Suchergebnisse

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Maritime Studies . The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0119-3 . ; For almost 30 years, the Sami Parliament has worked to gain influence in the Norwegian fisheries governing system in order to secure Sami fisheries as the material basis of Sami culture. Due to developments in international law and their implementation in state law, the Sami Parliament has gained formal access to the country's fisheries governance decision-making process. This paper addresses the challenges for a Sami fisheries approach to gain influence in the national governance system. A major issue relates to differences between the institutional design of the Norwegian system, with ecosystem health, profitability and individual welfare as main concerns, while important pillars formulated by the Sami Parliament are subsidiarity and collective rights. In this article, we discuss what might be the way forward for a Sami fisheries policy to expand within the Norwegian fisheries governance system.

A part of the panel: "Comparative Perspectives on Self-Determination: Institutional Models and Political Challenges" at the ECPR General Conference Université de Montréal 26-29 August 2015. ; In northernmost Norway the right to own and manage the land in Finnmark, was transferred from the state to the the Finnmark Estate (FeFo) in 2005. The land tenure arrangement was a result of land claims made by the indigenous Sami people of Norway. The resources and the land that was previously managed to the best for all Norwegian citizens by the state, is now managed to the best for the inhabitants of Finnmark. Based on three surveys in Finnmark, this paper explores the support of people living in Finnmark to the new land tenure arrangements. We used the term diffuse support to describe the acknowledgement by inhabitants of an institution's ideas, values and principles, while specific support reflects the experiences and support to the operationalization of the principles and goals and the management tasks carried out by an institution. We find that FeFo as an institution has low diffuse support. On the other hand, experiences with FeFo show a clear specific support to the principles, goals and management actions implemented by the estate. In this article, we seek to explain this gap, looking at the context of conflict both prior to and after the decision of establishing FeFo.