The continuous process of recognition and implementation of the Sami people's right to self-determination
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This paper explores the status of the recognition and implementation of the Sami people's right to self-determination. The Sami are the indigenous people of Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Kola Peninsula in the north-western region of Russia. They are one people residing across national borders, enjoying a distinctive identity, language, history, culture and social structure, as well as unique traditions, livelihoods and aspirations. Their distinctiveness has given rise to their claim to self-determination based on conventional principles and instruments of international law. But where their right to self-determination has been gradually recognized by Finland, Norway and Sweden, Russia remains reluctant. And where Sami self-determination has been implemented through indigenous Sami parliaments, in Nordic states, the process of recognizing and implementing their right within these states has only taken place incrementally within existing democratic and constitutional mechanisms. It is a continuous process without a predefined outcome. Notes 1 The Lapp Codicil of 1751, an addendum to the Strömstad Border Treaty of 1751 between Norway and Sweden, recognizes the Sami as the 'Lapp nation' (Sami nation). The Lapp Codicil is often referred to as the 'Sami Magna Carta', as it formalized the rights of the Sami across state boundaries, including the right to continue their traditional nomadic reindeer-herding across the newly established border between Sweden and Norway. 2 The UN General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007 (UN Document A/61/L.67); 144 votes in favor, 11 abstentions, four votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States [US]). 3 In 2005, the government of Norway and the Sami Parliament signed an agreement on procedures for consultations between state authorities and the Sami Parliament, aimed at strengthening the influence of Sami Parliament in decision-making processes affecting Sami society. 4 The implication of Article 1 (3) of the ILO Convention No 169 is that the right to self-determination falls beyond the scope of the Convention. Article 1 (3) states that 'the use of the term "peoples" in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may be attached to the term under international law' (ILO Convention Citation1989). 5 Finnmark County is the northernmost county in Norway. The status of Sami rights to land in other counties remains unresolved. The Sami Rights Commission is currently studying the situation in other counties. 6 The Finnmark Commission and the Uncultivated Land Tribunal for Finnmark are the core elements of a newly established land claims mechanism in Finnmark County. 7 An English-language version of the proposed Nordic Sami Convention is available at < http://www.regjeringen.no/Upload/AID/temadokumenter/sami/sami_samekonv_engelsk.pdf>. 8 The definition is named after the principle drafter, Justice Michael Kirby. The definition was endorsed by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples, held at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 27–30 November 1989. 9 Supreme Court of Canada decision [1998] 2 SCR, 217.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».