The article discusses whether principles of territorial or non-territorial jurisdiction ought to guide the future distribution of decision-making power between the Norwegian Sami Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament. It argues that an acceptable distribution of powers must satisfy two normative criteria: first, decisionmaking power ought to be distributed on the basis of individuals' desire to be politically associated with some people rather than with others. Second, a normatively defensible distribution of decision-making power must ensure that those who are subject to the jurisdiction of a particular body have the right to vote in elections for, and thus have the possibility to affect the composition of, that particular body. The article concludes that a non-territorial principle for distribution of decision-making power provides a more fruitful point of departure for discussions of the future status of the Sami Parliament in the Norwegian political system than do notions of territorial jurisdiction.What principle ought to guide the future distribution of decision-making power between the Norwegian Sami Parliament (Sametinget) and other popularly elected bodies in Norway? The principal aim of this article it is to present and critically discuss two different answers to this question. The empirical focus of the article will thus be the Norwegian polity and the question of how decision-making power ought to be distributed between different popularly elected bodies in Norway. It is my contention, however, that the Norwegian case shed light on some important normative questions pertaining to many, if not most, claims for self-determination. These are questions that must be addressed by anybody who takes an interest in the issue of whether and/or how claims for self-determination by indigenous or other groups ought to be accommodated. The relevance of these questions is
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¶WKUHDW WR WKH SHDFH·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
In 1986, the International Labour Organization (ILO) started a process aimed at revising its 1957 Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention (C107). This process was completed in 1989 with the adoption of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (C169). Simultaneously, national legal and political processes in many Western states addressed the rights of their own indigenous populations. These states voted in favour of C169, but only Norway chose to ratify it – indeed, as the first country in the world, in June 1990. This article details the internal political processes within the Norwegian government, to shed light on the significance of the domestic situation in Norway for its support for C169. We find that a low degree of perceived need for domestic changes may enable states to take a leading role in creating new human rights conventions. Furthermore, the participation of government officials in international horizontal and vertical policy networks may shape the policies of their ministries and thereby those of the state.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.