have moved away from this line of argument. Instead, military functions now include assertion of Canadian and Russian sovereignty over their respective internal waters, as well as protection of resources in their exclusive economic zones and on and in extended continental shelves; protection of economic interests in the North, including mineral and bio-resources; prevention of potential terrorist attacks against critical industrial and state infrastructure; and dual-use functions, such as search and rescue operations, surveillance of air and maritime spaces, support to safe navigation, and mitigation of natural and human-made catastrophes. The authors argue that analysts should parse two forms of military modernization in the Arctic: one of capability development related to the global strategic balance, where the Arctic serves as a bastion or a thoroughfare; and a second intended to address emerging non-traditional security challenges. They contend that these modernization programs do not inherently upset the Arctic military balance and need not provoke a regional arms race.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90123246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3771
Valentin A. Koshkin
Russia was the first Arctic coastal state to make an official submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in 2001. The purpose of Russia’s submission was the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76. The area claimed by Russia is a large portion of the seabed extending even to the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Canada. However, Russia’s actions regarding delineation in the Arctic Ocean have led to criticism from several Russian experts in the field of international law. This paper is a response to a series of articles by Ivan Zhudro and Alexander Vylegzhanin. It argues against their assertion that Russia and the other Arctic states could have established the outer limits of their continental shelf in the absence of CLCS recommendations through the delimitation procedure in accordance with UNCLOS Article 83. The article rejects the argument that during the delimitation the Arctic states could have used meridian lines (sectors) to exclude the existence of an international seabed area in the Central Arctic Ocean. The author challenges the position that the result of delineation under UNCLOS Article 76 would not be fair since the US has not ratified UNCLOS.
{"title":"Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean: Is It Possible Nowadays?","authors":"Valentin A. Koshkin","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3771","url":null,"abstract":"Russia was the first Arctic coastal state to make an official submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in 2001. The purpose of Russia’s submission was the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76. The area claimed by Russia is a large portion of the seabed extending even to the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Canada. However, Russia’s actions regarding delineation in the Arctic Ocean have led to criticism from several Russian experts in the field of international law. This paper is a response to a series of articles by Ivan Zhudro and Alexander Vylegzhanin. It argues against their assertion that Russia and the other Arctic states could have established the outer limits of their continental shelf in the absence of CLCS recommendations through the delimitation procedure in accordance with UNCLOS Article 83. The article rejects the argument that during the delimitation the Arctic states could have used meridian lines (sectors) to exclude the existence of an international seabed area in the Central Arctic Ocean. The author challenges the position that the result of delineation under UNCLOS Article 76 would not be fair since the US has not ratified UNCLOS.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74092146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.4058
E. Zmyvalova
This article discusses how the war in Ukraine, started by Russia, impacts the lives of Russian Indigenous small-numbered peoples. First, one can observe Russia’s growing disregard for its international legal obligations. Second, the Russian State is continuously introducing new sanctions against persons and organizations who do not support the Russian regime. Third, the pressure on Indigenous peoples’ representatives is increasing. Fourth, a significant number of members of Indigenous small-numbered peoples actively participate in the war due to, inter alia, socio-economic problems and lack of reliable and objective information about it. Fifth, there is a decline in international cooperation with the Indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia. Finally, it is visible that the role of Indigenous peoples, including Russian Indigenous peoples, in international decision-making changes.
{"title":"The Impact of the War in Ukraine on the Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples’ Rights in Russia","authors":"E. Zmyvalova","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.4058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.4058","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses how the war in Ukraine, started by Russia, impacts the lives of Russian Indigenous small-numbered peoples. First, one can observe Russia’s growing disregard for its international legal obligations. Second, the Russian State is continuously introducing new sanctions against persons and organizations who do not support the Russian regime. Third, the pressure on Indigenous peoples’ representatives is increasing. Fourth, a significant number of members of Indigenous small-numbered peoples actively participate in the war due to, inter alia, socio-economic problems and lack of reliable and objective information about it. Fifth, there is a decline in international cooperation with the Indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia. Finally, it is visible that the role of Indigenous peoples, including Russian Indigenous peoples, in international decision-making changes.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"154 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78309709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3225
Meinhard Doelle, R. Dremliuga
The global human influence on the climate is growing at an alarming pace. This trend appears doomed to continue. Polar regions are feeling the effects first. This means that if the impacts of climate change serve to motivate effective policies, polar regions could be a good place to look for climate policy innovation. It is within this context that this article considers Arctic climate policy in Russia and Canada. The basic question posed is whether the unique and immediate threat climate change presents in the Arctic is reflected in progressive laws and policies with respect to four key areas: mitigation, adaptation, impacts and vulnerability, and development.
{"title":"Comparing Russian and Canadian Climate Policy: Protecting Arctic Interests?","authors":"Meinhard Doelle, R. Dremliuga","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3225","url":null,"abstract":"The global human influence on the climate is growing at an alarming pace. This trend appears doomed to continue. Polar regions are feeling the effects first. This means that if the impacts of climate change serve to motivate effective policies, polar regions could be a good place to look for climate policy innovation. It is within this context that this article considers Arctic climate policy in Russia and Canada. The basic question posed is whether the unique and immediate threat climate change presents in the Arctic is reflected in progressive laws and policies with respect to four key areas: mitigation, adaptation, impacts and vulnerability, and development.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90495041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3831
Njord Wegge, Sigbjørn Halsne
For a long time, the Arctic has been regarded as a stable region with low tension. However, even though low tension prevails, it is a fact that the circumpolar region also encompasses some of the world’s most capable and potent military capabilities. The key role of the Arctic regarding security issues, international relations and geopolitics, is sometimes underplayed or not fully understood. These aspects of security are investigated in this thematic issue of Arctic Review on Law and Politics.
{"title":"Introduction: Security and Military Power in the Arctic","authors":"Njord Wegge, Sigbjørn Halsne","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3831","url":null,"abstract":"For a long time, the Arctic has been regarded as a stable region with low tension. However, even though low tension prevails, it is a fact that the circumpolar region also encompasses some of the world’s most capable and potent military capabilities. The key role of the Arctic regarding security issues, international relations and geopolitics, is sometimes underplayed or not fully understood. These aspects of security are investigated in this thematic issue of Arctic Review on Law and Politics.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84252067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3802
G. Amatulli
On June 29, 2021, the BC Supreme Court issued the verdict of the Yahey v. British Columbia litigation (S151727). For the first time in Canadian legal history, a First Nation Band (BRFN – BlueBerry River First Nation) sued a provincial Government for the cumulative effects of industrial development intertwined with Treaty 8 infringements. The proceeding lasted for six years (2015–2021), with more than 160 days of trials and dozens of hours of affidavits sworn, and it resulted in a ground-breaking verdict. The Court recognised that in authorising industrial development, the Province had been unable to consider and deal with the cumulative impacts that projects had on the traditional lifestyle of BRFN members, besides breaching its obligation to BRFN under Treaty 8. This comment argues that by recognising that the Province cannot continue to authorise activities that breach Treaty 8 and Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution, the verdict may pave the way to a real implementation of the FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) in the BC legal framework. The ruling provides that the BC Government and the Band engage in meaningful consultation and negotiation to enforce mechanisms to assess and manage cumulative effects on the BRFN traditional territory. The parties were given six months to negotiate based on the litigation outcomes. On October 7, 2021, a preliminary agreement between the BRFN and the BC Province was signed. Important issues had been addressed throughout the trial. From confidentiality and the duty to consult in good faith to the constitutionality of Court hearing fees and the possibility to obtain other kinds of injunctions until the trial; the outcomes of this litigation may well be considered as a milestone to advance the Canadian legal framework, further recognising essential rights of Canadian Indigenous peoples in terms of Constitutional, social, and environmental justice.
{"title":"Cumulative Effects of Industrial Development and Treaty 8 Infringements in Northeastern British Columbia: The Litigation Yahey v. BC (S151727) – Case Comment","authors":"G. Amatulli","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3802","url":null,"abstract":"On June 29, 2021, the BC Supreme Court issued the verdict of the Yahey v. British Columbia litigation (S151727). For the first time in Canadian legal history, a First Nation Band (BRFN – BlueBerry River First Nation) sued a provincial Government for the cumulative effects of industrial development intertwined with Treaty 8 infringements. The proceeding lasted for six years (2015–2021), with more than 160 days of trials and dozens of hours of affidavits sworn, and it resulted in a ground-breaking verdict. The Court recognised that in authorising industrial development, the Province had been unable to consider and deal with the cumulative impacts that projects had on the traditional lifestyle of BRFN members, besides breaching its obligation to BRFN under Treaty 8. This comment argues that by recognising that the Province cannot continue to authorise activities that breach Treaty 8 and Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution, the verdict may pave the way to a real implementation of the FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) in the BC legal framework. The ruling provides that the BC Government and the Band engage in meaningful consultation and negotiation to enforce mechanisms to assess and manage cumulative effects on the BRFN traditional territory. The parties were given six months to negotiate based on the litigation outcomes. On October 7, 2021, a preliminary agreement between the BRFN and the BC Province was signed. Important issues had been addressed throughout the trial. From confidentiality and the duty to consult in good faith to the constitutionality of Court hearing fees and the possibility to obtain other kinds of injunctions until the trial; the outcomes of this litigation may well be considered as a milestone to advance the Canadian legal framework, further recognising essential rights of Canadian Indigenous peoples in terms of Constitutional, social, and environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89873688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-23DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v12.3465
David V. Wright
Graham White’s recent book, entitled Indigenous Empowerment through Co-management: Land Claims Boards, Wildlife Management, and Environmental Regulation, is a balanced, accessible, and honest discussion of a very complex realm of Crown-Indigenous relations and institutions in Canada. The book is very well researched and clearly communicated by one of Canada’s leading experts on the topic. Co-management has been the subject of scholarly attention for many years in Canada; however, perspectives vary widely with respect to appropriateness and effectiveness. White’s book is a bold project that tackles the complexities, sensitivities, and diverse contexts head-on. It ought to be at the top of the reading list for all academics, practitioners, and government officials with an interest in modern treaties.
{"title":"Review of Graham White, Indigenous Empowerment through Co-management: Land Claims Boards, Wildlife Management, and Environmental Regulation (UBC Press: 2020)","authors":"David V. Wright","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v12.3465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.3465","url":null,"abstract":"Graham White’s recent book, entitled Indigenous Empowerment through Co-management: Land Claims Boards, Wildlife Management, and Environmental Regulation, is a balanced, accessible, and honest discussion of a very complex realm of Crown-Indigenous relations and institutions in Canada. The book is very well researched and clearly communicated by one of Canada’s leading experts on the topic. Co-management has been the subject of scholarly attention for many years in Canada; however, perspectives vary widely with respect to appropriateness and effectiveness. White’s book is a bold project that tackles the complexities, sensitivities, and diverse contexts head-on. It ought to be at the top of the reading list for all academics, practitioners, and government officials with an interest in modern treaties.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"137 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74226096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v12.3372
V. Schatz
On 1 April 2020, the Latvian fishing company SIA North Star and its owner Peteris Pildegovics initiated an investor-State arbitration against Norway (Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway) at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This case is not only Norway’s first ever ICSID case, but also the first publicly known investor-State arbitration in which an operator of a fishing vessel has brought a claim against a coastal State for allegedly unlawful exercise of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction in relation to fisheries. The case raises intricate questions concerning the limits of jurisdiction ratione materiae and jurisdiction ratione personae of investment tribunals.
2020年4月1日，拉脱维亚渔业公司SIA North Star及其所有者Peteris Pildegovics在国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)发起了针对挪威的投资者-国家仲裁(Peteris Pildegovics和SIA North Star诉挪威王国)。这一案件不仅是挪威的第一个ICSID案件，也是第一个公开的投资者-国家仲裁案件，其中渔船经营者对沿海国提出索赔，指控其涉嫌非法行使与渔业有关的规定和执行管辖权。该案提出了有关投资法庭属事管辖权和属人管辖权范围的复杂问题。
{"title":"Testing the Limits of Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration in Svalbard’s Waters: Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway","authors":"V. Schatz","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v12.3372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.3372","url":null,"abstract":"On 1 April 2020, the Latvian fishing company SIA North Star and its owner Peteris Pildegovics initiated an investor-State arbitration against Norway (Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway) at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This case is not only Norway’s first ever ICSID case, but also the first publicly known investor-State arbitration in which an operator of a fishing vessel has brought a claim against a coastal State for allegedly unlawful exercise of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction in relation to fisheries. The case raises intricate questions concerning the limits of jurisdiction ratione materiae and jurisdiction ratione personae of investment tribunals.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85982473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v12.3254
Apostolos Tsiouvalas
Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: The High North Between Cooperation and Confrontation, edited by Joachim Weber, is part of the Springer series Frontiers in International Relations. Published in 2020, the anthology comes at a turbulent time in Arctic geopolitics, when the traditional supremacy of the Arctic littoral states has started to be challenged by lurking interests of non-Arctic stakeholders, and global anthropogenic challenges, such as climate change, keep raising questions as to the future of security and geopolitical balance in the region. The handbook comprises a compelling read with diverse areas of discussion that give an insightful exploration of the most pressing issues relevant to Arctic geopolitics. The multidisciplinarity of approaches employed in this volume and the variety of relevant topics covered have the potential to mark a turning point in international scholarship on geopolitical studies.
{"title":"Review of Joachim Weber (ed.), Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: The High North Between Cooperation and Confrontation","authors":"Apostolos Tsiouvalas","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v12.3254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.3254","url":null,"abstract":"Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: The High North Between Cooperation and Confrontation, edited by Joachim Weber, is part of the Springer series Frontiers in International Relations. Published in 2020, the anthology comes at a turbulent time in Arctic geopolitics, when the traditional supremacy of the Arctic littoral states has started to be challenged by lurking interests of non-Arctic stakeholders, and global anthropogenic challenges, such as climate change, keep raising questions as to the future of security and geopolitical balance in the region. The handbook comprises a compelling read with diverse areas of discussion that give an insightful exploration of the most pressing issues relevant to Arctic geopolitics. The multidisciplinarity of approaches employed in this volume and the variety of relevant topics covered have the potential to mark a turning point in international scholarship on geopolitical studies.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79512292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-04DOI: 10.23865/ARCTIC.V12.2678
C. Allard, M. Brännström
For the first time in the Swedish Supreme Court, a small Sami reindeer herding community has won an important victory affirming the community’s small game hunting and fishing rights. Because of protracted use and the concept of immemorial prescription, the Court recognised the community’s exclusive hunting and fishing rights, including the right to lease these rights to others. Such leases have long been prohibited by legislation and the State has retained its powers to administer such leases. This case signifies a considerable development in the area of Sami law. In its decision, the Supreme Court made some adjustments to the age-old doctrine of immemorial prescription, and provided insights into how historic evidence should be evaluated when the claimant is an Indigenous people. A common motivator for these adjustments is an enhanced awareness of international standards protecting Indigenous peoples and minorities. Even ILO Convention No. 169 – the only legally binding convention concerning Indigenous rights, but which Sweden has not yet ratified – is relevant when it comes to evaluating Sami customary uses. The Court addressed the problem of gaps in the historical material and used evidence from other parts of Swedish Lapland and adjacent time-periods, making reasonable assumptions to fill in these gaps. The Court imposes on the State the burden of proof regarding the extinguishment of already established Sami rights, as well as proof that extinguishment by legislation or expropriation, is “clear and definitive”. These conditions were not met in this case.
{"title":"Girjas Reindeer Herding Community v. Sweden: Analysing the Merits of the Girjas Case","authors":"C. Allard, M. Brännström","doi":"10.23865/ARCTIC.V12.2678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/ARCTIC.V12.2678","url":null,"abstract":"For the first time in the Swedish Supreme Court, a small Sami reindeer herding community has won an important victory affirming the community’s small game hunting and fishing rights. Because of protracted use and the concept of immemorial prescription, the Court recognised the community’s exclusive hunting and fishing rights, including the right to lease these rights to others. Such leases have long been prohibited by legislation and the State has retained its powers to administer such leases. This case signifies a considerable development in the area of Sami law. In its decision, the Supreme Court made some adjustments to the age-old doctrine of immemorial prescription, and provided insights into how historic evidence should be evaluated when the claimant is an Indigenous people. A common motivator for these adjustments is an enhanced awareness of international standards protecting Indigenous peoples and minorities. Even ILO Convention No. 169 – the only legally binding convention concerning Indigenous rights, but which Sweden has not yet ratified – is relevant when it comes to evaluating Sami customary uses. The Court addressed the problem of gaps in the historical material and used evidence from other parts of Swedish Lapland and adjacent time-periods, making reasonable assumptions to fill in these gaps. The Court imposes on the State the burden of proof regarding the extinguishment of already established Sami rights, as well as proof that extinguishment by legislation or expropriation, is “clear and definitive”. These conditions were not met in this case.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80551955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：