Legal Protection of Sacred Natural Sites Within Human Rights Jurisprudence: Sápmi and Beyond

  • Dwight NewmanEmail author
  • Elisa Ruozzi
  • Stefan Kirchner
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)


The protection of Indigenous sacred natural sites does not fit easily within Western freedom of religion jurisprudence. This chapter examines what room there is for sacred natural sites within regional human rights jurisprudence, in Europe and beyond. The authors ultimately argue that there is potential to develop freedom of religion so as to offer protection to sacred natural sites, particularly if weight is given to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).


Protection of sacred natural sites Human rights instruments Freedom of religion Inter-American court of human rights European convention on human rights United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 


  1. Adhar, R. (2003). Indigenous spiritual concerns and the secular state: Some New Zealand developments. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23(4), 611–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akwé:Kon Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities, (2004) Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity at n.27 lett.d., endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity COP 7 Decision VII/16, [Akwé:Kon]
  3. Beaman, L. G. (2002). Aboriginal spirituality and the legal construction of freedom of religion. Journal of Church & State, 44(1), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, B. L. (2007). Law’s religion: Rendering culture. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 45(2), 277–314.Google Scholar
  5. DBK: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz 2003 Die Katholische Kirche in Deutschland und die Denkmalpflege - Hintergründe, Fakten, Perspektiven – Grundinformation. Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 2003,
  6. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, G.A. Res. 61/295, 13 September 2007, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/1.Google Scholar
  7. ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights. 1950, November 4. European Treaty Series No. 5.Google Scholar
  8. ECHR-P1: Protocol (1) to the European Convention on Human Rights. 1952, March 20 European Treaty Series No. 9.Google Scholar
  9. Errico, S. (2011). The controversial issue of natural resources: Balancing states’ sovereignty with indigenous peoples’ rights. In S. Allen & A. Xanthaki (Eds.), Reflections on the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Oxford: Hard Publishing 599 p.Google Scholar
  10. Fox, J. (2008). A world survey of religion and the state (400 p). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinämäki, L. (2010). The right to be a part of nature – Indigenous peoples and the environment, PhD Thesis, Lapland University Press, Rovaniemi. 380 p.Google Scholar
  12. ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).Google Scholar
  13. ILO169: International Labor Organization, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, Convention No. 169, 17 June 1989.Google Scholar
  14. Jiménez, M. (2010). “French Guiana: Federation of Indigenous Organizations of French Guiana” (Fédération des Organisations Autochtones de Guyane, FOAG), 2010, Last accessed 10 Sep 2014.
  15. Koivurova, T. 2011. “Jurisprudence of the European court of human rights regarding indigenous peoples: Retrospect and prospects”. 18 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 1.Google Scholar
  16. Kuppe, R. (2009). Religious freedom law and the protection of sacred sites. In T. G. Kirsch & B. Turner (Eds.), Permutations of order: Religion and law as contested sovereignties (288 p). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Newman, D. (2011). Community and collective rights: A theoretical framework for rights held by groups (260 p). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Pasqualucci, J. M. (2006). The evolution of international indigenous rights in the Inter-American human rights system. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), 281–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poelzer, G., & Fondahl, G. 1997. “Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North” (1997): 21 Cultural Survival Quarterly Last accessed 10 Sept 2014.
  20. Pulkkinen, R. (2005a). Bassi. In U. M. Kulonen, I. Seurujärvi-Kari, & R. Pulkkinen (Eds.), The sámi – A cultural encyclopedia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  21. Pulkkinen, R. (2005b). Sieidi. In U. M. Kulonen, I. Seurujärvi-Kari, & R. Pulkkinen (Eds.), The sámi – A cultural encyclopedia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  22. Reid, K. (2007). A practitioner’s guide to the European convention on human rights (3rd ed.911 p). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  23. Swartz, M. E. 2010. “By Birth or By Choice? The Intersection of Racial and Religious Discrimination in School Admissions” 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 229.Google Scholar
  24. Uimonen, J. 2014. From Unitary State to Plural, Asymmetric State – Indigenous Quest in France, New Zealand and Canada. Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press, at 150. 421 p.Google Scholar
  25. van Niekerk, G. J. 2007. “Death and Sacred Spaces in South Africa and America: a legal-anthropological perspective of conflicting values” 40 Comp & Int’l L J of Southern Africa 30.Google Scholar

Case Law

  1. C. v. United Kingdom, Application No. 10358/83, Decision of 15 December 1983, p. 147. [C. v. UK]Google Scholar
  2. Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, §118, ECHR 2001-XII. [Metropolitan]Google Scholar
  3. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of June 27, 2012, IACtHR. (Ser C) No. 172 [Sarayaku] at para. 149.Google Scholar
  4. Caso Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku, Medias Provisionales, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 17, 2005 [Sarayaku MP] at 31.Google Scholar
  5. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2001, IACtHR. (Ser C) No. 79 [Awas Tingni] at 23.Google Scholar
  6. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 15, 2005, IACtHR. (Ser C) No. 124 [Moiwana] at para. 132.Google Scholar
  7. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 28, 2007, IACtHR. (Ser C) No. 172 [Saramaka] at para. 86.Google Scholar
  8. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of March 29, 2006, IACtHR. (Ser C) No. 146 [Sawhoyamaxa] at para 120.Google Scholar
  9. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 24, 2010, IACtHR. (Ser. C) No. 214 [Xákmok] at paras. 177–78.Google Scholar
  10. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Sep. Op Trindade, IACtHR. (Ser. C) No. 214 [Xákmok Sep. Op] at para. 57.Google Scholar
  11. Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37. [Alberta].Google Scholar
  12. Beadle v. Minister of Corrections, Env Ct, A 74/02, 4 April 2002. [Beadle].Google Scholar
  13. Congrégation de témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (City), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650, 2004 SCC 48. [SJL].Google Scholar
  14. Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada, 2015 SCC 1 at para. 64. [Ontario].Google Scholar
  15. Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, 2004 SCC 47. [Amselem].Google Scholar
  16. United States Supreme Court, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 US 439 (1988). [Lyng].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of LawUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of LawUniversity of TurinTorinoItaly
  3. 3.Arctic CentreUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations