Organised hypocrisy? The implementation of the international indigenous rights regime in Sweden

Ulf Mörkenstam

doi:10.1080/13642987.2019.1629907

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights has gradually grown stronger the last three decades but the actual effect of this emerging international indigenous rights regime on state behaviour seems dubious. In this paper the author analyses how international norms are translated, interpreted and reshaped in a domestic context through the conceptual framework of organised hypocrisy. The starting-point is that hypocrisy is the normal state of affairs in domestic politics. It is a response by political organisations, like national parliaments or governments, facing conflicting values, demands and interests: talk, decisions and action are decoupled or counter-coupled. The empirical focus of the article is the indigenous rights regime in Sweden, a country well known for its record of ratifying human rights conventions. The author shows how all political reforms in Swedish Sámi politics are justified (in political talk and decisions) by reference to international law, while the actual effects of this endorsement (the actions) are minimal. Moreover, an analysis of four recent legal cases shows that the Swedish legal tradition with weak judicial review is a hinder for the judiciary to challenge this organised hypocrisy by forcing the rhetorical endorsement of the international indigenous rights regime into action through court decisions.

Highlights

The international recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights has gradually grown stronger the last three decades as part of a more general international trend, often characterised as the ‘globalisation of law’, including new international conventions and declarations, judgments by international courts, new jurisprudence, transnational organisations and legal facts established and accepted by the international community.[1]
The conceptual framework of organised hypocrisy – especially the distinction between talk, decisions and action – provides analytical tools for studying how international norms are translated into the domestic political arena, and how they are interpreted and reshaped locally
I have analysed the indigenous rights regime in Sweden, but I believe that organised hypocrisy is characteristic for indigenous politics in many democratic nation-states in which indigenous peoples live: talk, decisions and action are clearly decoupled

Summary

Introduction

For instance, shown that almost all proposals on legislative changes to strengthen the legal position of reindeer herding the last twenty-five years have met strong resistance from both private property owners, interest organisations and municipalities.[80] the gap between talk, decisions and action is an effect of the vagueness of what the decision to recognise the Sámi as a people with a right to self-determination implies in terms of domestic constitutional, legal and institutional reforms.[81]. To facilitate for the Sámi to make litigations a way to claim their rights, a political decision on these matters is urgent: to shift the burden of proof (and let the state or private owners of land prove that the Sámi have not used the land) and to guarantee the Sámi financial support for legal processes.[112]

Concluding remarks

Findings

Notes on contributor