The continuous process of recognition and implementation of the Sami people's right to self-determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".