Suchergebnisse

The duty of states to consult indigenous communities is a well-established legal principle, but its implications for practice remain uncertain. Sweden is finding itself at a particularly critical juncture as it prepares to legislate a duty to consult the Sami people in line with its international obligations. This paper explores the ability of Swedish state actors to implement the duty to consult, based on lessons from an already existing duty set out in Swedish minority law, namely to ensure the effective participation of minorities in land and resource decisions. Presenting novel empirical material on the views of Sami communities and state officials in ministries and agencies, we demonstrate the existence of considerable implementation gaps linked to practice, sectoral legislation, and political discourse. We argue that if state duties are to promote the intended intercultural reconciliation, then new measures are needed to ensure enforcement, e.g. via mechanisms of appeal and rules of nullification. In addition, sectoral resource regulations should be amended to refer to the duties set out in minority law and/or a potential new bill on consultation duty in a consistent manner. In the near-term, the state should ensure that Sami communities are adequately resourced to engage in consultation and should invest in state authorities' own ability to implement, i.e. through competence development, staffing, intersectoral coordination, and independent evaluation. Much could also be gained if state agencies and Sami communities worked together to develop detailed consultation routines for relevant resource sectors.

The Iraq War in 2003 represented a conflict of interest for the Norwegian government, as the situation called for them to choose between the relationship with the United States & international law. Being a small nation, it was in Norway's interest to protect both these interests. In the end, the government decided not to support the American-led invasion, with reference to international law. This decision has by some been interpreted as a shift away from Norway's traditional Atlanticist policy. This article illustrates how the second Bondevik Government succeeded in balancing different national interests in the decision-making process. On the one hand, it supported the UN & met the demands of the Norwegian public opinion. On the other hand, it managed to uphold its relationship with the United States. This balancing act illustrates that small states have limited room for manoeuvre in international politics, & will most likely continue to have so in the future. References. Adapted from the source document.

In a response to Ole Peter Kolby's (2003) account of Norway's 2-year service on the UN Security Council, the question of Norway's low profile internationally, despite its good works in foreign policy, reflects on the Norwegian government itself. The current foreign policy apparatus in Norway, it is charged, has been too accommodating to American unilateralism, among other things. The Norwegian media & Norwegian public opinion are also to blame for putting insufficient pressure on Norwegian decisionmakers to take strong stands & make difficult decisions. A. Siegel