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: 460 8000 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 References .................................................................................................. 126 Table of Cases United Nations Human Rights Committee Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No 24/1977: Canada 30/07/81, UN Doc CCPR/C/13/D/24/1977 Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v Canada, Communications Nos 359/1989 and 385/1989, UN Doc CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev 1 (1993) Diergaardt v. Namibia case, Communication No. 760/1997, UN Human Rights Committee, ccpr/c/69/d/760/1997 (2000). European Court of Human Rights G. and E. v. Norway (1983) 35 dr30 European Commission of Human Rights Inhabitants of Leeuw-St. Pierre v. Belgium Canada Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] ONSC 3095 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), [2012] FC 445 Commission scolaire francophone du Yukon no. 23 v. Yukon (Procureure générale), [2014] YKCA 4 Fédération Franco-Ténoise v. Canada, [2001] 1 FCR 241, 2000 Gottfriedson v. Canada, [2015] FC 766 Nunatukavut Community Council Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [2015] FC 981 Nunavut (Minister of the Environment) v WSCC, [2013] NUCJ 11 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v Canada (Attorney General), [2014] NUCA 2 R v Beaulac, [1999] 1 SCR 768 R v Kingwatsiak, [2016] NUCJ 2. R v Shaa, [2011] NUCJ 26 United States of America Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc, Appellant, v Henry Alakayak, et al, Appellees. No S-10590, November 02, 2007 Mike Toyukakk, et al v Byron Mallott, et al, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Case No 3:313-cv-00137-SLG Table of International Treaties Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) ETS No 005 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) ETS No 148 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) ETS No 157 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 19, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 International Labour Organization, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989, C169 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966) 660 UNTS 195 Table of Documents United Nations Martinez Cobo JR, ‘Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations’ (1986) UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1986/7/Add 4, sections 379–382 Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (2014) A/RES/69/2 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Addendum: The situation of the Sámi people in the Sápmi region of Norway, Sweden and Finland (2011) A/HRC/18/35/Add2 UN General Assembly, International Conference on Human Rights, 19 December 1968, A/RES/2442 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, A/RES/61/295 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on the human rights situation of the Sámi people in the Sápmi region of Norway, Sweden and Finland (2016) Note from the Secretariat A/HRC/33/42/Add 3 United Nations, Human Rights Council (33rd session) Item 3 and item 5 Clustered dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the