Abstract
Nonterritorial autonomy (nta) decouples governance of ‘people’ and ‘place’, allowing demographically submerged minorities to protect their cultural – but not territorial – interests. Indigenous peoples are often submerged and culturally vulnerable. At the same time, they are often especially interested in protecting the territories that have long sustained them. So, is nta well-suited or ill-suited for Indigenous self-governance? To explore this, we study Norwegian Sami self-governance, an oft-cited case of Indigenous nta. We make several contributions. We enumerate the variety of Sami-specific rights and powers in Norway, categorising them as either territorial or nonterritorial and tracking their evolution over time. By doing this we reveal that Sami self-governance has recently taken a ‘territorial turn’. We explore why this has happened, concluding it is due to the insufficiency of nta. Finally, we discuss likely limits to further Sami territorialisation.
Highlights
Four decades ago, Western Europe’s sole Indigenous people set out to retake control of their culture and homeland
Who is right? Is nta well- or ill-suited for Indigenous self-determination? In this article we explore what the Norwegian Sami case can tell us about this question
We reveal that Sami self-determination in Norway, despite being lauded as an exemplar of Indigenous nta, has taken what we call a ‘territorial turn’
Summary
Western Europe’s sole Indigenous people set out to retake control of their culture and homeland. 10 per cent of Norway’s police force was on guard in Finnmark.[54] The conflict was the most disruptive event of civil disobedience in modern Norway.[55] Suddenly a substantial portion of Sami demanded not mere integration but accommodation as a distinct, rights-bearing Indigenous nation They pressed to be not just included in Norwegian politics but to have a new space alongside it, where they could self-determine. If the Sámediggi’s concerns are not satisfied, development must cease until Norway’s government either fixes the problem or overrides the Sami objection.[70] the aforementioned 2005 consultation agreement requires the Norwegian state to consult the Sámediggi (and sometimes other relevant Sami groups, such as reindeer herders) on all government undertakings affecting Sami.[71] As noted, if those matters relate to culture or language they apply throughout Norway If, they relate to land and natural resources, the state’s duty to consult is geographically limited to “traditional Sami areas” – in principle, the 40 per cent of Norway where only Sami may herd reindeer. This would result in Sami exercising collective ownership of an area of inner Finnmark exceeding 15,000 square kilometres, a territory larger than Montenegro or Qatar
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal on Minority and Group Rights
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
