Indigenous Linguistic Rights in the Arctic

142 Pages·2017·1.43 MB·English

by  Romain Chuffart

Indigenous Linguistic Rights in
the Arctic: A Human Rights
Approach

Romain François R. Chuffart

Faculty of Law
University of Akureyri
2017
Indigenous Linguistic Rights in
the Arctic: Human Rights
Approach

Romain François R. Chuffart

30 ECTS thesis submitted in
partial fulfilment of the degree of
Master of Arts in Polar Law (MA)

Advisor
Fernand de Varennes

Faculty of Law
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Akureyri
Akureyri, April 2017
Indigenous Linguistic Rights in the Arctic: A Human Rights Approach
Arctic Indigenous Linguistic Rights
30 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of
Arts in Polar Law (MA)

Copyright © 2017 Romain François R. Chuffart
All rights reserved

Faculty of Law
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Akureyri
Sólborg, Norðurslóð 2
600 Akureyri

Telephone: [phone]

Bibliographic information:
Romain François R. Chuffart, 2017, International Human Approach to
Indigenous Linguistic Rights in the Arctic, Master’s thesis, Faculty of
Law, University of Akureyri, pp. 142

Printing: XX
Akureyri, April 2017
Abstract
In using an international human rights approach, this thesis assesses the
fulfilment of linguistic rights for indigenous peoples and communities living
in seven Arctic states (ie Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russian Federation,
Canada, USA/Alaska, Denmark/Greenland). The core study of this research is
to ask whether the use of an international human rights approach to language
rights is best suited to protect the need of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. In
doing so, this thesis monitors the fulfilment of linguistic rights in three fields
which are commonly regarded in several international human rights documents
(ICCPR, CRC, ILO 169, UNDRIP, ADRIP) as belonging to realm of basic
human rights, namely education, court proceedings, and communication with
the authorities. Following a country-specific approach, this thesis concludes
that although Arctic indigenous linguistic rights are already enshrined in key
legally-binding instruments and in documents, which reflect lex feranda and
could lead to legislative improvements, States mostly rely on their own
domestic legal systems through they implement the checks and balances that
protect linguistic rights.

To my family.

Preface
The Arctic is full of different contexts and different realities. Not only in terms
of the different bodies of laws and approach to domestic and international law,
but also from a sociological and cultural viewpoint. In any research involving
the Arctic, it has now become common-place to compare Arctic regions with
one another. Understandingly so, such an approach helps feeding the Arctic
academic bubble, so to say, insofar as it helps outlining the common features
shared by peoples across the Arctic. Relying on this approach, this Thesis aims
at drawing attention to linguistic rights for indigenous peoples in comparing
the fulfilment of these rights in the North American Arctic, in the European
Arctic, and in the Russian Arctic. Language playing such a key role for human
beings to develop their own cultures and traditions, it seemed almost logical to
shed a human rights light to the present research.
Within the present Canadian context regarding indigenous rights, the author
thinks this comparison could come in a timely fashion as the debate about
implementing the UNDRIP into domestic law is yet again making an
appearance in Canadian political life – with the Trudeau government talking
about UNDRIP’s potential implementation. Comparing both the domestic
systems and international engagements of European Arctic States and of North
American Arctic States, whose realities are generally far apart, allows to
highlight the plurality and the core differences of Arctic legal theories,
especially on a concept as unique as linguistic rights.

Table of contents
Table of Cases ...............................................................................................xi
Table of International Treaties ................................................................ xiii
Table of Legislation ....................................................................................xix
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xxiii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 25
1.1 Research Question ......................................................................... 27
1.2 Methodology and Structure ........................................................... 28
2 Linguistic Human Rights ....................................................................... 30
2.1 Definition ....................................................................................... 30
2.2 Human Rights Jurisprudence ......................................................... 32
2.3 International Documents ................................................................ 35
2.3.1 Language Rights as Human Rights ................................... 36
2.3.2 Other Approaches to Language Protection ........................... 49
3 Indigenous Language Rights in the Arctic ........................................... 52
3.1 Norway .......................................................................................... 53
3.2 Sweden ........................................................................................... 60
3.3 Finland ........................................................................................... 64
3.4 Russian Federation ......................................................................... 67
3.5 Canada ........................................................................................... 74
3.5.1 Northwest Territories ........................................................ 83
3.5.2 Yukon ................................................................................ 84
3.5.3 Nunavut ............................................................................. 92
3.6 United States: Alaska ................................................................... 105
3.7 Kingdom of Denmark: Greenland ............................................... 110
4 Conclusion............................................................................................. 119