Suchergebnisse

This article, by the journal's editor-in-chief, is the lead editorial for volume 12 of journal and introduces the first two articles.

In Russia, there exist legal norms providing for the protection of indigenous small-numbered peoples' rights. Yet, indigenous small-numbered peoples face multiple challenges when it comes to the implementation of their rights. After a brief presentation of the Russian legislation on the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples, peculiarities of the Russian legal system and impediments to the legal provisions regulating the status of indigenous small-numbered peoples, this article addresses several issues related to the implementation of indigenous small-numbered peoples' rights in Russia today. One of the core issues is the attribution of individual members of indigenous communities to indigenous small-numbered peoples. Such an attribution is still challenging despite the newly adopted amendments to the 30 April 1999 Federal Law N 82-FL: 'On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation'. Another issue is application of the notion 'foreign agent' to individuals and non-commercial organizations. Still another issue is the State's pressure on independent indigenous organizations. The final challenge is the possible impact of amendments to the Constitution approved by popular vote in July 2020 on the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples.

For decades, Norway has been viewed as a role model when it comes to safeguarding Sámi rights as an Indigenous people in the Nordic Countries. Among other reasons, this is because Norway is the only country with a Sámi population that has ratified ILO Convention No. 169. Also, Norway has adopted a particular land law where one of the purposes is to survey Sámi rights to land and water. It is also said that Norway has worked actively to ensure adoption of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Norway has gained international recognition for this work, among others from former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People James Anaya, who in his report on the situation of the Sámi people in Norway, Sweden and Finland, stated that Norway, since passing the Finnmark Act 2005, has set an important example for the other Nordic countries (para 44).

On 23 January 2020, the Supreme Court of Sweden delivered an historic verdict in favour of the Girjas sameby in a lawsuit against the Swedish State over a long-standing dispute over the right to administer hunting and fishing rights in the Girjas land management area. Rooted in Sámi customary law, ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, the verdict is a milestone in the development of Sámi law in Sweden. It may also have an impact on the other Nordic countries, in particular Norway.

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.

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.

The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance.
The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.