LEGAL POSSIBILITIES OF ARCTIC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO PROTECT THEIR ENVIRONMENTS FROM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

STARTING POINT According to IPCC, ACIA and Arctic indigenous peoples’ observations, global climate change is seriously threatening the Arctic environment and indigenous peoples’ traditional way of life – an integral part of Arctic indigenous peoples’ culture. According to IPCC, ACIA and Arctic indigenous peoples’ observations, global climate change is seriously threatening the Arctic environment and indigenous peoples’ traditional way of life – an integral part of Arctic indigenous peoples’ culture.

THE RIGHT TO TRADITIONAL WAY OF LIFE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW - Article 27 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) ”In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” ”In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”

HRC: art. 27 may require positive legal measures of protection and to ensure an effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions that affect them. HRC: art. 27 may require positive legal measures of protection and to ensure an effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions that affect them. Important statement in the context of environmental rights – a positive duty of a state to protect the environment on one hand, and to allow indigenous peoples to participate this protection, on the other hand. Important statement in the context of environmental rights – a positive duty of a state to protect the environment on one hand, and to allow indigenous peoples to participate this protection, on the other hand.

ILO CONVENTION NO. 169 CONCERNING INDIGENOUS AND TRIBAL PEOPLES IN INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES – SOME PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

ARTICLE 4 1. Special measures shall be adopted as appropriate for safeguarding the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned. 1. Special measures shall be adopted as appropriate for safeguarding the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned.

ARTICLE 6. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall: In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall: a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly; a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly; b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors os the population, at all levels of decision making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them; b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors os the population, at all levels of decision making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them; c) establish means for the full development of these peoples’ own institutions and initiatives, an in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose. c) establish means for the full development of these peoples’ own institutions and initiatives, an in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose. 2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures. 2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.

ARTICLE 7. 1.The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation, evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly. 1.The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation, evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly. 3. Governments shall ensure that, whenever appropriate, studies are carried out, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on them of planned development activities. The results of these studies shall be considered as fundamental criteria for the implementation of these activities. 3. Governments shall ensure that, whenever appropriate, studies are carried out, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on them of planned development activities. The results of these studies shall be considered as fundamental criteria for the implementation of these activities. 4. Governments shall take measures, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit. (emphasis added) 4. Governments shall take measures, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit. (emphasis added)

OTHER RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS The right to life The right to life The right to health The right to health The right to property The right to property The right to adequate standard of living The right to adequate standard of living The right to decent working environment The right to decent working environment The right to environmental information The right to environmental information The right to participation The right to participation

LEGAL POSSIBILITIES OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO ENFORCE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS THROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES

UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) Art. 27 is an individual right; individual has the right to enjoy one’s culture in community with other members of the cultural collective. Art. 27 is an individual right; individual has the right to enjoy one’s culture in community with other members of the cultural collective. HRC accepts thus complaints by individual claimants who’s rights are being violated. HRC deals only with individual rights of CCPR, thus not addressing a collective right to self-determination under art. 1. of CCPR. HRC accepts thus complaints by individual claimants who’s rights are being violated. HRC deals only with individual rights of CCPR, thus not addressing a collective right to self-determination under art. 1. of CCPR.

Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (1984) HRC found that both historical inequities and current and proposed policies of the Canadian government were threatening the life and culture of the Lubicon Lake Band. HRC found the violation of the rights guaranteed in art. 27. HRC found that both historical inequities and current and proposed policies of the Canadian government were threatening the life and culture of the Lubicon Lake Band. HRC found the violation of the rights guaranteed in art. 27. In the claim, the Band had asserted that Canada’s proposed large-scale expropriation of land, for commercial interests i.e. oil and gas exploitation, would deprive the indigenous community of its ability to manage its natural resources and fulfill its economic, social and cultural rights, thereby threatening the group’s survival. In the claim, the Band had asserted that Canada’s proposed large-scale expropriation of land, for commercial interests i.e. oil and gas exploitation, would deprive the indigenous community of its ability to manage its natural resources and fulfill its economic, social and cultural rights, thereby threatening the group’s survival.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Yanomami Indians v. Brazil (1985): Yanomami Indians v. Brazil (1985): A petition brought on behalf of the Yanomami Community alleging that the government of Brazil violated the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by constructing a highway through Yanomami territory and authorizing the exploitation of the territory’s resources. These actions led to the influx of non-indigenous peoples who brought contagious diseases which remained untreated due to lack of medical care. The Commission found that the government of Brazil had violated Yanomani’s right to life, liberty and personal security (art. I), as well as the right of residence and movement (art. VIII) and the right to preservation of health and well-being (art. XI). The Commission found that the government of Brazil had violated Yanomani’s right to life, liberty and personal security (art. I), as well as the right of residence and movement (art. VIII) and the right to preservation of health and well-being (art. XI).

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001): Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001): The Case brought from Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to Inter- American Court of Human Rights, dealing with harms caused by logging activities in traditional lands of Awas Tingni community. The Case brought from Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to Inter- American Court of Human Rights, dealing with harms caused by logging activities in traditional lands of Awas Tingni community. The Court found a violation of a right to property under the art. 21, and rights to juridial protection (art.25, 1(1), 2) The Court found a violation of a right to property under the art. 21, and rights to juridial protection (art.25, 1(1), 2)

European Court of Human Rights G. and E. v. Norway (1983): G. and E. v. Norway (1983): A case in European Commission on Human Rights, where two members of Saami people complained that a proposed hydroelectric project would flood part of their traditional reindeer grazing grounds. A case in European Commission on Human Rights, where two members of Saami people complained that a proposed hydroelectric project would flood part of their traditional reindeer grazing grounds. Commission accepted that the traditional way of life of the Saami could amount to ’private and family life’ and ’the home’ within the meaning of art. 8 of the European Convention, it took the view that the amount to an ’interference’ with the applicants’ private and family life, even if it did, it was justified under the second paragraph of art. 8 as being necessary for the econmic well-being of the country. The application was therefore inadmissible. Commission accepted that the traditional way of life of the Saami could amount to ’private and family life’ and ’the home’ within the meaning of art. 8 of the European Convention, it took the view that the amount to an ’interference’ with the applicants’ private and family life, even if it did, it was justified under the second paragraph of art. 8 as being necessary for the econmic well-being of the country. The application was therefore inadmissible.

LOCAL – GLOBAL DIMENSIONS All cases in human rights monitoring bodies brought by members of indigenous peoples have so far been dealing with local problems. All cases in human rights monitoring bodies brought by members of indigenous peoples have so far been dealing with local problems. ICC petition and climate change – a global challenge? ICC petition and climate change – a global challenge?

PARTICIPATORY ASPECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Due to the fact that consequences of environmental changes are often irreversible and global in nature, participatory aspect seems to be very important. Due to the fact that consequences of environmental changes are often irreversible and global in nature, participatory aspect seems to be very important. Both human rights law and international environmental law accord rights pertaining to public participation. Both human rights law and international environmental law accord rights pertaining to public participation. These rights are however limited in scope. These rights are however limited in scope.

CONCLUSION SO FAR Based on above mentioned, the real problem, from the viewpoint of indigenous peoples, is that although these peoples bear the direct consequences of global environmental problems such as climate change (particularly in the Arctic), they are not able to participate effectively in international decision-making (norm-making) concerning the environment. Based on above mentioned, the real problem, from the viewpoint of indigenous peoples, is that although these peoples bear the direct consequences of global environmental problems such as climate change (particularly in the Arctic), they are not able to participate effectively in international decision-making (norm-making) concerning the environment.

PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN INTERNATIONAL TREATY-MAKING Without state status, indigenous peoples are excluded from international law-making processes; they can participate as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) along with the other groups, and have only very limited rights to participate. Without state status, indigenous peoples are excluded from international law-making processes; they can participate as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) along with the other groups, and have only very limited rights to participate. For instance in UNFCCC process, indigenous peoples have been unsuccessfully demanding a special status such as the creation of an Inter-sessional Ad hoc Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. For instance in UNFCCC process, indigenous peoples have been unsuccessfully demanding a special status such as the creation of an Inter-sessional Ad hoc Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. Unjust situation: indigenous peoples who represent peoples are put on the same footing as interest-based constituences such as environmental and industrial associations. Unjust situation: indigenous peoples who represent peoples are put on the same footing as interest-based constituences such as environmental and industrial associations.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION? State practice still varies as to what the status of indigenous peoples is in international law. One emergent view has been that indigenous peoples do have a right to self-determination but not in the sense in which that concept was understood in colonial context. State practice still varies as to what the status of indigenous peoples is in international law. One emergent view has been that indigenous peoples do have a right to self-determination but not in the sense in which that concept was understood in colonial context. The right to self-determination is seen as granting indigenous peoples internal self- determination – the right to determine their future within the existing nation-states, not the right to secede from existing nation-states. The right to self-determination is seen as granting indigenous peoples internal self- determination – the right to determine their future within the existing nation-states, not the right to secede from existing nation-states.

UN DRAFT DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration. On June 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration. Art. 3. the right to self-determination Art. 3. the right to self-determination Art. 19. the right to participate fully at all levels of decision-making which may affect their rights, lives and destinies, art. 29. talks about any legislative measures. Art. 19. the right to participate fully at all levels of decision-making which may affect their rights, lives and destinies, art. 29. talks about any legislative measures. Art. 28. the right to the conservation, restoration and protection of the total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources, as well as to assistance for this purpose from States and through international cooperation. Art. 28. the right to the conservation, restoration and protection of the total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources, as well as to assistance for this purpose from States and through international cooperation.

Art. 31: THE RIGHT TO SELF- GOVERNMENT ”Indigenous peoples, as a specific form of exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, including culture, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, economic activities, land and resource management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions.” ”Indigenous peoples, as a specific form of exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, including culture, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, economic activities, land and resource management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions.”

WHY IS THE DIVISION BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SELF- DETERMINATION PROBLEMATIC? Ongoing discussion concerning the division between internal and external self-determination does not take into account that the participation in international treaty-making is ’an external element’, while relating to external relations of a state. Thus it falls into the ’hard’ areas of politics and has not usually been taken into account in the self-government discussion, nor has it found place in self-government agreements between states and indigenous peoples. Ongoing discussion concerning the division between internal and external self-determination does not take into account that the participation in international treaty-making is ’an external element’, while relating to external relations of a state. Thus it falls into the ’hard’ areas of politics and has not usually been taken into account in the self-government discussion, nor has it found place in self-government agreements between states and indigenous peoples.

WHAT IS MY ARGUMENT HERE? My argument is that even if states are unwilling to recognize the external right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, they could and should recognize just mentioned external aspect – international representation- as a right of indigenous peoples. My argument is that even if states are unwilling to recognize the external right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, they could and should recognize just mentioned external aspect – international representation- as a right of indigenous peoples.

WHAT ARE THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THIS RECOGNITION? First of all, states have indirectly accepted this idea by supporting the language of both soft and hard law instruments concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, which provide that indigenous peoples should be able to participate in decision-making at all levels affecting them. First of all, states have indirectly accepted this idea by supporting the language of both soft and hard law instruments concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, which provide that indigenous peoples should be able to participate in decision-making at all levels affecting them.

Secondly, whereas indigenous peoples are commonly recognized as peoples in every social, cultural and ethnological meaning, and whereas an increasing numer of states, international scholars, and the Human Rights Committee support a recognition of a right to self- determination, at least its internal dimension, this should reflect their participatory position in international decision-making concerning the environment. It does not serve legality or justice to put indigenous peoples, who represent peoples, in the equal footing with interest- based constituencies. Secondly, whereas indigenous peoples are commonly recognized as peoples in every social, cultural and ethnological meaning, and whereas an increasing numer of states, international scholars, and the Human Rights Committee support a recognition of a right to self- determination, at least its internal dimension, this should reflect their participatory position in international decision-making concerning the environment. It does not serve legality or justice to put indigenous peoples, who represent peoples, in the equal footing with interest- based constituencies. Thirdly, active participation of indigenous peoples would create a means for a more effective protection of their environmental rights than as accorded in international law. Thirdly, active participation of indigenous peoples would create a means for a more effective protection of their environmental rights than as accorded in international law Indigenous peoples from passive objects to active subjects.

POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED NORDIC SAAMI CONVENTION IN RELATION TO PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL NORM-MAKING? Art. 19 states that states shall promote the representation of Saami (the Saami Parliament) in international institutions and meetings between states. Art. 19 states that states shall promote the representation of Saami (the Saami Parliament) in international institutions and meetings between states. In annex 3 of the proposal, participation of Saami people in international meetings between states is seen as an external element of the right to self-determination, to which Saami has a right. In annex 3 of the proposal, participation of Saami people in international meetings between states is seen as an external element of the right to self-determination, to which Saami has a right. Art. 40 states that states shall, together with the Saami Parliament, protect the environment in order to safeguard the sustainable development of Saami lands. Climate change is taken as an example of an environmental threat to Saami land in the notes concerning the individual articles. Art. 40 states that states shall, together with the Saami Parliament, protect the environment in order to safeguard the sustainable development of Saami lands. Climate change is taken as an example of an environmental threat to Saami land in the notes concerning the individual articles.

THE ROLE OF ARCTIC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION- MAKING – THE MODEL OF ARCTIC COUNCIL

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ INVOLVEMENT IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL CO-OPERATION Started with the signing in 1991 of the Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) by the eight states of the region (the five Nordic states, Canada, the United States and the Russian Federation). Started with the signing in 1991 of the Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) by the eight states of the region (the five Nordic states, Canada, the United States and the Russian Federation).

In the first phase of co-operation, generally referred to as AEPS co-operation – the framework organisations of the Arctic indigenous peoples were entitled to some position, as provided in the AEPS: In the first phase of co-operation, generally referred to as AEPS co-operation – the framework organisations of the Arctic indigenous peoples were entitled to some position, as provided in the AEPS: ”In order to facilitate the participation of Arctic indigenous peoples the following organizations will be invited as observers: the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Nordic Saami Council and the U.S.S.R. Association of Small Peoples of the North.”

ARCTIC COUNCIL AND PERMANENT PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES It was the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 that really clarified and enhanced the status of the Arctic indigenous peoples. The first paragraph of the founding declaration of the Council, which was to continue AEPS co-operation, provides: It was the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 that really clarified and enhanced the status of the Arctic indigenous peoples. The first paragraph of the founding declaration of the Council, which was to continue AEPS co-operation, provides: ”The Arctic Council is established as a high level forum: to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.” ”The Arctic Council is established as a high level forum: to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.”

PERMANENT PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES In contrast to earlier policy, in which indigenous peoples’ organisations participated as observers, the Declaration created the new category of permanent participant. Paragraph 2 provides: In contrast to earlier policy, in which indigenous peoples’ organisations participated as observers, the Declaration created the new category of permanent participant. Paragraph 2 provides: ”The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council and the Association of Indigenous Minorities in Far North, Siberia, the Far East of the Russian Federation are Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. Permanent participation is equally open to other Arctic organizations of indigenous peoples with majority Arctic indigenous constituency.” ”The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council and the Association of Indigenous Minorities in Far North, Siberia, the Far East of the Russian Federation are Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. Permanent participation is equally open to other Arctic organizations of indigenous peoples with majority Arctic indigenous constituency.”

It was very important that the category of permanent participant was distinguished from that of observer, and that it was created ’to provide for active participation and full consultation with the Arctic indigenous representatives within the Arctic Council’. It was very important that the category of permanent participant was distinguished from that of observer, and that it was created ’to provide for active participation and full consultation with the Arctic indigenous representatives within the Arctic Council’. Hence, even though the eight Arctic states are the mebers proper of the Council, framework organisations of Arctic indigenous peoples have been given an inprecedented status in its work: they are permanent participants, who negotiate at the same table with the Arctic states and may table statements and proposals for decisions. Hence, even though the eight Arctic states are the mebers proper of the Council, framework organisations of Arctic indigenous peoples have been given an inprecedented status in its work: they are permanent participants, who negotiate at the same table with the Arctic states and may table statements and proposals for decisions. Even though final decisions are made by the Arctic states in consensus, the permanent participants must, according to the Declaration, be fully consulted, which is close to a de facto power of veto should they all reject a particular proposal. Even though final decisions are made by the Arctic states in consensus, the permanent participants must, according to the Declaration, be fully consulted, which is close to a de facto power of veto should they all reject a particular proposal.

RECOGNITION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Declaration on the Protection of Arctic Environment recognizes ”the special relationship of the indigenous peoples and local populations to the Arctic and their unique contribution to the protection of the Arctic environment”. The Declaration on the Protection of Arctic Environment recognizes ”the special relationship of the indigenous peoples and local populations to the Arctic and their unique contribution to the protection of the Arctic environment”. Indigenous knowledge and observations are now included in working groups and programmes of AC such as in Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Working Group on Sustainable Development, Arctic Human Development Report and Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Indigenous knowledge and observations are now included in working groups and programmes of AC such as in Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Working Group on Sustainable Development, Arctic Human Development Report and Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

LEGAL STATUS OF ARCTIC COUNCIL From its inception, the Arctic states have not formalized the co-operation through an international treaty. AEPS co-operation started with the signing of the Declaration and Strategy, and the Arctic Council was established through a signed declaration. From its inception, the Arctic states have not formalized the co-operation through an international treaty. AEPS co-operation started with the signing of the Declaration and Strategy, and the Arctic Council was established through a signed declaration. Various views have been presented as to the legal status of the Arctic Council, the most common being that it is a soft-law organisation operating outside of international law. Various views have been presented as to the legal status of the Arctic Council, the most common being that it is a soft-law organisation operating outside of international law. Thus outcomes of Arctic Council are considered as soft-law instruments, which mean that they are not legally binding, but binding in some other manner, ’politically’ or ’morally’. Thus outcomes of Arctic Council are considered as soft-law instruments, which mean that they are not legally binding, but binding in some other manner, ’politically’ or ’morally’.

IS THE MODEL OF PERMANENT PARTICIPATION USEFUL IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL REGIMES? Most likely, it is exactly this soft-law nature of the Arctic Council that has allowed the expansion of the participatory status of indigenous peoples. Most likely, it is exactly this soft-law nature of the Arctic Council that has allowed the expansion of the participatory status of indigenous peoples. This is however not due to constraints laid down by the customary law of treaties, but more due to factual setting. This is however not due to constraints laid down by the customary law of treaties, but more due to factual setting.

My argument is that the model of the permanent participation, used in Arctic Council, could in principle be used not only in other soft-law procedures but also in legally binding procedures. My argument is that the model of the permanent participation, used in Arctic Council, could in principle be used not only in other soft-law procedures but also in legally binding procedures. Even though indigenous peoples were given a status of permanent participants in these procedures, states would still retain their full legal personality – indigenous peoples would only be able to make proposals and statements. Even though indigenous peoples were given a status of permanent participants in these procedures, states would still retain their full legal personality – indigenous peoples would only be able to make proposals and statements.

If the model of permanent participants of indigenous peoples were used in other regional or global decision-making procedures concerning the environment or sustainable development, this, besides of strengthened protection of the environmental rights of indigenous peoples, could also contribute to the environmental protection itself. If the model of permanent participants of indigenous peoples were used in other regional or global decision-making procedures concerning the environment or sustainable development, this, besides of strengthened protection of the environmental rights of indigenous peoples, could also contribute to the environmental protection itself. Without an improved status of indigenous peoples (Arctic and others) in international law, particularly their possibility to participate in international environmental protection, their environmental rights cannot be protected effectively. Without an improved status of indigenous peoples (Arctic and others) in international law, particularly their possibility to participate in international environmental protection, their environmental rights cannot be protected effectively.

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ARCTIC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS FROM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?

HRC and Art. 27 useful to some extent– limitations HRC and Art. 27 useful to some extent– limitations Inter-American system –possibilities and problems Inter-American system –possibilities and problems European human rights Court – only Saami people European human rights Court – only Saami people General problem of monitoring: environmental problems often irreversible General problem of monitoring: environmental problems often irreversible Participatory rights limited Participatory rights limited weak status of indigenous peoples in international law weak status of indigenous peoples in international law Special role of Arctic indigenous peoples in Arctic Council – some progress: active involvement in ACIA, ICC and the petition (strengthening their political power) Special role of Arctic indigenous peoples in Arctic Council – some progress: active involvement in ACIA, ICC and the petition (strengthening their political power) problem: no position other than NGO in UNFCCC problem: no position other than NGO in UNFCCC Solution: strengthened participatory position in climate change regime? Permanent participation?Participation through national delegations? Active participation in subsidiary bodies of UNFCCC? Indigenous peoples& climate change as a permanent itemn in the agenda of the COP/MOP? Inter-sessional working group on Indigenous Peoples? Solution: strengthened participatory position in climate change regime? Permanent participation?Participation through national delegations? Active participation in subsidiary bodies of UNFCCC? Indigenous peoples& climate change as a permanent itemn in the agenda of the COP/MOP? Inter-sessional working group on Indigenous Peoples?