Suchergebnisse

Although the standard of consulting Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting them is well rooted internationally as well as in national legal systems, different views and patterns of problems are associated with the concept and its practice. This paper briefly analyses and contrasts the duty to consult Indigenous peoples through a comparison of the three Nordic countries Norway, Finland and Sweden, and Canada. Based on domestic legal sources, the focus of the paper is to explore the legal foundation that has given rise to the specific set of rules for the duty to consult, that is, the rationale behind the evolving of the rules. The first finding is that the rules differ among the three Nordic countries, with Sweden being the only country that lacks specific rules. Secondly, whereas Canada has developed its own duty to consult primarily through domestic case law, in the Nordic countries, duty to consult is related to international law obligations. Consultation duties that have evolved from domestic law may be easier to accept than "foreign" regulations imposed on national legal systems. This could explain the reluctance among the Nordic States to accept specific consultations with the Sami Parliament and other Sami groups, particularly in Sweden.

Although the standard of consulting Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting them is well rooted internationally as well as in national legal systems, different views and patterns of problems are associated with the concept and its practice. This paper briefly analyses and contrasts the duty to consult Indigenous peoples through a comparison of the three Nordic countries Norway, Finland and Sweden, and Canada. Based on domestic legal sources, the focus of the paper is to explore the legal foundation that has given rise to the specific set of rules for the duty to consult, that is, the rationale behind the evolving of the rules. The first finding is that the rules differ among the three Nordic countries, with Sweden being the only country that lacks specific rules. Secondly, whereas Canada has developed its own duty to consult primarily through domestic case law, in the Nordic countries, duty to consult is related to international law obligations. Consultation duties that have evolved from domestic law may be easier to accept than "foreign" regulations imposed on national legal systems. This could explain the reluctance among the Nordic States to accept specific consultations with the Sami Parliament and other Sami groups, particularly in Sweden.

Although the standard of consulting Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting them is well rooted internationally as well as in national legal systems, different views and patterns of problems are associated with the concept and its practice. This paper briefly analyses and contrasts the duty to consult Indigenous peoples through a comparison of the three Nordic countries Norway, Finland and Sweden, and Canada. Based on domestic legal sources, the focus of the paper is to explore the legal foundation that has given rise to the specific set of rules for the duty to consult, that is, the rationale behind the evolving of the rules. The first finding is that the rules differ among the three Nordic countries, with Sweden being the only country that lacks specific rules. Secondly, whereas Canada has developed its own duty to consult primarily through domestic case law, in the Nordic countries, duty to consult is related to international law obligations. Consultation duties that have evolved from domestic law may be easier to accept than "foreign" regulations imposed on national legal systems. This could explain the reluctance among the Nordic States to accept specific consultations with the Sami Parliament and other Sami groups, particularly in Sweden. ; Validerad;2018;Nivå 2;2018-03-26 (rokbeg)

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 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 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 duty to consult is an Aboriginal right protected under s. 35 in the Constitution Act, 1982. This article analyzes 11 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions concerning the duty to consult and distinguishes between the SCC's promotion of the purpose and practice of reconciliation. This distinction more accurately depicts how the SCC understands why and how the Crown should advance reconciliation in the context of the duty to consult. This article finds that the SCC has consistently stated that reconciliation is required due to the existence of Aboriginal rights and the assertion of Crown sovereignty, creating an obligation to reconcile Indigenous and non-Indigenous societal interests. However, the practices outlined by the SCC on how the Crown can fulfill the duty suggest that the Crown is given a wide latitude to pursue its legislative objectives, which may result in the unjust infringement of Aboriginal rights over time. For instance, the Crown has discretion over the communication of decision-making to affected Indigenous parties and the balancing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous societal interests. Consequently, the practices of the duty to consult call into question the extent to which the duty can uphold the purpose of reconciliation between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.

AbstractThe duty to consult mandates that the Crown must consult affected Indigenous parties when Crown action may negatively impact Aboriginal rights or title claims. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has emphasized that the duty should be characterized by honourable dealings and good faith negotiations. This article argues that the concept of throughput legitimacy can help evaluate the Crown's conduct in consultation. By analyzing 131 British Columbia Environmental Assessments (BC EAs), this article finds that the Crown struggles to uphold throughput legitimacy from the perspective of Indigenous peoples, particularly in the areas of transparency, accountability and effectiveness.