| Summary: | The way in which the rights of Indigenous peoples are protected at the European level consistently differs from how these rights are protected by other regional systems (for example, the Interamerican Court and Interamerican Commission of Human Rights), as well as by the organizations of universal and international scope that deal with this issue. Despite the fact that the European system is generally regarded as “the world’s most successful international system for and implementation of human rights”, it is arguably believed that it did not satisfactorily address Indigenous human right issues in its case law (see e.g. Alta Case 1983; Könkämä v. Sweden 1996; Johti Sapmelaccat Ry v. Finland 2005; Hingitaq 53 v. Denmark 2006). At present, new menaces are endangering Indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities. Climate change, biodiversity loss and other dramatic environmental impacts are jeopardising the survival – social, physical and cultural - of many Indigenous peoples around the globe, and this trend is demonstrated in international human rights litigation through lawsuit that have been brought before international human rights courts and commissions. The Inuits, the Athabaskans, and the Sami are different Indigenous peoples – both geographically and culturally – united by having filed lawsuits contending that climate change has provoked gross violations of their fundamental human rights. This paper aims at investigating from a critical legal studies perspective the interlinkages between such different lawsuits, highlighting issues in the international realm of human rights when it comes to addressing Indigenous complaints at the supra-state level in climate litigation. The paper will also aim at presenting and exploring potential venues for redress of climate injustice-related harm for Indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities in Europe who are, or might be, affected by climate change impacts (for example the Saami people), with the aim of evidencing how Indigenous rights should be ...
|
|---|