Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/the-saami-and-the-karen-common-experience-and-differences-a-7YMX7gxCou
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2021
- ISSN
- 1610-2932
- eISSN
- 1612-1031
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10308-021-00620-8
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This paper offers a comparative perspective on a specific issue of the indigenous peoples of the Saami and the Karen. The groups being compared are from Europe and Asia, selected on the basis of their particular circumstances of living in more than one State. However, while the Saami are a relatively well-treated people that enjoy a form of cultural autonomy; the Karen are in a far worse situation with regard to their legal position as well as actual living conditions. The authors examine the cultural, political, and legal aspects of the Saami and the Karen situations and com- pare their common experience and aspirations. The article attempts to answer the question as to what the similarities and differences between the two indigenous peo - ples are and what lessons can be learned by those peoples that may be helpful in realizing their aspirations. Introduction The global population of indigenous peoples is estimated at about 370 million indi- viduals (about 5% of the world population). Such peoples live in more than seventy States (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2008 2008, p. 10; Symon- ides 2007, p. 235). For centuries, indigenous peoples, their needs, rights, culture and identity have been neglected and destroyed, yet despite that, they managed to endure and preserve their distinct cultures and livelihoods. Their oppressive situation is gradually changing, partly due to the efforts of the international community that led * Agnieszka Szpak aszpak@umk.pl Maria Ochwat mochwat@gmail.com Faculty of Political Science and Security Studies, Department of International Security, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Batorego 39 L, 87-100 Toruń, Poland Faculty of Social Sciences, Political Science and Security Studies Institute, University of Szczecin, ul. Krakowska 71-79, 71-017 Szczecin, Poland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 446 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat to creating international instruments of ‘hard law’ and ‘soft law’, with provisions ensuring respect for the rights of indigenous people such as the right to self-determi- nation and land rights. There are also less tangible rights, e.g. to have their traditions and customs, cultures and languages respected; to participate in decision-making on matters that would affect their rights, to improve their social and economic posi - tion, or to maintain and develop their traditional knowledge. The most important result of such efforts, however much delayed, was the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007 by the UN General Assembly. Many of the above listed rights are guaranteed in that Declaration (hereinafter: UN Declaration), which, however, is formally non-binding, and in the legally binding ILO Conven- tion 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989). The ILO Convention aims to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, their way of life and their culture. Taking all this into account, one may conclude that there are quite progressive legal provisions protecting the indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, law in books does not always transform into law in action, hence its implementation is problematic, in many cases reaching the state of an “implementation abyss” (Inter- national Work Group for Indigenous Affairs 2016, p. 10; Wiessner 2001, p. 138; Szpak 2018, p. 179). In this paper, the authors will offer a comparative perspective on a specific issue of the indigenous peoples of the Saami and the Karen. The groups being compared are from Europe and Asia, selected on the basis of their particular circumstances — they live in more than one State. While the Saami are a relatively well-treated people that enjoy a form of the cultural autonomy, the Karen, are in a far worse situation with regard to their legal position as well as actual living conditions. The article will examine cultural, political and legal aspects of their situation and then compare their common experience and aspirations. This comparative analysis will lead to the answer to the research question: what are the similarities and differences between the two indigenous peoples and what lessons can be learned by those peo- ples that may be helpful in realizing their aspirations? The research method used consists of comparative legal analysis (in particular with reference to the legal docu- ments on the indigenous peoples). The authors offer a unique comparative approach by looking at indigenous identity politics in Europe and Asia. The basic criterion for comparison is the fact that both the eponymous indigenous peoples live in territories divided by state borders. However, the other relevant issues are the ways in which the Saami and the Karen pursue their right to self-determination and their position on the continuum line. The Saami are clearly closer to the ideal of political auton- omy though not yet there, while the Karen have a longer way to go. Looking at their stage of self-governance may offer mutual lessons for the two peoples to be learned. Indigenous peoples and their characteristic features The term “indigenous peoples” has been used to encompass distinct peoples who have lived from time immemorial on their ancestral territories (thus, the name the ‘first people’) and who have been pursuing their own concept of develop - ment, endeavoring to sustain their identity, languages, customs, values, beliefs and 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 447 lifestyles as well as control over their lands and natural resources (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2008, p. 7). As a starting point, this paper adopts the definition of indigenous peoples by José Martinez-Cobo: “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are deter- mined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territo- ries, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems” (Cobo 1986–7). The only normative definition of indigenous peoples was formu - lated in the ILO Convention 169. The factors crucial to the concept of indigenous peoples include priority in time in occupying a specific territory, voluntary preservation and development of their cultural distinctiveness (language, religion, laws, institutions, livelihoods, customs, social and political organization), self-identification at the individual and group level, meaning that a person identifies him/herself as indigenous and is recognized as such by the group (recognition by the State authorities is also indicative but its lack does not mean that a certain collectivity is not an indigenous people) and “an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or discrimina- tion, whether or not these conditions persist” (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peo- ples’ Issues, 2008, p. 8; Magnarella 2001–2002, p. 426; Meijknecht 2002–2003, p. 316–318). Self-identification is the basic criterion for determining the indigenous - ness (Art. 1.2 ILO Convention 169 1989 and Art. 1.2 of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2016). Definition of indigenous peoples is controversial, especially in Asia and Africa. In Asia, many countries do not recognize indigenous peoples (e.g. India, China, Bangladesh and Myanmar), and in the rest of the continent their situation is very diverse (Kinsbury 2008, p. 121–122). The refusal to recognize indigenous peoples is based on the claim that all citizens are equally indigenous; however, this approach is usually an expression of the assimilationist attitudes of States. This, in turn, is a manifestation of ongoing discrimination against indigenous peoples. Micah F. Mor- ton (2017a, p. 3) argues against such thinking by claiming, on the example of Thai- land, that “Indigenous Peoples in Thailand reframe the boundaries of Indigeneity in identifying themselves as the victims first and foremost of relatively recent and ongoing processes of “internal colonization” within modern Thailand”. Further- more, the legal recognition of these peoples does not necessarily have to guaran- tee the observance of their collective and individual rights as long as the law is not actually implemented (Indigenous Peoples and ASEAN Integration 2015, p. 44. For more details see Morton 2017a). Arguments against the recognition of indigenous peoples raised by Asian and African states can be classified as definitional, practical and political arguments. The first type concerns a controversial reference to the times of colonialism and inva - sion (the salt water doctrine). Classical colonization actually took place only in the Americas and Australia, where the colonizers and settlers conquered the territory of indigenous peoples and introduced their own rules encompassing the whole social, 1 3 448 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat economic and legal system. In Africa and Asia, only the administration and export were taken over by the colonizers, while the socio-legal system and structures were left almost intact. Thus, when the colonizers left, the self-determination and self- government of indigenous peoples were restored. Considering practical arguments, it is often very difficult, if not even impossible, to prove who was the first to live in the territory in question. Lastly, political arguments are based on fears of States that recognizing certain indigenous peoples’ rights will lead to escalation of demands — other groups will also make similar claims (Schreiber 2009, p. 156; Oguamanam 2004, pp. 360, 369–71). The controversy surrounding the definition of indigenous peoples in its appli - cation to Asia was also highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya. In his report of July 31, 2013, he stated that he was aware that the vast majority of the population in Asia could be considered indigenous. On the other hand, the Special Rapporteur noted that there were spe- cial groups in Asia which differed from the general population in such a way that they fell within concept of indigenous peoples as construed under the auspices of the UN. These groups are, today, among the most discriminated, socially and eco- nomically marginalized and politically subordinated parts of the societies of Asian States in which they live. Regardless of the controversy surrounding the definition of indigenous peoples, political actors in Asia (e.g. ASEAN) agree that there is a need to solve the problems of these groups and to recognize and implement their human rights and their collective rights analogously to the rights of indigenous peo- ples (Report of the Special Rapporteur, 2013, pp. 5–6). In addition, according to the Special Rapporteur, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples applies to indigenous peoples of Asia, including tribal peoples, which are not recognized by the governments of Asian countries (Report of the Special Rapporteur… 2013, p. 6; Anaya, 1996, p. 3; Report of the African Commission’s … 2005, pp. 89–90; Opera- tional Policy 4.10 2005, paras. 3–4; Asian Development Bank 1998, p. 3; MacKay 2005, p. 72). The same conclusion also applies to the Saami as they do not fit into the classical narrow definition of indigenous peoples, the one including the reference to the salt water doctrine meaning that in order to qualify as an indigenous people, there should be salt water between the colony/a people and the colonizing country (Roy 2001). In the Saami’s case, no settlers came from overseas, but the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns arrived from other regions of the Scandinavian Peninsula in the territories already occupied by the Saami. Thus, the Saami experience is one of initially exter- nal colonization or oppression that with time turned into internal one. Sarivaara et al. (2013) argue that there is no universal definition of indigenous peoples as each of them is rooted in a specific context, meaning the unique histo - ries of each indigenous people, particularly the fragments related to colonialism. However, certain main characteristics of these definitions can be discerned. Hence, among the characteristic features of indigenous peoples, one may enumerate those that are common and at the same time do not limit the application of the definition only to the American-Australian context: 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 449 1. Indigenous peoples identify themselves as indigenous and are, as such, accepted by members of that group (self-identification at individual and group level). 2. They have strong connection to their lands and natural resources. 3. They maintain social, economic and political systems that are at least partially separate from the dominant national systems. 4. They have fully or partially preserved their distinct languages, culture, beliefs and systems of knowledge. 5. They are determined to preserve and develop their identity and distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions. 6. They are in a non-dominant position (despite sometimes being a majority num- bers-wise) as colonized or oppressed peoples, even if their particular experiences of colonization are more of the internal rather than external form. The requirements of historical continuity and temporal priority are considered unnecessary, but may rather be regarded as additional factors for identifying the indigenous nature of a given group. Another factor that should be considered in the identification of indigenous peoples may be inter alia the recognition of the indig- enous peoples in national laws (in the constitution or other legal acts) (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2008, p. 9). One must, however, remember that the basic criterion for the identification of indigenous peoples is self-identification; hence, the voice of indigenous peoples is crucial, taking into account the specificity and concrete circumstances of each group (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2008, p. 9). Saami and Karen voices will be included in various part of this article. Even on the basis of this brief outline, it is clear that recognition of a con- crete indigenous group depends on the understanding of the concept of indigenous peoples. For the Saami, the self-identification criterion is decisive. According to Art. 4 of the Nordic Saami Convention (2005) (not yet in force), in whose adoption the Saami representatives participated, “the Convention applies to persons residing in Finland, Norway or Sweden that identify themselves as Saami and who 1. have Saami as their domestic language or have at least one parent or grandparent who has or has had Saami as his or her domestic language, or 2. have a right to pursue Saami reindeer husbandry in Norway or Sweden, or 3. fulfill the requirements to be eligible to vote in elections to the Saami parliament in Finland, Norway or Sweden, or 4. are children of a person referred to in 1, 2 or 3”. This definition combines objective and subjective criteria. As to the Saami voices on who a Saami is, they argue that “[…] if you consider that the Sámi are only those who are in the [electoral] register and have been granted the right to vote, then this is a kind of judicial murder committed against the real indigenous people who are the Forest Sámi and Forest Lapps. But it seems that you can get the right to vote in the Sámi Parliament just by studying the language and practicing the culture to some extent. You don’t have to be genetically Sámi […], you can be absolutely anything. […] It should not be confined to the Sámi homeland and major towns, to ‘city Sámi’. The truly indigenous peoples live in old ‘siida’ all the way down to Kuusamo. These are the people” (Report Truth and reconciliation process concerning Sámi issues 2018, p. 27). One of the Saami also added that “[b]elonging to the electoral register of the Sámi Parliament should not be a qualifier for allowing someone to feel that they are Sámi in terms of their 1 3 450 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat identity. […T]he importance of access to the electoral register of the Sámi Parlia- ment above all has nothing to do with the right of identity. Experiences of being dis- criminated against and oppressed do not eliminate the right to identify oneself in the way one wants” (Report Truth and reconciliation process concerning Sámi issues 2018, p. 61, 67). Niklas Sarri, a Saami who does not own reindeer but makes leather craft and paints for a living, says that people question Saami identity if a Saami person does not own reindeer and that this reinforces the stereotype of a Saami. He does not agree with the statement that to be a Saami you have to own reindeer and lead a nomadic lifestyle. Once again the self-identification is stressed as — in the words of a Saami writer Nils Aslak — “the inside of me is my home. It will follow me wherever I go” (I am Sámi, 2017). In case of the Karen, the situation is very different. In many aspects, the Karen are a heterogeneous group (Clarke et al., 2019, p. 92). The basic divisions usually take into consideration the geographic and linguistic criteria (Burma (Myanmar) Karen Cultural Profile ). The Karen population is fairly widespread in Myanmar, divided into smaller groups and subgroups. As the authors of the Re-examinating Ethnic Identity in Myanmar book write, Karen communities include small, rather homo- geneous villages located on the hills or in remote woodlands and mountains and tend to have area-specific livelihood sources. However, many Karen are scattered across different geographic locations and are confused with neighboring commu - nities of different ethnic identities. In lowland areas such as the Ayeyawady Delta, Karen communities were integrated into the wider Burmese society a long time ago. Also, although Kayin (Karen) State was established as the place for the Karen com- munity, it is estimated that only a relatively small percentage of the Karen popu- lation lives there. The situations of the Karen communities are, thus, very diverse and many have experience of living in heterogeneous environments (Clarke et al., 2019, pp. 94–95). Karen cannot be perceived as adherents of one religion; though the majority are in Buddhist denominations, there are strong animist influences and Christian communities as well (Seekins 2006, p. 247). The Karen speak sev- eral related languages and dialects, with most popular dialects being Sgaw and Pwo. The former is generally used by Christian communities and highland animists, while Pwo tends to be used by lowland Buddhist communities. However, there are many exceptions (Clarke et al., 2019, p. 95). All the differences notwithstanding, a number of researchers argue that although the ethnic groups considered to be Karen peo- ples may have distinct political identities and speak mutually incomprehensible lan- guages, “they are connected by the customs, traditions and long history of shared communities, and thus a sense of unity in diversity” (The Karen Struggle for Self- Determination in Kawthoolei 2018). Saami experiences — cultural, political, and legal aspects The Saami are the indigenous peoples who live in northern Europe in Norway, Swe- den, Finland and Russia. Overall the number of the Saami is about 70,000: 35,000 live in Norway, 17,000 in Sweden, 5000 in Finland and 2000 in Russia (Baer 2005, p. 247). According to other estimates, the overall population of the Saami amounts 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 451 to 80,000 or even 100,000 (Saami in Sweden online; Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 77). Most of the Saami live in democratic welfare States (except for Russia) and enjoy rela- tively high quality of life compared to most of indigenous peoples all over the world. This, however, does not mean that their situation and respect for their rights are ideal. The scope of this paper will be restricted only to the Nordic Saami. In their case, the transboundary aspect is clearly discernable — the Saami are an indigenous peoples divided by the borders of the States in which they live. So-called Lapp Cod- icil appended to the border treaty between Sweden and Norway in 1751, one of the first documents devoted to the Saami, recognized Saami’s customary rights as well as their right to migrate across the borders of the Nordic State (which was particu- larly important with reference to their reindeer herds and their migrations between winter and summer pastures) (First Codicil… 2012, pp. 273–281; Heinämäki et al. 2017, p. 347). Naturally, the Saami are not monolithic, so the administrative border is not the only one. There are more divisions of a social kind, such as different lan - guages that the Saami use, their different occupations as described below, or their different legal-political situation. Constitutions of the three Nordic States recognize the Saami as indigenous peo- ples (Art. 108 of the Norwegian Constitution, Arts. 17 and 121 (3) of the Finn- ish Constitution (1999) and art. 2 of the Swedish Instrument of the Government). Sweden explicitly recognized the Saami as indigenous peoples in 2011 (previously since 1977 as indigenous population); however, it still treats them rather as an eth- nic minority. Actually, only the Finnish Constitution (1999) explicitly recognizes the Saami as an indigenous people, while Sweden and Finland do that more indi- rectly through the recognition of their rights and Saami linguistic-cultural autonomy. As far as Russia is concerned, its Constitution states that the Saami are one of the many northern indigenous small-numbered peoples (Koivurova 2008, p. 281). The indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation are defined in Art. 1 of the Federal Law on the Guarantees of the Rights of the Indigenous Small-Num- bered Peoples of 1999 as “peoples numbering less than 50,000 people; living on ancestral lands, maintaining traditional way of life, economic activities and crafts and perceiving themselves as separate ethnic groups”. In Russia, there is no Saami parliament. Overall, Russia merely respects the cultural rights of the Saami without according them any kind of autonomy or self-governance (Bunikowski 2014b). One can conclude that the legislative guarantees set out in the Federal law are substantial, but there is a problem with their effective implementation (Koivurova et al. 2015). The Saami are associated with reindeer husbandry even though only a minority of them (about 10%), in fact, earn their living in this way (Wiessner 2001, p. 92). For centuries, the Saami lead a nomadic lifestyle. This is relevant especially for the mountain Saami engaged in reindeer herding (Bunikowski n.d., p. 2). Importantly, according to the Saami’s values and beliefs, human beings and nature constitute a unity: human beings are an inherent part of nature. As reindeer herders, the Saami have always followed their herds, so that land ownership and borders were concepts See also L. Heinämäki et al. 2017, p. 343; Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Opinion on Sweden, 2012, para. 25. 1 3 452 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat largely alien to them. The emergence of modern State borders forced many Saami families to change their places of living in order to maintain access to reindeer pas- tures. The policy of assimilation implemented by Nordic States damaged the Saami culture (Woodard n.d.). In 2016, the Church of Sweden published the White Book, which listed historical harms done to the Saami under the guise of assimilation. The White Book, in particular, described segregation schools which were intended for the children of the Saami reindeer herders (such schools operated between 1913 and1962) (Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Opinion on Sweden 2017, para. 39; Ravna, 2009). Reindeer herding, hunting, fishing and shamanism have constituted important elements of Saami’s traditional livelihood and cultural practices. Jukka Pennanen, Saami professor of cultural anthropology, points out that the reindeer is an inher- ent part of the Saami culture (Bunikowski 2014a; for more, see: Borchert 2001; Koivurova et al. 2015); thus, preserving these important traditional livelihoods is necessary. Saami culture cannot exist without reindeer herding as the reindeer is an inherent part of the Saami culture (Bunikowski 2014b, p. 43). In Norway and Sweden, reindeer husbandry is reserved for the Saami although they must operate within a siida (which is usually defined as a cooperative consisting of several fami - lies), whereas in Finland, reindeer husbandry is open to all (Arctic Human Develop- ment Report 2014, p. 36; Ahrén 2004, p. 67; Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 86; International Centre foe reindeer Husbandry online). Reindeer herding is strictly associated with the Saami’s connection to their lands as reindeer herding relies heavily on access to extensive and undisturbed areas as reindeer migrate between different seasonal pastures. Migrations of reindeer are mainly determined by climatic and ecological factors. Reindeer are always looking for the best grazing possible, and attempts to force them to change pastures (to push them out of their traditional routes to which the animals are adapted) can lead to a loss of control over the herd and the conse- quent loss of animals. Clearly, it is not only the Saami who show a strong relation- ship with the land, but also their reindeer (Ahrén 2004, p. 70). These elements are essential components of the Saami indigenous identity. The rhythm of reindeer life also determines the rhythm of the Saami calendar. They distinguish eight seasons: winter, winter-spring, spring, spring–summer, summer, summer-autumn, autumn and autumn–winter. Each one is associated with the transition of reindeer to a new pasture as animals have to move from place to place, and people follow. However, reindeer herding areas are shrinking. Currently, they cover about 40% of the total area of Norway, Finland and Sweden. All available areas for reindeer pastures in Norway, Sweden and Finland are already in use. Norway has around 140,600 km of potential reindeer pasture (around 40% of the country’s total land area), Sweden has 2 2 around 160,000 km (34%) and Finland 114,000 km (33%). The shrinking means that there will always be too many herders and reindeer, which in turn will lead to increased competition between them (Huntington 2013, p. 599). The main reason for the loss of pastures in Norway, Sweden and Finland is infrastructure development This situation is also exemplified in the movie Sameblod directed by Amanda Kernell (2016). 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 453 such as new road construction, military installations, power lines, pipelines, dams or vacation homes. While these changes threaten the traditional livelihoods, there are voices among the Saami that although reindeer herding is a traditional occupation that is a distin- guishing feature of the Saami, people cannot be bound to an animal. Some Saami cannot imagine their lives without reindeer, yet others put more emphasis on the cul- ture, the connection to the land and Saami language(s). As mentioned, being a Saami does not have to mean reindeer herding (I am Sámi, 2017). The Saami emphasize their connection to the lands: “The most important question is land. If the people has no land, it is left unclear how Sámiland was derived and it is interpreted in two ways. We interpret it such that the Sámi area is the Sámi area, but the Finns interpret it such that a Sámi area is an area in which there are points where Sámis live here and there. There’s such a great difference in interpretation that it affects the enact - ment of laws. For example, the Act on Forest Administration, which is based on the fact that everything, the whole region is state-owned land, but there are just a few areas where there are Sámi dwellings. And such an interpretation has eaten away the foundation of the entire Sámi people. The Sámi people has been eliminated. In every way” (Report Truth and reconciliation process concerning Sámi issues 2018, p. 28). The Saami are also very politically aware and, taking into account the fact that the reindeer play such a fundamental role in the Saami culture and livelihood, there are multiple Saami organizations that represent the Saami interests in this respect at the national and international levels. Examples include the Confederation of Norwe- gian Reindeer Herders or the Association of World Reindeer Herders (see the web- site of the Association) or, in the wider field of activities, the Saami Confederation, the Swedish Saami National Union or the Confederation of Swedish Saami. Moreover, in every Nordic State, the Saami have their representations in the Saami parliaments. These bodies were established in 1989 in Norway, in 1995 in Sweden and in 1996 in Finland. Their task is to promote and support the rights, cul- ture and development of the Saami (Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 82). For example, accord- ing to the Finnish Act on the Saami Parliament of 1995, the Saami enjoy the linguis- tic and cultural autonomy, and the Saami parliament serves to implement this goal (Arts. 10 and 17 of the Act on the Saami Parliament). Among the competences of the Saami parliament is the care for the Saami language and culture and protection of their status as indigenous peoples. In these respects, the Saami parliament may initiate actions and make proposals to the national authorities. Finnish Saami parlia- ment decides how to distribute and utilize the funds accorded to it, and these deci- sions are not subject to appeal. Finnish authorities are obliged to negotiate with the Saami parliament all the important matters that may directly affect the Saami (Art. 8 and 9 of the Act on the Saami Parliament). To meet this obligation, Finnish authori- ties must ensure that the Saami parliament has a meaningful voice and provides a representation of the Saami’s views (Finnish Act on the Saami Parliament). More- over, Finnish legislation cannot hamper the implementation of the Saami’s rights (Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 81). The competences of the Swedish Saami parliament are more modest and its posi- tion is peculiar as, apart from representing the Saami, it also constitutes a part of the Swedish executive (Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the 1 3 454 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat Protection of National Minorities, Opinion on Sweden 2017, para. 9). The Saami’s position is strongest and most satisfactory in Norway, though still far from political autonomy (Norwegian Constitution 1814 as amended in 2016; Bunikowski 2014a, p. 80). The aim of the Norwegian Saami parliament is — similarly to its Finnish counterpart — to enable the Saami to care for and develop their language, culture and livelihood (Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 concerning the Sameting (the Saami parliament) and other Saami legal matters (the Saami Act) (1987), para. 1–1). Nor- way is the only Nordic State so far to have adopted a progressive legal act, so called Finmark Act 2005, which accorded the Saami additional rights. 95% of Finmark, inhabited mainly by the Saami, was located under common administration of Fin- mark Estate that is conducted by the Finmark Estate Board. The Board consists of six members, three designated by the Finmark County Council and three by the Saami parliament. The Saami representation obligatorily includes reindeer herders (Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 100; Heinämäki et al. 2017, p. 317). The Finmark Act regu- lates ownership of lands and natural resources of Finmark. The sustainable manage- ment of those lands is to serve as a basis for the Saami culture and the reindeer herd- ing (Fitzmaurice 2009, p. 102). Saami parliaments are not legislative bodies. Still, as a form of protection and institutionalization of the political rights of the Saami, they acquired a possibility of asserting and benefiting from their rights, including their land rights. Even if the Saami parliaments in Sweden, Norway and Finland do not possess the same prerog- atives, it does not contradict the conclusion that the parliaments influence the pro - cedural aspects of the Saami rights such as the rights to consultations, negotiations and participation in decision making in matters that affect them (Hossain 2016, p. 422). As a way to formalize the cooperation of the Saami and reinforce their voice, in 2000 the three Saami parliaments convoked the Saami Parliamentary Council. It deals with issues that may influence the Saami and coordinates Saami priorities at the international level, in particular, in reference to the international policy towards indigenous peoples (Stoyanova 2013, pp. 203–304). The previous considerations lead to a conclusion that the Saami in Nordic States have their self-government institutions, although these institutions are not free from weaknesses or difficulties. The main cause of this are Saami’s parliaments restricted capabilities. Only Norway ratified ILO Convention 169. Dawid Bunikowski ( 2014a, p. 83) perceives the current Nordic States Saami policy as directed at keeping the status quo, which means lack of recognition of the Saami land rights and their politi- cal autonomy. There is some irony in that the Nordic States are democratic wel- fare States, yet they still fail to fully respect the Saami rights (Bunikowski 2014a, p. 83). Hence, the wording of the regulations may be very progressive but many issues remain unresolved, such as land ownership and reindeer herding. An example of a Saami victory should be mentioned here: the judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden of 23 January 2020 with regard to reindeer herding, in which the Court held that the Saami community called Girjas Sameby “had an exclusive right to fishing and hunting in Girjas reindeer-herding areas on the basis of […] their presence there from time immemorial […]. Not only can the Sami village confer hunting and fish - ing rights on others without the Swedish state’s permission, but the state does not have a right to confer these rights […]” (Hofverberg 2020). However, the struggle 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 455 for Saami land rights continues as this judgment refers only to this particular village and not the Saami in general. Karen experiences — cultural, political, and legal aspects Among the world countries, Myanmar is one of the most ethnically diverse due to three waves of migrations from Central Asia and Tibet. The first one brought the Mons and the Khmer, the second consisted of Tibeto Bamars, and the last migration, which occurred around the thirteenth and fourteenth centu- ries brought the Tai-Chinese peoples (Yin and Elias 2012, p. 52). The origins of the Karen are unclear; there are various theories regarding their migration from Tibet, China and through Southeast Asia, which most likely took place in stages (Neiman et al. 2008). There is lack of specific data as to the number and populations of indigenous peoples in Burma, which partially results from the lack of acceptance for the internationally recognized concept of indigenous peoples. The Myanmar govern- ment maintains that all citizens are “indigenous” (taing-yin-tha), thus, denying that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007) is applicable to Myanmar. To describe the indigenous peoples of Myanmar, indig- enous rights activists use the Burmese term hta-nay-tain-yin-tha, which is based on international principles. The criteria they use include under domination in the national context, historical continuity, ancestral territory and self-identification. Only eight ethnic groups are recognized by the government as national races or taung yin tha: Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Chin, Mon, Burman, Arakan and Shan. According to the Citizenship Act of 1982 (Refworld.org) the criterion for being considered as taung yin tha, was the presence of the particular ethnic group in the geographic area of Myanmar prior to 1823. It should be noted, however, that Myanmar has more ethnic groups that see themselves as indigenous peoples (IWGIA 2020, p. 292). The official (Anglicized) name of the Karen and the name of the state were changed to “Kayin” by the military government in 1989; however, this has been rejected by much of the community (Clarke et al. 2019, p. 94). The group consists of about 4 million in Myanmar and about 400,000 people in Thailand (Intercon- tinental Cry online). The Karen inhabit the upland and mountainous areas that form the border between Myanmar and Thailand, including the southern Shan state, Stan Kayah (Karenni), Stan Karen (Kayin), Stan Mon and Division Tenas- serim (Tanintharyi), as well as parts of Pegu (Bago) Division, especially around Toungoo (Taungoo). Traditionally, they practiced agriculture in mountainous areas. Many of them settled also in the delta of the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) river where they grow rice in wetlands and, to a large extent, have assimilated with the neighboring Burmese or Mon populations. Karen communities are also found around Bassein (Pathein), Pyapon and Henzada (Hinthada), the Irawaddy (Ayeyarwady) Division. There is also a significant Karen population in Ran goon (Yangon), especially in Insein Township (Seekins 2006, p. 247). However, life in many Karen communities is far from idyllic. 1 3 456 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat Conflicts between its numerous minorities make Myanmar one of the most troubled countries in Asia. Ethnic minority groups in Myanmar have been mar- ginalized and denied basic rights for a long time, due to decades of civil war and competing economic interests in areas and resources on which many nationality peoples depend for survival. According to David I. Steinberg, “Burma/Myanmar has experienced 236 “conflict years,” or 40 percent of all those in Southeast Asia, and 30 percent of all conflict casualties. Many minority armies now have negoti - ated cease-fires, but some are still active and one, the Karen rebellion that started in 1949, is the longest in modern world history” (Steinberg 2010, p. 12). The Karen in Myanmar have suffered from forced labor, forced relocation, confisca - tion of land, burning of villages, rapes and other sexual violence. Every year, usu- ally during the dry season, Burmese troops attack the villages of Karen, burning houses and fields and destroying grain and agricultural implements. People who manage to escape hide in nearby woodlands. Many of them then experience mal- nutrition or contract malaria and other diseases. Those internally displaced per- sons (IDPs) only return to their villages when the Burmese army leaves the area. The Karen have also been forcibly relocated and their villages populated with ethnic Burmans. In August 2016, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rap- porteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, pointed to militarisation of conflict in Myanmar leading to rapes, sexual enslavement and killings of indigenous girls and women (Cultural Survival 2015). Internal armed conflict caused many Karen to look for refuge in Thailand. Not surprisingly, because of the conflict, thousands of Karen refugees have crossed the border into Thailand for safety and live in one of the twelve refugee camps (Nei- man et al. 2008). Large constructions, like the building of a Hat Gyi hydroelectric dam, result in displacement of thousands of people. In the case of this dam, whose construction began in 2007, mainly the Karen, have also been displaced to Thailand (Cultural Survival, 2015; Karen Human Rights Group online, pp. 24–25). The recognition of minority status and rights is undoubtedly one of the great- est challenges facing the government of Myanmar (Steinberg 2010, p.12). A change might be achievable if ethnic groups were offered the possibility to participate in the exercise of power. Therefore, around the last parliamentary elections in 2020, a lot of attention was paid to barriers to representation by ethnic minority groups other than the Bamar people. The first barrier is the constituency structure, which perpetuates the dominance of large national parties focused on the interests of the Bamar majority. The second barrier to nationality representation is the first-past-the- post voting system. In the seven regions where the Bamar population constitutes the majority in most constituencies, it is actually impossible for ethnic minority parties to win any seats in the parliament, as confirmed by the results of the 2015 election to the national parliament. Experts predict that it will not change in the nearest future (Myanmar: Ethnic Politics and the 2020 General Election). With regard to international indigenous peoples’ rights, Myanmar and Thailand have not ratified ILO Convention 169 but voted for the UN Declaration (IWGIA 2018, p. 340). Thailand does not recognize officially the existence of indigenous peoples in its borders (IWGIA 2018, p. 307). Hence, its vote for the Declaration is 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 457 perceived rather as a support for the concept and rights of indigenous peoples out- side of Thailand (Morton 2016, p. 6). Myanmar Constitution (2008) labels ethnic populations as “national races” but fails to define this term. Its general interpretation comes from the 1983 Procedures to the Myanmar Citizenship Law of 1982, which define the 135 national races, including the Karen (Ethnic Minority Groups/Indigenous Peoples, p. 129). How- ever, in 2015 the Ethnic Rights Protection Law was adopted. According to Sect. 2 (a) in Chapter 1, “Ethnic Groups means ethnic groups who have resided continu- ously within the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, stipulating as the original State”. This definition by no means reflects the concept of indigenous peoples. Anal - ogously, the rights of such groups do not include such significant rights of indig - enous peoples as land rights, focusing instead on rights typical to national or ethnic minorities (see Chapter 3). There are several other acts, such as the US‐Myanmar Joint Statement on Good Governance and Transparency in the Energy Sector, which states that the objec- tive of both Governments is transparent management of the energy sector, and that transparency helps companies to operate with the free prior and informed consent of affected communities. The Forest and Conservation laws in Myanmar stipulate consulting local communities and considering community rights and benefits (Indig - enous Peoples’ Rights and Business in Myanmar 2016, pp.15–18). The situation in Thailand does not seem to be better. Indigenous peoples in Thai- land have long faced severe discrimination by Thai society. According to Ian G. Baird (2019), “Thailand is a good example of a nation where a large number of peo- ple self-recognised as being Indigenous People, even when the government does not extend this recognition to them”. None of Thailand’s previous constitutions or any piece of Thai legislation either recognizes or even mentions “Indigenous Peoples”. The existence of people from “ethnic groups” is recognized in Thailand, but they are not distinguished in terms of rights and responsibilities. The 2017 Constitution does not mention indigenous peoples either. It only contains Sect. 70 that stipulates: “The State should promote and provide protection for different ethnic groups to have the right to live in the society according to the traditional culture, custom, and ways of life on a voluntary basis, peacefully and without interference, insofar as it is not con- trary to public order or good morals or does not endanger the security of the State, health or sanitation”. In 2010, the government of Thailand issued a resolution aimed at recovering “the Karen livelihood in Thailand via policies and principles of imple- mentation assigned to government agencies and organisations such as the support to the biodiversity of highland communities and the promotion and support of the Karen people’s ethnic identities and culture” (Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact 2015, p. 46). However, neither this resolution nor Sect. 70 has been implemented with any particular force. The situation of the Karen in Thailand and Myanmar is far from perfect: their land rights are disrespected and there are no self-governance institutions (e.g. simi- lar to the Saami parliaments). Indigenous peoples in Thailand, including Karen, are currently working towards establishing such institutions and developing ways to pro- tect their language, culture and livelihood. Numerous initiatives that affect Karen rights are undertaken without their free, prior and informed consent. For example, 1 3 458 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat in Thailand, the programme of increasing forest cover by, among others, stopping deforestation and rehabilitating forest areas lead to many Karen being arrested for encroaching on or destroying forest lands — the lands which the indigenous people of Karen have occupied for hundreds of years and on which they have depended for their living (IWGIA 2018, pp. 308, 309). For example, the Karen were relocated from the national park Kaengkrachan Forest Complex under the rubric of forest conservation (IWGIA 2018, p. 309). Many relocated Karen were promised land for farming but have not received it and have come back to the Complex only to be arrested by the park officers (IWGIA 2018, p. 309). The Karen should be able to par- ticipate in consultations on the future of this Complex as well as other lands tradi- tionally occupied by them; their free, prior and informed consent should be obtained before any action that affects their rights and interests is taken. Indigenous Karen ecological/traditional knowledge should be taken into account in forest and natural resources conservation and management. As stated in the Report on the Indigenous World 2018, [t]he policies and laws governing forest resources are not in line with reality. They focus on forest resources, flora and fauna more than the traditional resi - dents/communities and their forest-dependent livelihoods […] The state con- tinues to believe that traditional indigenous land use – e.g. rotational farming – is not sustainable and provides little economic income in comparison with permanent agriculture […]. This is not true. Many research findings reveal that such kinds of agricultural practice are sustainable and suitable for the highland areas […] (IWGIA 2018, pp. 311, 312). With reference to land rights of the Karen (as well as indigenous peoples in gen- eral), the situation in Myanmar is similar. Here, too, the obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent of the Karen is not respected (IWGIA 2018, p. 34; Eth- nic Minority Groups/Indigenous Peoples, p. 137). Consequently, in 2018 the Karen together with other Myanmar indigenous peoples organized protests and demanded respect for their “right to decide how the natural resources they depended on for their livelihoods are used on traditional lands”. Like Thailand, Myanmar plans to build hydroelectric dams that will likely destroy the Karen livelihood and the natural environment (IWGIA 2018, p. 344). Mining activities also cause detrimental con- sequences for the Karen. In one case, when a group of Karen villagers wanted to inspect the Yun La Mountain mining site, they were shot at (IWGIA 2018, p. 345). There is, however, one notable exception — Salween Peace Park in the Karen state. This park is “a grass-roots, people-centered alternative to the centralised national park implementation process that usually results in indigenous peoples’ loss of land and livelihoods” (IWGIA 2018, p. 345; See also: Pearce 2020). Some Karen organi- zations are involved in the process like the Karen Environmental and Social Action Network as well as representatives from Karen villages (IWGIA 2018, p. 344). Despite the lack of relevant national regulations, there are multiple initiatives in Myanmar and Thailand that aim to improve the situation of indigenous peoples in both countries. For example, it the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foun- dation based in Chiang Mai, Thailand, is playing a key role in promoting solidar- ity, networking, and capacity-building among Indigenous Peoples in Asia. It also 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 459 helps local communities to link with international funders and advocates such as the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (Morton 2017c, p. 8) or The Indigenous Peoples’ Movement in Thailand (Morton 2016, p. 2). Similar initia- tives arise in Myanmar, such as the “Coalition of Indigenous Peoples in Myanmar/ Burma” created in 2015 as an umbrella organization representing 24 ethnic minor- ity NGOs. Its achievements include drawing attention to the lack of constitutional recognition of “Indigenous peoples” (IPs) by the Myanmar government and to the violation of their rights as enshrined in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (Morton 2017b, p. 2). Common experience, aspirations and differences — concluding remarks Both the European Saami and the Asian Karen are indigenous peoples. First of all, they both self-identify as indigenous but whereas the Saami are recognized as such by the States where they live, the Karen not necessarily are. Myanmar treats them as “national races” but not expressly as indigenous peoples, while Thailand does not recognise the existence of indigenous peoples. The characteristic feature of the Saami and the Karen — typical of most indigenous peoples — is their strong connection to and relations with their lands and natural resources. They have pre- served, at least in part, distinct social, economic and political systems and use dis- tinct languages (different dialects of the Saami language and Karen languages); they have distinct cultures, beliefs and unique indigenous knowledge. Furthermore, the Saami and the Karen are determined to preserve and develop their identity and dis- tinct social, economic and political institutions. One may as well state that even the requirements of historical continuity and priority in time are met as the Saami are the “first people” on their traditional land and territories now also inhabited by Nor - wegians, Swedes and Finns that came after them. With reference to the Karen the functional approach is relevant leading to a conclusion that they are in a non-domi- nant, marginalised position experiencing discrimination and even persecution. One could argue that certain Karen were also the first populations — or least preceding the rise of the Thai and Myanmar states — that settled in the mountainous regions that today are the Thai-Myanmar borderlands. Out of the three Nordic States and two Asian ones, only Norway has ratified the ILO Convention 169; however, all of them voted in favour of the UN Declaration. Moreover, Norway, Sweden and Finland have issued specific legislation pertain - ing to the Saami, first of all on the Saami parliaments. Nordic States’ Constitutions also contain provisions on the recognition of the Saami as indigenous peoples and/ or their cultural autonomy. With reference to Myanmar, the recognition of certain groups living as indigenous peoples is rather unclear in law and disputed in practice, hence the term “national races” was adopted. This — as a consequence — leads to the situation in which the Myanmar Constitution and other domestic laws do not acknowledge the concept of indigenous groups who have their own rights in accord- ance with international standards. Thailand does not recognize the existence of indigenous peoples in its territory at all. 1 3 460 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat What is common to both the Saami and the Karen is that they live in territories of more than one State. The transboundary factor has a specific meaning for the Saami as it is connected with the necessity of their reindeer herds to cross the State borders between winter and summer pastures. As all indigenous peoples, the Saami and the Karen depend on nature and natural resources. Hence, their lands and rights to them are crucial to them. They are not fully respected although the Saami are in a better situation. As mentioned, there have even been some progressive laws enacted recognizing Saami land rights to a broader extent, e.g. Finmark Act in Norway. Still, even in the case of the Saami very often hydroelectric dams or wind farms are built without their free, prior and informed consent, even though such projects seriously affect their way of live, especially the reindeer herding. The Saami land rights are sometimes violated as a result of ventures associated with renewable energy sources (hydroelectric dams or wind farms) that can lead to restrictions of the range of rein- deer pasture, and the rights and interests of the Saami in this regard are ignored. The situation of the Karen is similar as their villages and environment are destroyed by large constructions like hydroelectric dams. For example, in Thailand there is an unresolved problem of indigenous peoples’ access to land and natural resources and their natural resources and their conservation and management. Moreover, many Karen living inside national parks in Thailand have been evicted (Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact 2015, p. 34) in the name of forest conservation. As for indigenous peo- ples divided by national borders, Art. 36 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indig- enous Peoples (2007) reaffirms that such peoples have “the right to maintain and develop contacts, relationships and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other peoples across the borders”. Both of the indigenous peoples examined here aspire to self-governance (the Karen) or increased self-governance (the Saami, striving in particular for political autonomy). However, the difference between them is that the Saami have cultural autonomy and self-governance institutions (Saami parliaments) while the Karen lack any autonomy and self-governance bodies. To achieve these goals, both groups — the Karen in particular — may learn some lessons from each other and benefit from cooperation. Remembering that the situation of the Saami is much better than the Karen and taking into account that situation of the Karen is much worse than that of the Saami, including the persecution and even killings, the former still have organi- zations representing them, some of which were mentioned above. Hence, one may conclude that the Karen are politically and/or socially organized and as such they may initiate and maintain relations with the Saami parliaments or other Saami organ- isations, e.g. the Saami Council. Such contacts are possible within international bod- ies such as the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which meets annually. The representatives of States, indigenous peoples, indigenous peo- ples’ organisations, civil societies, inter-governmental organizations and academia take part in its sessions (see the website of the Expert Mechanism). Another pos- sibility might be participation in events such as the World Conference on Indigenous See for example the building of the Markbygden wind farm: Burgess 2010 online. 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 461 Peoples (2014). Through such channels the Saami and the Karen may be in contact and exchange their experience and aspirations. Their similarities will clearly con- tribute to better understanding and cooperation built on these foundations. The first goal that the Karen could attempt to achieve in order for their situation to improve is to gain recognition as indigenous peoples by the States in which they live. Despite the fact that their rights, individual and collective, are inherent and independent of any recognition by States, the reality is that the States must show political will to respect these rights. It is worth stressing that this is their legal as well as moral obli- gation. Obviously a mere recognition is not sufficient and it must be followed by implementation of indigenous rights. The obligation to implement these rights flows from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which, despite being formally non-binding, consolidates existing indigenous rights and may also reflect international customary law (Conservation and indigenous peoples’ rights… 2016, para. 22). Funding The authors take all responsibility for preparing and conducting the research. Declarations Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Act on the Saami Parliament (1995). Finlex. http:// www. finlex. fi/ en/ laki/ kaann okset/ 1995/ en199 50974. Accessed 18 July 2019. Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 concerning the Sameting (the Saami parliament) and other Saami legal mat- ters (the Saami Act) (1987). https:// www. regje ringen. no/ en/ dokum enter/ the- Saami- act-/ id449 701/. Accessed 21 June 2019. Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2012). Opinion on Sweden, https:// www. coe. int/ en/ web/ minor ities/ home?p_ p_ id= 101&p_ p_ lifec ycle= 0&p_ p_ state= maxim ized&p_ p_ mode= view&_ 101_ struts_ actio n=% 2Fass et_ publi sher% 2Fview_ conte nt&_ 101_ asse t Entr y Id= 15967 938&_ 101_ type= conte nt&_ 101_ ur lT i tle= sweden- de t ai ls& inher itRed irect= false. Accessed 22 June 2019. Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2017). Opinion on Sweden. https:// www. coe. int/ en/ web/ minor ities/ home?p_ p_ id =101&p_p_ lifecycle=0&p_p_st ate=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_101_str uts_action=%2Fasset_ publisher%2Fview_content&_101_assetEntr yId=15967938&_101_type=content&_101_ urlTitle=sweden-details&inheritRedirect=false. Accessed 22 June 2019. 1 3 462 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat Ahrén M (2004) Indigenous peoples’ culture, customs, and traditions and customary law – the Saami people’s perspective. Ariz J Int’l & Comp L 21(1):63–112 American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016). OAS. https:// www. oas. org/ en/ sare/ docum ents/ DecAm IND. pdf. Accessed 18 July 2019. Anaya J (1996) Indigenous Peoples in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford Arctic Human Development Report. Regional Processes and Global Linkages (2014). Nordic Council of Ministers. library.arcticportal.org/1840/1/AHDRFULLTEXT01.pdf. accessed 19 July 2019. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (2015) Indigenous Peoples and ASEAN Integration. Asian Development Bank (1998) Policy on Indigenous Peoples. https:// www. adb. org/ docum ents/ policy- indig enous- peopl es. Accessed on 22 June 2019. Baer LA (2005) The rights of indigenous peoples – a brief introduction in the context of the Sámi. Int’l J on Minority & Group Rts 12(2):245–267 Baird IG (2019) Indigenous peoples in Thailand: a contradictory interpretation. https:// theas iadia logue. com/ 2019/ 11/ 29/ indig enous- peopl es- in- thail and-a- contr adict ory- inter preta tion/. Accessed on 20 March 2021. Borchert N (2001) Land is Life. Traditional Sàmi Reindeer Grazing Threatened in Northern Sweden. https:// www. samet inget. se/ 6816. Accessed 5 June 2019. Bunikowski D (2014) Indigenous peoples, their rights and customary laws in the North: the case of the Sámi people. Nordia Geographical Publications Yrbk 43(1):75–85 Bunikowski D (2014) Sámi husbandry: legal-philosophical and cultural: anthropological dimensions. Rajshahi Univ L J 9:42–56 Bunikowski D (n.d.) Sámi reindeer husbandry as a way of life: on culture, philosophy, cosmology, and law. Academia. http:// www. acade mia. edu/ 22258 623/S% C3% A1mi_ reind eer_ husba ndry_ as_a_ way_ of_ life_ on_ cultu re_ philo sophy_ cosmo logy_ and_ law. Accessed 22 June 2019 Burgess P (2010) Saami Reindeer Herders in Sweden Lose Out to Wind Power. http:// reind eerhe rding. org/ blog/ Saami- reind eer- herde rs- in- sweden- lose- out- to- wind- power/? cn- reloa ded=1# more- 1371. Accessed 21 June 2019. Burma (Myanmar) Karen Cultural Profile. https:// world relie ffort worth. org/ burma- myanm ar- karen- cultu ral- profi le. Accessed on 17 March 2021. Clarke S L, Myint SAS, Siwa ZY (2019) Re-examining ethnic identity in Myanmar. https:// relie fweb. int/ sites/ relie fweb. int/ files/ resou rces/ Ethnic- Ident ity- in- Myanm ar. pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2021. Cobo JM (1986–7) Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, UN Doc E/ CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7. UN: New York. Conservation and indigenous peoples’ rights. Report to the General Assembly (2016). http:// unsr. vtaul icorp uz. org/ site/ index. php/ docum ents/ annual- repor ts/ 149- report- ga- 2016. Accessed 21 June 2019. Cultural Survival (2015) UN Special Rapporteur Releases Report to Human Rights Council on the Rights if Indigenous Women and Girls. https:// www. cultu ralsu rvival. org/ news/ un- speci al- rappo rteur- relea ses- report- human- rights- counc il- rights- indig enous- women- and- girls. Accessed 22 June 2019. Ethnic Minority Groups/Indigenous Peoples. https:// www. myanm ar- respo nsibl ebusi ness. org/ pdf/ SWIA/ Oil- Gas/ 11- Ethnic- Minor ities- Indig enous- Peopl es. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Ethnic Rights Protection Law (The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 8, 2015, The 7th Waxing of Taboung, 1376 M. E.) (2015). https:// www. point myanm ar. org/ sites/ point myanm ar. org/ files/ docum ent/ the_ eth- nic_ rights_ prote ction_ laweng- myan. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples (website): https:// www. ohchr. org/ EN/ Issues/ IPeop les/ EMRIP/ Pages/ EMRIP Index. aspx. Accessed 22 June 2019. Federal Law on the Guarantees of the Rights of the Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of 1999 (2017). In M Zadorin, O Klisheva, K Vezhlivtseva, D Antufieva, Russian Laws on Indigenous Issues. Guar - antees, Communities, Territories of Traditional Land Use: Translated and Commented. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi. Finmark Act (2005) https:// app. uio. no/ ub/ ujur/ overs atte- lover/ data/ lov- 20050 617- 085- eng. pdf. Accessed 19 May 2021 Finnish Constitution (1999). http:// www. finlex. fi/ fi/ laki/ kaann okset/ 1999/ en199 90731. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. ‘First Codicil and Supplement to the Frontier Treaty between the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden con- cerning the Lapps (done on 21st September/2nd October 1751)’, in particular Art. 10, in M. Moretti (2012). Int’l L and Nomadic People. Author House. Fitzmaurice M (2009) The New Developments Regarding the Saami Peoples of the North. Int’ J on Minority and Group Rts 16(1):67–156 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 463 Heinämäki L. et al. (2017) Actualizing Sámi Rights: International Comparative Research. Prime Minis- ter’s Office. Publications of the Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities 4/2017. http:// tieto kaytt oon. fi/ julka isu? pubid= 16601. Accessed 22 June 2019. Hofverberg E (2020) Sweden: Supreme Court Recognizes Sami Indigenous Group’s Exclusive Right to Confer Hunting and Fishing Rights in Sami Area. https:// www. loc. gov/ law/ forei gn- news/ artic le/ sweden- supre me- court- recog nizes- sami- indig enous- groups- exclu sive- right- to- confer- hunti ng- and- fishi ng- rights- in- sami- area/. Accessed 15 February 2021. Hossain K (2016) Securitizing the Arctic indigenous peoples: a community security perspective with spe- cial reference to the Sámi of the European high north. Polar Sci 10(3):415–424 Huntington H P (2013) Provisioning and Cultural Services. In Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. https:// www. arcti cbiod ivers ity. is/ index. php/ the- report. Accessed 14 February 2021. I am Sámi. Short documentary (2017). https:// www. youtu be. com/ watch? v=- c18xN xFUSY & fbclid= IwAR1 DQddc HVDlw 5D5Tk_ Q9t34 BhVTQ 58GwG A4ZDy roKnY Bnt3s Czcsk HI3Wo. Accessed 18 February 2021). ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989). http:// www. ilo. org/ dyn/ norml ex/ en/f? p= NORML EXPUB: 12100: 0:: NO:: P12100_ ILO_ CODE: C169. Accessed 22 June 2019. Indigenous Peoples and ASEAN Integration (2015) Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact. http:// aippn et. org/ indig enous- peopl es- and- asean- integ ration/. Accessed 22 June 2019. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Business in Myanmar (2016). https:// themi mu. info/ sites/ themi mu. info/ files/ docum ents/ Paper_ Indig enous_ Peopl es_ Rights_ Busin ess_ in_ Myanm ar_ Feb20 16_ ENG. pdf.. Accessed 19 March 2021. Intercontinental Cry. Karen. https:// inter conti nenta lcry. org/ indig enous- peopl es/ karen/. Accessed 22 June International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (2016) The Indigenous World 2016. https:// www. iwgia. org/ images/ publi catio ns/ 0740_ THE_ INDIG ENOUS_ ORLD_ 2016_ final_ eb. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. IWGIA (2018). The Indigenous World. https:// www. iwgia. org/ images/ docum ents/ indig enous- world/ indig enous- world- 2018. pdf. Accessed on 23 March 2021. IWGIA (2020). The Indigenous World. https:// iwgia. org/ images/ yearb ook/ 2020/ IWGIA_ The_ Indig enous_ World_ 2020. pdf. Accessed on 17 March 2021. Karen Human Rights Group. ‘With only our voices, what can we do?’: Land confiscation and local response in southeast Myanmar. http:// khrg. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ full_ with_ only_ our_ voice s._-_ engli sh. pdf. Accessed on 22 June 2019. Kernell A (2016) Sameblod (film). Kinsbury B (2008) Indigenous Peoples in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Contro- versy. In: Erni Ch (ed) The Concept of Indigenous Peoples in Asia. Transaction Publishers, Copenha- gen, A Resource Book, pp 103–157 Koivurova T (2008) The Draft Nordic Saami Convention: Nations Working Together. International Commu- nity Law Review 10:279–283 Koivurova T et al (2015) Legal protection of Sami traditional livelihoods from the adverse impacts of min- ing: a comparison of the level of protection enjoyed by Sami in their four home states. Arctic Review on Law and Politics 6(1):11–51 MacKay F (2005) The draft World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 on indigenous peoples: progress of more of the same. Ariz J of Int’l and Comp L 22 (1): 65–98. Magnarella PJ (2001–2002) The evolving right of self-determination of indigenous peoples. St. Thomas L Rev 14 (2): 425–447. Meijknecht A (2002–2003) The (re-)emergence of indigenous peoples as actors in international law. Tilburg Foreign L Rev 10 (4): 315–324. Morton MF (2016) The indigenous peoples’ movement in Thailand expands. Perspective 68:1–12 Morton MF (2017a) Reframing the boundaries of indigeneity: state-based ontologies and assertions of dis- tinction and compatibility in Thailand. American Anthropologist 0: 1–13. Morton MF (2017b) Indigenous peoples work to raise their status in a reforming Myanmar, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Perspective. https:// www. iseas. edu. sg/ images/ pdf/ ISEAS_ Persp ective_ 2017_ 33. pdf% 20. Accessed on 23 March 2021. Morton MF (2017c) The Rising Politics of Indigeneity in Southeast Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Stud- ies Trends 14/2017. https:// www. iseas. edu. sg/ images/ pdf/ TRS14_ 17. pdf. Accessed on 21 March 2021. Myanmar Constitution (2008) https:// www. wipo. int/ edocs/ lexdo cs/ laws/ en/ mm/ mm009 en. pdf. Accessed 21 June 2019. 1 3 464 A. Szpak, M. Ochwat Myanmar: Ethnic Politics and the 2020 General Election (2020). https:// www. tni. org/ files/ publi cation- downl oads/ bpb23_ def_ 26092 020_ highr es. pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2021. Neiman A, MSW, Soh E, BSN, RN, Sutan P (2008) Karen. https:// ethno med. org/ cultu re/ karen/# naming. Accessed on 12 March 2021. Nordic Saami Convention (2005). https:// www. samet inget. se/ 105173. Accessed 14 February 2021. Norwegian Constitution (the Constitution, as laid down on 17 May 1814 by the Constituent Assembly at Eidsvoll and subsequently amended, most recently in May 2016). https:// www. stort inget. no/ globa lasse ts/ pdf/ engli sh/ const ituti oneng lish. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Oguamanam Ch (2004) Indigenous peoples and international law: the making of a regime. Queen’s L J 30(1):348–399 Operational Policy 4.10 (World Bank) (2005). https:// polic ies. world bank. org/ sites/ ppf3/ PPFDo cumen ts/ 09022 4b082 2f89d5. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Pearce F (2020) Amid Tensions in Myanmar, An Indigenous Park of Peace Is Born. https:// e360. yale. edu/ featu res/ amid- tensi ons- in- myanm ar- an- indig enous- park- of- peace- is- born? Accessed 24 March 2021. Ravna Ø (2009) Sámi Legal Culture – and its Place in Norwegian Law, 151–159. https:// uit. no/ Conte nt/ 219672/ cac he= 20180 80104 4221/ Saami% 20Leg al% 20Cul ture% 20-% 20and% 20its% 20Pla ce% 20in% 20Nor w.% 20Law% 2C% 20in% 20Ren dezvo us% 20of% 20Eur opean% 20Leg al% 20Cul tures. pdf. Accessed 14 February 2021. Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities submitted in accordance with the “Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa (2005). World Conference on Indigenous Peoples http:// www. iwgia. org/ iwgia_ files_ publi catio ns_ files/ Afric an_ Commi ssion_ book. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya. Addendum. Consulta- tion on the situation of indigenous peoples in Asia (A/HRC/24/41/Add.3) (2013). https:// docum ents- dds- ny. un. org/ doc/ UNDOC/ GEN/ G13/ 160/ 49/ PDF/ G1316 049. pdf? OpenE lement. Accessed 14 Febru- ary 2021. Report Truth and reconciliation process concerning Sámi issues (2018) Report on hearings, Prime Minister’s Office Publications 15/2018 32–35, http:// julka isut. valti oneuv osto. fi/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10024/ 161203/ 15_ 18_ Saame laist en% 20asi oita% 20kos keva% 20sov intop roses si_ EN. pdf? seque nce= 1& isAll owed=y. Accessed 14 February 2021 Roy A J (2001). Sovereignty and Decolonization: Realizing Indigenous Self-Determination at the United Nations and in Canada. https:// web. archi ve. org/ web/ 20130 31908 1054/ http:// web. uvic. ca/ igov/ resea rch/ pdfs/ audrey_ roy_ thesi sfinal. pdf. Accessed 5 June 2019. Saami in Sweden. Preserving indigenous culture in the Arctic. Facts about Sweden. https:// sweden. se/ socie ty/ Saami- in- sweden/. Accessed 22 June 2019. Sarivaara E, Maatta K, Uusiautti S (2013) Who is indigenous? Definitions of indigeneity. Eur Sci J 1:369–378 Schreiber H (2009) Ludy tubylcze jako nowy aktor we współczesnych stosunkach międzynarodowych. In Piwnicki G and Mrozowska S (eds) Jednostka-społeczeństwo-państwo wobec megatrendów współczesnego świata. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk, pp. 297–308. Seekins DM (2006) Historical Dictionary of Burma (Myanmar). The Scarecrow Press, Inc., Lanham, Mary- land Toronto Oxford Steinberg DI (2010) Burma/Myanmar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, What everyone needs to know Stoyanova IL (2013) The Saami facing the impacts of global climate change. In: Abate R, Kronk EA (eds) Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: The Search for Legal Remedies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 287–312 Swedish Instrument of Government. http:// www. riksd agen. se/ globa lasse ts/ 07.- dokum ent-- lagar/ the- const ituti on- of- sweden- 160628. pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. Symonides J (2007) Prawa ludów tubylczych w regulacjach międzynarodowych. In Ludy tubylcze. Czwarty Świat, dziedzictwo kolonializmu, skanseny świata czy partnerzy narodów? Comandor, Warszawa, pp. 235–54. Szpak A (2018) The right of indigenous peoples to self-determination: international law perspective. Ath- enaeum. Polish Political Studies 59:178–204 Thailand Constitution (2017). http:// const ituti onnet. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2017- 05/ CONST ITUTI ON+ OF+ THE+ KINGD OM+ OF+ THAIL AND+ (B. E.+ 2560+ (2017)). pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019. The Citizenship Act (1982). https:// www. refwo rld. org/ docid/ 3ae6b 4f71b. html. Accessed on 10 March 2021. The Karen Struggle for Self-Determination in Kawthoolei (2018). https: // www .burmalink.org / the-karen- walka-o-self-definition-in-kawthoolei /. Accessed on 16 March 2021. 1 3 The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences… 465 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN GA res. 61/295) (2007). http:// resea rch. un. org/ en/ docs/ ga/ quick/ regul ar/ 61. Accessed 22 June 2019. UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues (2008) New York: Department of Social and Economic Affairs. http:// www. un. org/ esa/ socdev/ unpfii/ docum ents/ resou rce_ kit_ indig enous_ 2008. pdf. Accessed 18 July 2019. Wiessner S (2001) The Cultural Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Achievements and Continuing Challenges. EJIL 22(1):121–140 Woodard K (n.d.) The Saami v. Outsiders. https:// www. laits. utexas. edu/ Saami/ dieda/ hist/ Saami- west. htm. Accessed 22 June 2019. World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (2014) https:// www. un. org/ devel opment/ desa/ indig enous peopl es/ about- us/ world- confe rence. html. Accessed 22 June 2019. Yin SM, Elias J (2012) Cultures of the world. Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, New York Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3
Journal
Asia Europe Journal – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 1, 2021