Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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

On October 3, 2018, the so-called "Arctic Five plus Five" concluded the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA, CAOF Agreement or Ilulissat Agreement). The CAOFA establishes a precautionary framework for the regulation of fisheries in the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO), including a temporary moratorium on unregulated commercial fishing. The purpose of this debate article is not to discuss the CAOFA's provisions on fisheries as such, but to take a look at a number of interesting and novel provisions concerning the interests of indigenous and local communities, particularly with respect to incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge into science-based fisheries management in the CAO.

The article describes some common features of Indigenous sea cosmovisions (through examples from Oceania and the Arctic region), from which an understanding of ocean governance rooted in the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of protecting water and people emerges. Hence, the model of ocean (or water) connectivity is characterized by the understanding of ocean-human relationships as a continuum of connections between human and non-human elements. In line with the normative recognition of the sacredness of water, the interconnectedness of all life, and the importance of protecting the sea, Indigenous peoples' law provides insights and implementation solutions for the restoration of marine ecosystems. This study aims to identify blind spots of the current law-of-the-sea regime, where marine ecological connectivity is not fully recognized as a foundational pillar of effective ocean protection. It also suggests approaches towards knowledge integration mechanisms that could minimize critical issues in ocean governance by enabling the enshrinement of Indigenous nature-oriented approaches within the law of the sea regulatory framework (especially focusing on the high seas' regime). The work is structured into three main parts: a comprehensive overview of connectivity conceptualizations drawn from Indigenous cosmovisions; reflections on the model's capability to address law-of-the-sea's systemic challenges; and concluding reflections on possible future trajectories in law-of-the-sea that could encompass elements of the analyzed model.

This paper examines how a transnational corporation (TNC) translates global standards and corporate policies into programs at sites of extraction. We explore this question through a comparative analysis of ExxonMobil's operations in two different politico-economic contexts: the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia and the Point Thomson project on the North Slope of Alaska, with field work on Sakhalin Island in 2013–2015 and in Alaska in 2015–2018. Theoretically, we use the Deleuzian concept of "diagram" as a lens through which to examine corporate policies, and a governance generating network (GGN) approach to analyze similarities and differences in benefit-sharing programs in both localities. We show that while global commitments and corporate principles contribute to a standardized approach to community engagement, Indigenous movements and associations, the government, and other corporate actors may play important roles in influencing how corporate policies and global standards are implemented at sites of extraction. Moreover, adaptation of community engagement, benefit-sharing, and environmental monitoring in one location may shape how the company's strategies are implemented in other sites of extraction.

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 article addresses the issue of indigenous agency and its influence on the contestation of indigenous rights norms in an extractive context from the perspective of organizations representing people, whose recognition as 'indigenous' is withheld by the Russian authorities. The article argues that a governance perspective and approach to recognition from 'below' provides a useful lens for comprehensively exploring strategies on norms contestation applied by these groups in the authoritarian normative context of Russia. Based on findings from a case study of Izhma-Komi organizations in the northwest Russian Arctic, the article identifies three strategies utilized by these organizations. By mobilizing inter-indigenous recognition, forging alliances with environmentalists and negotiating with an oil company, Izhma-Komi organizations have managed to extend certain rights and power previously not granted to them in an extractive context locally.

Mineral extraction is pursued in Greenland to strengthen the national economy. In order that new industries promote sustainable development, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessments are legally required and undertaken by companies prior to license approval to inform decision-making. Knowledge systems in Arctic indigenous communities have evolved through adaptive processes over generations, and indigenous knowledge (IK) is considered a great source of information on local environments and related ecosystem services. In Greenland the Inuit are in the majority, and Greenlanders are still considered indigenous. The Inuit Circumpolar Council stresses that utilizing IK is highly relevant in the Greenland context. Impact assessment processes involve stakeholder engagement and public participation, and hence offer arenas for potential knowledge sharing and thereby the utilization of IK. Based on the assumption that IK is a valuable knowledge resource, which can supplement and improve impact assessments in Greenland thus supporting sustainable development, this paper presents an investigation of how IK is utilized in the last stages of an impact assessment process when the final report is subject to a hearing in three recent mining projects in Greenland.