Is Nonterritorial Autonomy Wrong for Indigenous Rights? Examining the ‘Territorialisation’ of Sami Power in Norway
Nonterritorial autonomy ( nta ) decouples governance of ‘people’ and ‘place’, allowing demographically submerged minorities to protect their cultural – but not territorial – interests. Indigenous peoples are often submerged and culturally vulnerable. At the same time, they are often especially inter...
| Published in: | International Journal on Minority and Group Rights |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Brill
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718115-28030005 https://brill.com/view/journals/ijgr/aop/article-10.1163-15718115-28030005/article-10.1163-15718115-28030005.xml https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/ijgr/aop/article-10.1163-15718115-28030005/article-10.1163-15718115-28030005.xml |
| Summary: | Nonterritorial autonomy ( nta ) decouples governance of ‘people’ and ‘place’, allowing demographically submerged minorities to protect their cultural – but not territorial – interests. Indigenous peoples are often submerged and culturally vulnerable. At the same time, they are often especially interested in protecting the territories that have long sustained them. So, is nta well-suited or ill-suited for Indigenous self-governance? To explore this, we study Norwegian Sami self-governance, an oft-cited case of Indigenous nta . We make several contributions. We enumerate the variety of Sami-specific rights and powers in Norway, categorising them as either territorial or nonterritorial and tracking their evolution over time. By doing this we reveal that Sami self-governance has recently taken a ‘territorial turn’. We explore why this has happened, concluding it is due to the insufficiency of nta . Finally, we discuss likely limits to further Sami territorialisation. |
|---|