The Promises and Challenges of Indigenous Self-Determination

Abstract

THE INDIGENOUS ARCTIC: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCESThe Arctic is currently experiencing profound transformations. Rapid climate change in an era of increased globalization is perceived by a range of global actors to be opening up new economic opportunities. These changes are the most apparent drivers in the current debate on Arctic governance.1 The Arctic is no doubt a wide and open space, but it is, however sparsely, already populated. An important concern is therefore to ensure that the debate on Arctic governance gives sufficient attention to those who are already there: the debate must include a salient focus on indigenous peoples and other permanent residents of the Arctic. Indigenous claims for selfdetermination, regional and local claims of effective participation, and the capacity of governance arrangements to address challenges resulting from large-scale changes have to be addressed and accommodated. This article focuses on the Sami case so as to illuminate the bridge between indigenous self-determination and regional participation in mainland Arctic Norway.For centuries Arctic indigenous peoples have experienced a common history of colonization and assimilation. This has unfolded within different legal and nation-state systems, which accounts for some of the variations in results, including forms of oppression, modes of incorporation, and types of rectification. It is also important to be aware of the historical acknowledgement of the special status of indigenous peoples, as illustrated by the treaties in North America and the historical acknowledgement of Sami rights in Fennoscandia.2Indigenous people play a prominent role in modern Arctic nationbuilding processes. The Sami serve as a good illustration. By applying different channels of influence - the public Sami parliamentary one, and the Sami organizational one, the NGO channel - Samis have become well-known political actors in their own right. The contemporary policy of change implies new indigenous political and legal arrangements, but the opportunities for establishing indigenous autonomy differ. Differences matter, and an important one is that between federal and unitary states. In unitary states, such as the Scandinavian ones, law-making authority lies with the national authorities, and local self-government has no formal, constitutional role. Denmark's relationship with Greenland is an exception and the current development of self-government enhances Greenlandic legislative power. With regard to the Sami-Norwegian context, the unitary state system entails transfer and delegation of management tasks from the central authorities to the Sami parliament. However, developments in the consultation practices between the Sami parliament and national authorities suggest that in recent years there has been a gradual change in governance practices related to the Sami as an indigenous minority in Norway. Histories, state systems, and democratic traditions - including the two dimensions of decentralization of decision-making power, the degree of territoriality, and the degree of asymmetry - are central determinants in the development of political arrangements of indigenous self-determination.3 Federal state structures can respond to claims for decentralized decisionmaking authority in symmetrical as well as in asymmetrical (territorialfunctional) terms. Canada has created an asymmetrical federal state in which some regions enjoy more autonomy than others. Unitary states also fashion territorial responses but are generally less responsive to claims for decentralized authority and also more curtailed than federal states. But what is also notable is that regardless of the degree of regional autonomy or asymmetry between regions, members of an ethnic group may nevertheless possess rights to autonomy that set them apart from the majority population, which is illustrated by the Sami parliamentary elections.Another relevant difference is that in the Nordic countries the Sami people have been more strongly integrated as individuals than is the case with native Americans, who experienced a system of differential treatment based on the reservation system. …