Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v12.3292
Elise Johansen, I. Dahl, Alexander Lott, P. P. Nickels, Ingrid Solstad Andreassen
The inter-connectedness of marine ecosystems has been repeatedly acknowledged in the relevant literature as well as in policy briefs. Against this backdrop, this article aims at further reflecting on the question of to what extent the law of the sea takes account of or disregards ocean connectivity. In order to address this question, this article starts by providing a brief overview of the notion of ocean connectivity from a marine science perspective, before taking a closer look at the extent to which the law of the sea incorporates the scientific imperative of ocean connectivity in the context of four examples: (i) straits, (ii) climate change and ocean acidification, (iii) salmon and (iv) the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Tying the findings of the different examples together, this study concludes by stressing the need of accommodating ocean connectivity not only in the interpretation and implementation of the existing law (of the sea) but also in its further development.
{"title":"A Marine-Biology-Centric Definition of Ocean Connectivity and the Law of the Sea","authors":"Elise Johansen, I. Dahl, Alexander Lott, P. P. Nickels, Ingrid Solstad Andreassen","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v12.3292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.3292","url":null,"abstract":"The inter-connectedness of marine ecosystems has been repeatedly acknowledged in the relevant literature as well as in policy briefs. Against this backdrop, this article aims at further reflecting on the question of to what extent the law of the sea takes account of or disregards ocean connectivity. In order to address this question, this article starts by providing a brief overview of the notion of ocean connectivity from a marine science perspective, before taking a closer look at the extent to which the law of the sea incorporates the scientific imperative of ocean connectivity in the context of four examples: (i) straits, (ii) climate change and ocean acidification, (iii) salmon and (iv) the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Tying the findings of the different examples together, this study concludes by stressing the need of accommodating ocean connectivity not only in the interpretation and implementation of the existing law (of the sea) but also in its further development.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78871492","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2374
J. Solski
The 2010s was a busy decade for the Northern Sea Route (NSR). It started with the first shipping season to feature the international use of the NSR for commercial purposes, followed by a significant reform of the domestic legal regime, as well as the adoption of the Polar Code. The traffic has gradually picked up, and although the expectations of a significant surge in trans-Arctic navigation have not materialized, the NSR’s annual turnover has grown beyond the old records set by the USSR. While the Russian authorities have struggled to find the most optimal means of development of the NSR, the latter has recently been re-marketed as a Polar Silk Road, part of the grand Chinese One Belt One Road initiative. While Russia has been rebuilding its military presence in the Arctic, the French Navy vessel BSAH Rhone unexpectedly navigated through the NSR, inciting strong political, but yet not legal, response. The present article aims to take stock of the last decade, paying primary attention to the Russian State practice in developing, adopting, and enforcing legislation in the NSR. By describing the current status and identifying some of the regulatory trends, the article will draw cautious predictions on the role of the law of the sea in the management of the NSR in the near future.
{"title":"The Northern Sea Route in the 2010s: Development and Implementation of Relevant Law","authors":"J. Solski","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2374","url":null,"abstract":"The 2010s was a busy decade for the Northern Sea Route (NSR). It started with the first shipping season to feature the international use of the NSR for commercial purposes, followed by a significant reform of the domestic legal regime, as well as the adoption of the Polar Code. The traffic has gradually picked up, and although the expectations of a significant surge in trans-Arctic navigation have not materialized, the NSR’s annual turnover has grown beyond the old records set by the USSR. While the Russian authorities have struggled to find the most optimal means of development of the NSR, the latter has recently been re-marketed as a Polar Silk Road, part of the grand Chinese One Belt One Road initiative. While Russia has been rebuilding its military presence in the Arctic, the French Navy vessel BSAH Rhone unexpectedly navigated through the NSR, inciting strong political, but yet not legal, response. The present article aims to take stock of the last decade, paying primary attention to the Russian State practice in developing, adopting, and enforcing legislation in the NSR. By describing the current status and identifying some of the regulatory trends, the article will draw cautious predictions on the role of the law of the sea in the management of the NSR in the near future.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"62 1","pages":"383-410"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87122774","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2582
Ø. Ravna
This article deals with the duty to consult indigenous peoples and the obligation to involve these peoples in decision-making processes in matters that concern them. After a general review of international legislation and obligations, particularly the ILO Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the article focuses on how these obligations are implemented towards the indigenous Sami in Norwegian law. Here, the consultation agreement from 2005 and the Sami Rights Committee’s 2007 draft are still central. The review includes an analysis of the extent to which these duties meet international law requirements, and a deliberation on the concept of free, prior and informed consent.
{"title":"The Duty to Consult the Sámi in Norwegian Law","authors":"Ø. Ravna","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2582","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the duty to consult indigenous peoples and the obligation to involve these peoples in decision-making processes in matters that concern them. After a general review of international legislation and obligations, particularly the ILO Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the article focuses on how these obligations are implemented towards the indigenous Sami in Norwegian law. Here, the consultation agreement from 2005 and the Sami Rights Committee’s 2007 draft are still central. The review includes an analysis of the extent to which these duties meet international law requirements, and a deliberation on the concept of free, prior and informed consent.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"18 1","pages":"233-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81838439","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2519
David V. Wright
In Canada, comprehensive land claims agreements – often called modern treaties – between the government and Indigenous nations include provisions prescribing how disputes between treaty parties are to be resolved. Experiences with these dispute resolution mechanisms vary across treaty contexts and there is substantial variance in the terms of these treaties. To date, this dimension of modern treaty implementation has received minimal scholarly attention, despite calls for such research. Drawing on specific examples, this article sets a foundation for further research by examining the significant variation across different treaties’ dispute resolution mechanisms and commenting on key differences, similarities and other notable features. A key focus of the analysis is on the observable evolution of these mechanisms from a relatively narrow arbitration board model to a more flexible “staged approach”. The analysis suggests that the latter may provide a stronger basis for joint problem-solving and integrative bargaining, notwithstanding open questions about the extent to which such approaches are warranted in fraught Crown-Indigenous relationships in Canada. The article also discusses the conspicuous absence of dispute resolution mechanisms that accommodate, let alone require, approaches rooted in the traditional or cultural practices of Indigenous treaty parties. Observations throughout are contextualized in relation to a growing body of jurisprudence and a broader context of fast-changing federal law and policy in Canada, which may set the stage for amendments to the dispute resolution provisions of modern treaties.
{"title":"Dispute Resolution in Modern Treaties: Evolutions, Observations and Next Steps","authors":"David V. Wright","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2519","url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, comprehensive land claims agreements – often called modern treaties – between the government and Indigenous nations include provisions prescribing how disputes between treaty parties are to be resolved. Experiences with these dispute resolution mechanisms vary across treaty contexts and there is substantial variance in the terms of these treaties. To date, this dimension of modern treaty implementation has received minimal scholarly attention, despite calls for such research. Drawing on specific examples, this article sets a foundation for further research by examining the significant variation across different treaties’ dispute resolution mechanisms and commenting on key differences, similarities and other notable features. A key focus of the analysis is on the observable evolution of these mechanisms from a relatively narrow arbitration board model to a more flexible “staged approach”. The analysis suggests that the latter may provide a stronger basis for joint problem-solving and integrative bargaining, notwithstanding open questions about the extent to which such approaches are warranted in fraught Crown-Indigenous relationships in Canada. The article also discusses the conspicuous absence of dispute resolution mechanisms that accommodate, let alone require, approaches rooted in the traditional or cultural practices of Indigenous treaty parties. Observations throughout are contextualized in relation to a growing body of jurisprudence and a broader context of fast-changing federal law and policy in Canada, which may set the stage for amendments to the dispute resolution provisions of modern treaties.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"518 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77170066","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2554
V. Lucia, P. P. Nickels
Negotiations are ongoing to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). If adopted, the ILBI will likely apply to parts of the Arctic Ocean where the Arctic Council has played an important role for ocean governance. This begs the question of what role the Arctic Council will play vis-à-vis a future ILBI, which is envisioned to “not undermine existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies” (UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249). Against this backdrop, this article reflects on the future relationship between the Arctic Council and the ILBI. In so doing, the article initially discusses possible meanings of the notion of not undermining and, more broadly, how the ILBI will likely determine its institutional relationship with relevant bodies for BBNJ. Based on that, the article provides a short overview of the role of the Arctic Council in Arctic Ocean governance and explores whether the Arctic Council would qualify as a relevant regional body that shall not be undermined by the future ILBI.
{"title":"Reflecting on the Role of the Arctic Council vis-à-vis a Future International Legally Binding Instrument on Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction","authors":"V. Lucia, P. P. Nickels","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2554","url":null,"abstract":"Negotiations are ongoing to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). If adopted, the ILBI will likely apply to parts of the Arctic Ocean where the Arctic Council has played an important role for ocean governance. This begs the question of what role the Arctic Council will play vis-à-vis a future ILBI, which is envisioned to “not undermine existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies” (UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249). Against this backdrop, this article reflects on the future relationship between the Arctic Council and the ILBI. In so doing, the article initially discusses possible meanings of the notion of not undermining and, more broadly, how the ILBI will likely determine its institutional relationship with relevant bodies for BBNJ. Based on that, the article provides a short overview of the role of the Arctic Council in Arctic Ocean governance and explores whether the Arctic Council would qualify as a relevant regional body that shall not be undermined by the future ILBI.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88805807","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2545
T. Henriksen
The introduction of a new species to the Barents Sea raises questions as to the rights and duties of states under the law of the sea to exploit, manage and conserve the species. This paper discusses three of them. The first question is whether the snow crab qualifies as a sedentary species. The entitlements and competence of states in respect of living marine resources depend on the location and the characteristics of the species. If it qualifies as a sedentary species under the law of the sea, it is subject to the sovereign rights of the coastal States. Otherwise, it is subject to the sovereign right of the coastal States as well as the freedom of fishing, dependent on its distribution. The second question is what, if any, obligations Norway as a coastal State has in respect of conservation and management of the snow crab and how Norway is complying with these obligations. This includes a discussion of whether the snow crab qualifies as an introduced, alien species and the possible implications for the obligations of the coastal State. The area of distribution of the snow crab includes waters within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard, raising a third question as to the implications of the 1920 Treaty concerning Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty) and in particular whether fishing vessels of Contracting parties have the right to participate in the harvest on an equal footing with Norwegian vessels. The Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations effectively reserves the harvest of snow crab for Norwegian fishing vessels. The paper discusses the implications of a recent decision by the Norwegian Supreme Court on dismissal of an appeal by a Latvian vessel and its captain convicted for illegal harvest of snow crab within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard.
{"title":"Snow Crab in the Barents Sea: Managing a Non-native Species in Disputed Waters","authors":"T. Henriksen","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2545","url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of a new species to the Barents Sea raises questions as to the rights and duties of states under the law of the sea to exploit, manage and conserve the species. This paper discusses three of them. The first question is whether the snow crab qualifies as a sedentary species. The entitlements and competence of states in respect of living marine resources depend on the location and the characteristics of the species. If it qualifies as a sedentary species under the law of the sea, it is subject to the sovereign rights of the coastal States. Otherwise, it is subject to the sovereign right of the coastal States as well as the freedom of fishing, dependent on its distribution. The second question is what, if any, obligations Norway as a coastal State has in respect of conservation and management of the snow crab and how Norway is complying with these obligations. This includes a discussion of whether the snow crab qualifies as an introduced, alien species and the possible implications for the obligations of the coastal State. The area of distribution of the snow crab includes waters within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard, raising a third question as to the implications of the 1920 Treaty concerning Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty) and in particular whether fishing vessels of Contracting parties have the right to participate in the harvest on an equal footing with Norwegian vessels. The Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations effectively reserves the harvest of snow crab for Norwegian fishing vessels. The paper discusses the implications of a recent decision by the Norwegian Supreme Court on dismissal of an appeal by a Latvian vessel and its captain convicted for illegal harvest of snow crab within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87057679","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2488
Geir Hønneland
Certification according to private sustainability standards (ecolabelling) has become an important addition to public fisheries management in recent years. The major global ecolabel in terms of comprehensiveness and coverage is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. Under the MSC Standard, the status of the fishery’s target stocks, its impact on the wider ecosystem and the effectiveness of its management system are assessed. Becoming and remaining certified requires continuous behavioural adaptation from fisheries through a fine-meshed system of conditions attached to certification. In this article, MSC certification of two clusters of fisheries in Arctic waters is discussed, one large- and one small-scale. In the Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries, the main obstacle to certification has been the fisheries’ impact on endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species and bottom habitats, and in order to remain certified beyond the first five-year certification period, the fishing companies have had to introduce a number of voluntary measures beyond what is required by law. In the local lumpfish fisheries in Greenland, Iceland and Norway, conditions attached to certification have been related to the effects of these fisheries on seabirds and marine mammals. Here essential parts of a management regime, such as biological reference points and harvest control rules, have come about as a direct result of MSC certification. MSC certification is no panacea, but it seems to have found a niche as a supplement to national legislation and international agreements.
{"title":"Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Certification of Arctic Fisheries: Processes and Outcomes","authors":"Geir Hønneland","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2488","url":null,"abstract":"Certification according to private sustainability standards (ecolabelling) has become an important addition to public fisheries management in recent years. The major global ecolabel in terms of comprehensiveness and coverage is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. Under the MSC Standard, the status of the fishery’s target stocks, its impact on the wider ecosystem and the effectiveness of its management system are assessed. Becoming and remaining certified requires continuous behavioural adaptation from fisheries through a fine-meshed system of conditions attached to certification. In this article, MSC certification of two clusters of fisheries in Arctic waters is discussed, one large- and one small-scale. In the Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries, the main obstacle to certification has been the fisheries’ impact on endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species and bottom habitats, and in order to remain certified beyond the first five-year certification period, the fishing companies have had to introduce a number of voluntary measures beyond what is required by law. In the local lumpfish fisheries in Greenland, Iceland and Norway, conditions attached to certification have been related to the effects of these fisheries on seabirds and marine mammals. Here essential parts of a management regime, such as biological reference points and harvest control rules, have come about as a direct result of MSC certification. MSC certification is no panacea, but it seems to have found a niche as a supplement to national legislation and international agreements.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"19 1","pages":"133-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81437503","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/ARCTIC.V11.2568
N. Bankes
This article is intended as a companion piece to Øyvind Ravna’s contribution to this anniversary volume. It maps the development of the duty to consult in Canadian law since the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation v British Columbia in 2004. The article begins by briefly examining the first references to the duty to consult in 1990 before turning in Part 2 to the transformation of the duty in Haida Nation and a doctrinal analysis of the various elements of the duty. Part 3 examines the international standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as developed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the implications of legislation that aims to give effect to the Declaration in federal or provincial law. The conclusion to the paper offers some comparative comments on Norway and Canada regarding the development of the duty to consult. These comments emphasise that whereas consultation and FPIC obligations in Norway are firmly rooted in international law, and, in particular, in the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO C-169), this is not the case in Canada. In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate finds its origins in domestic law and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution in 1982. However, more recent discussions over the implementation of the UN Declaration in federal and provincial law have inevitably broadened the discourse to include international law and the FPIC standard.
{"title":"The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation","authors":"N. Bankes","doi":"10.23865/ARCTIC.V11.2568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/ARCTIC.V11.2568","url":null,"abstract":"This article is intended as a companion piece to Øyvind Ravna’s contribution to this anniversary volume. It maps the development of the duty to consult in Canadian law since the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation v British Columbia in 2004. The article begins by briefly examining the first references to the duty to consult in 1990 before turning in Part 2 to the transformation of the duty in Haida Nation and a doctrinal analysis of the various elements of the duty. Part 3 examines the international standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as developed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the implications of legislation that aims to give effect to the Declaration in federal or provincial law. The conclusion to the paper offers some comparative comments on Norway and Canada regarding the development of the duty to consult. These comments emphasise that whereas consultation and FPIC obligations in Norway are firmly rooted in international law, and, in particular, in the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO C-169), this is not the case in Canada. In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate finds its origins in domestic law and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution in 1982. However, more recent discussions over the implementation of the UN Declaration in federal and provincial law have inevitably broadened the discourse to include international law and the FPIC standard.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80256765","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2293
D. Cambou
This contribution is an analysis of how the rights of the Sámi to engage in reindeer husbandry are guaranteed in the green transition to renewable energy in Sweden. Consideration of the increasing number of court decisions addressing the impacts of wind energy on reindeer husbandry in Sweden raises significant questions about the fairness of the transition to sustainable development. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the impacts of wind energy on reindeer husbandry and uncover the justice issues raised by this development. Drawing on the discourse of just transition that includes distributional, procedural and recognition considerations, this analysis more specifically examines the distributive effects of the development of wind energy on reindeer husbandry and identifies how Sámi reindeer herders are included and their status and human rights as an Indigenous people recognised within this process. On this basis, the conclusion from this study is that systemic reforms of the Swedish system that take due consideration of the human rights of the Sámi as an Indigenous people must be implemented in order to ensure a transition to sustainable development that equally benefits Sámi reindeer herders and can therefore provide justice for all.
{"title":"Uncovering Injustices in the Green Transition: Sámi Rights in the Development of Wind Energy in Sweden","authors":"D. Cambou","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2293","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution is an analysis of how the rights of the Sámi to engage in reindeer husbandry are guaranteed in the green transition to renewable energy in Sweden. Consideration of the increasing number of court decisions addressing the impacts of wind energy on reindeer husbandry in Sweden raises significant questions about the fairness of the transition to sustainable development. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the impacts of wind energy on reindeer husbandry and uncover the justice issues raised by this development. Drawing on the discourse of just transition that includes distributional, procedural and recognition considerations, this analysis more specifically examines the distributive effects of the development of wind energy on reindeer husbandry and identifies how Sámi reindeer herders are included and their status and human rights as an Indigenous people recognised within this process. On this basis, the conclusion from this study is that systemic reforms of the Swedish system that take due consideration of the human rights of the Sámi as an Indigenous people must be implemented in order to ensure a transition to sustainable development that equally benefits Sámi reindeer herders and can therefore provide justice for all.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86896870","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 : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v11.2401
Njord Wegge
New uncertainties in international relations have presented several states in the West with important choices regarding their national strategies for the Arctic. This article analyzes security challenges in the Arctic and North Atlantic region, as understood by some key North-Atlantic states, namely: the USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the UK, Germany and France. By analyzing how, or to what degree, the colder east-west security landscape since 2014 is reflected in these selected North Atlantic states’ Arctic security strategies, this article seeks to improve our understanding of how the security situation in the northernmost part of the world is developing and being understood. Through applying a traditional understanding of security, the article identifies similarities but also significant differences among the Arctic and North-Atlantic states. Most notable when comparing the strategies is the rather unique global perspective laid out in the US security strategy for the region. The British, Norwegian, Danish and Canadian perspectives, on the other hand, stand out as more regional in nature. Germany displays a rather low profile in its approach to international security in the Arctic, considering its economic status in Europe. France reveals a strong concern for Arctic shipping and freedom of navigation, a perspective similar to the USA’s, but with less global ambition.
{"title":"Arctic Security Strategies and the North Atlantic States","authors":"Njord Wegge","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v11.2401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2401","url":null,"abstract":"New uncertainties in international relations have presented several states in the West with important choices regarding their national strategies for the Arctic. This article analyzes security challenges in the Arctic and North Atlantic region, as understood by some key North-Atlantic states, namely: the USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the UK, Germany and France. By analyzing how, or to what degree, the colder east-west security landscape since 2014 is reflected in these selected North Atlantic states’ Arctic security strategies, this article seeks to improve our understanding of how the security situation in the northernmost part of the world is developing and being understood. Through applying a traditional understanding of security, the article identifies similarities but also significant differences among the Arctic and North-Atlantic states. Most notable when comparing the strategies is the rather unique global perspective laid out in the US security strategy for the region. The British, Norwegian, Danish and Canadian perspectives, on the other hand, stand out as more regional in nature. Germany displays a rather low profile in its approach to international security in the Arctic, considering its economic status in Europe. France reveals a strong concern for Arctic shipping and freedom of navigation, a perspective similar to the USA’s, but with less global ambition.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90748211","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：