Arguments from Cultural Ecology and Legal Pluralism for Recognising Indigenous Customary Law in the Arctic

  • Dawid BunikowskiEmail author
  • Patrick Dillon
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)


The topic of this book concerns protection of sacred sites in the Arctic. To recognise indigenous customary law means to support indigenous customary protection of such sacred sites. It also implies safeguarding cultural heritage in the Arctic. Both legal pluralism and cultural ecology help us understand indigenous customary laws in the Arctic and why we should recognise them. The aim of this chapter is to explain the relations between cultural ecology and legal pluralism in making a case for the recognition of indigenous customary law in the Arctic. It is not about human rights or international public law. It does not deal with any substantial law. However, the implications of the ideas presented here concern constitutional law, cultural autonomy, political autonomy, international law, and the concept of sovereignty. The ideas refer also to the problem of ethos as the basis of every law and society.


Indigenous People Legal Order State Party State Court Legal Pluralism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahrén, M. (2004). Indigenous peoples’ culture, customs, and traditions and customary law – the sámi people’s perspective. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 21(1), 63–112.Google Scholar
  2. Ardito, W. (1997). The right to self-regulation. Legal pluralism and human rights in Peru. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 39, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayliss, P., & Dillon, P. (2010). Cosmologies and lifestyles: A cultural ecological framework and its implications for education systems. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 19(2), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bederman, D. J. (2010). Custom as a source of law. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besson, J. (1999). Folk law and legal pluralism in Jamaica. A view from the plantation-peasant interface. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 43, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunikowski, D. (2014a). Indigenous peoples, their rights and customary laws in the North: the case of the Sámi people. In: Lähteenmäki M, Colpaert A (Eds.) East meets North – Crossing the borders of the Arctic. In: Nordia Geographical Publications, 43(1):75–85. Yearbook 2014, Oulu. Cited 15 Jan 2015.
  7. Bunikowski, D. (2014b). Notes on the contemporary legal-political situation of the Sami in the Nordic region. In T. Koivurova & W. Hasanat (Eds.), Current developments in Arctic Law (Vol. 2, pp. 20–25). Rovaniemi: The University of the Arctic.Google Scholar
  8. Bunikowski, D., & Dobrzeniecki, K. (Eds). (2009). Pluralizm prawny. Tradycja, transformacje, wyzwania (Legal pluralism. Tradition, transformations, challenges). Toruń: UMK.Google Scholar
  9. Care, J. C., & Zorn, J. G. (2001). Statutory developments in melanesian customary law. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 46, 49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Sousa, S. B. (1987). Law: a map of misreading. Toward a postmodern conception of law. Journal of Law and Society, 14(3), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Sousa, S. B. (2006). The heterogeneous and legal pluralism in Mozambique. Law & Society Review, 40(1), 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Waal, A. (2005). Steps towards the stabilization. Governance and livelihoods in Darfur, Sudan. Washington, DC: The United States Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  13. Dickinson, J. (1929a). The law behind law. Columbia Law Review, 29(2), 113–146. doi: 10.2307/1113172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickinson, J. (1929b). The law behind law: II. Columbia Law Review, 29(3), 285–319. doi: 10.2307/1113739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillon, P. (2008). Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship – niches of cultural production. In A. Craft, H. Gardner, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Creativity and wisdom in education. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dillon, P. (2015). Education for sustainable development in a cultural ecological frame. In R. Jucker & R. Mathar (Eds.), Schooling for sustainable development. A focus on Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dillon, P., Bayliss, P., Stolpe, I., & Bayliss, L. (2008). What constitutes ‘context’ in sociocultural research. How the Mongolian experience challenges theory. Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 4, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillon, P., Bayliss, P., & Bayliss, L. (2013). Turn left for Murmansk: ‘Fourth World’ transculturalism and its cultural ecological framing. Barents Studies, 1(1), 97–110.Google Scholar
  19. Dundes Renteln, A., & Dundes, A. (Eds.). (1994). Folk law. Essays in the theory and practice of Lex Non Scripta: volume I. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Falk Moore, S. (1973). Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law and Society Review, 7(4, summer), 719–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fourneret, J. (2006). France: banning legal pluralism by passing a law. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 29, 233–249.Google Scholar
  22. Galanter, M. (1981). Justice in many rooms: courts, private ordering, and indigenous law. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 19, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 24(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guillet, D. (1998). Rethinking legal pluralism: local law and state law in the evolution of water property rights in the Northwestern Spain. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40(1), 42–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart, H. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. H. (2003). The root causes of Sudan’s civil wars. Updated to the Peace Agreement. The International Africa Inst./ Indiana Univ Press, Nairobi-Oxford-Kampala-Bloomington&Indianapolis (updated – Malaysa 2007).Google Scholar
  27. Jok, J. M. (2007). Sudan. Race, religion, violence. Oxford: Oneworld.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, D. (2007). One, two, three, many legal orders: legal pluralism and the cosmopolitan dream. N.Y.U. Review of Law and Social Change, 31, 641–659.Google Scholar
  29. Koivurova, T. (2008). The draft nordic sámi convention: nations working together. International Community Law Review, 10, 279–293. Cited 4 Feb 2014
  30. Kulonen, U. M., Seurujärvi, I., & Pulkkinen, R. (Eds.). (2005). The Sámi. A cultural encyclopaedia. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
  31. Levi, J. (2008). Three perversities of indian law. Texas Review of Law and Politics, 12(2), 330–366. Cited 9 May 2016.
  32. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1948a). La Vie familiale et sociale des Indiens Nambikwara. Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1948b). Les Structures élémentaires de la parenté. Paris: La Haye.Google Scholar
  34. Llewellyn, K. N. (1940). The normative, the legal, and the law-jobs: the problem of juristic method. The Yale Law Journal, 49(8), 1355–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacCormick, N. (1993). Beyond the sovereign state. The Modern Law Review, 56(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macdonald, R. A. (1998). Metaphors of multiplicity: civil society, regimes and legal pluralism. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15(1), 69–91.Google Scholar
  37. Malinowski, B. (1959). Crime and custom in savage society. Patterson: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
  38. Meredith, M. (2005). The fate of Africa. From the hopes of freedom to the heart of despair. A history of fifty years of independence. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  39. Minattur, J. (1994). The nature of malay customary law. In A. Dundes Renteln & A. Dundes (Eds.), Folk law. Essays in the theory and practice of lex non scripta: volume I. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Mustonen, T. (2013). Oral histories as a baseline of landscape restoration – co-management and watershed knowledge in Jukajoki River. Fennia, 191(2), 76–91.Google Scholar
  41. Mustonen, T., & Lehtinen, A. (2013). Arctic earthviews: cyclic passing of knowledge among the indigenous communities in the Eurasian North. Sibirica, 12(1), 39–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mustonen, T., & Syrjämäki, E. (Eds.). (2013). It is the Sámi who own this land. Sacred landscapes and oral histories of the Jokkmokk Sámi. Letho: Snowchange Cooperative.Google Scholar
  43. Osherenko, G. (2001). Indigenous rights in Russia: is title to land essential for cultural survival? The Georgetown International Environmental Law, 13, 695–734.Google Scholar
  44. Pennanen, J. (2003). The sacred sieidi – a link between human beings and the divinities of nature. In J. Pennanen & K. Näkkäläjärvi (Eds.), Siidastallan. From lapp communities to modern sámi life. Inari: The Inari Sámi Museum.Google Scholar
  45. Pennanen, J., & Näkkäläjärvi, K. (Eds.). (2003). Siidastallan. Inari: From Lapp Communities to Modern Sámi Life. The Inari Sámi Museum.Google Scholar
  46. Pentikäinen, J. (1998). Shamanism and culture. Etnika: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  47. Perez, O. (2003). Normative creativity and global legal pluralism: reflections on the democratic critique of transnational law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2), 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Porsanger, J. (2003). A close relationship to nature – The basis of religion. In J. Pennanen & K. Näkkäläjärvi (Eds.), Siidastallan. From lapp communities to modern sámi life. Inari: The Inari Sámi Museum.Google Scholar
  49. Ray, D. I., & van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal, A. B. (1996). Divided sovereignty. Traditional authorities and the State in Ghana: the conference; major themes; reflections on chieftaincy in Africa; future directions. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 37–38, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sara, M. N. (2002). The Sami Siida institution as a social and an ecological regulation system. In: Soppela, P., et al. (Ed.), Arctic Centre report 38. Reindeer as a keystone species in the North – biological, cultural and socio-economic aspects. Proceedings of the 1st CAES PhD course, 1–15 September 2000, northern Finland, Finnmark, Norway, and Kola Peninsula, Russia. Arctic Centre, Rovaniemi, pp. 23–27.Google Scholar
  51. Schaefer, A. (2006). Resolving deadlock: why international organisations introduce soft law. European Law Journal, 12(2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shadid, W., & van Koningsveld, P. S. (Eds.). (2005). Muslim dress in Europe: debates on the headscarf. Journal of Islamic Studies, 16(1), 35–61. doi: 10.1093/jis/eti002.
  53. Soon-Tay, A. E. (1984). China and legal pluralism. Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosoph, 8(31), 23–43.Google Scholar
  54. Steward, J. (1955). Theory of culture change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sur, S. (1997). The state between fragmentation and globalization. European Journal of International Law, 8(3), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Svensson, T. G. (2002). Indigenous rights and customary law discourse: comparing the Nisga’a and the Sámi. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 47, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tamanaha, B. Z. (1993). The folly of the social scientific concept of legal pluralism. Journal of Law and Society, 20(2), 192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2008). Understanding legal pluralism: past to present, local to global. Sydney Law Review, 30, 375–411.Google Scholar
  59. Teubner, G. (1991–1992). The two faces of janus: rethinking legal pluralism. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 1443–1462.Google Scholar
  60. van Cott, D. L. (2000). A political analysis of legal pluralism in Bolivia and Colombia. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(1), 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanderlinden, J. (1989). Return to legal pluralism: Twenty years later. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 28, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Viola, F. (2007). The rule of law in legal pluralism. In T. Gizbert-Studnicki & J. Stelmach (Eds.), Law and legal cultures in the 21st century. Warsaw: Diversity and Unity. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  63. von Benda-Beckmann, F. (2002). Who’s afraid of legal pluralism?. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 47, 37–82Google Scholar
  64. von Benda-Beckmann, K. (2002). Globalisation and legal pluralism. International law FORUM de droit international, 4, 19–25.Google Scholar
  65. Von Uexkull, J. (2014). Judicial activism. Resurgence & Ecologist (285, July/August), 14–16.Google Scholar
  66. Westermarck, E. (1994). Customs connected with homicide in Morocco. In A. Dundes Renteln & A. Dundes (Eds.), Folk law. Essays in the theory and practice of lex non scripta: volume I. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Historical International Treaty

  1. First Codicil and Supplement to the Frontier Treaty between the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden concerning the Lapps (done on 21st September/2nd October 1751).Google Scholar

International Law

  1. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (Entry into force: 5 Sep 1991).Google Scholar
  2. The Nordic Sámi Convention (draft). Available in English at the Sámi Council website: Cited 4 Nov 2014.

International Statements by the Government of Finland

  1. Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Finland, Human Rights Committee, 22 August 2013 (on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Cited 5 Jan 2015.
  2. Concluding observations on the 20th to 22nd periodic reports of Finland adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination at its 81st session in 2012. Information provided by the Government of Finland on its follow-up to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 12, 13 and 16, 30 August 2013. Cited 4 Nov 2014.

International Statement by the Sámi People

  1. Statement by Finnish Sámi Parliament on the Realization of Sámi People’s Right to Self-determination in Finland Presented by the President of the Sámi Parliament of Finland Juvvá Lemet, Mr. Klemetti Näkkäläjärvi. Cited 4 Nov 2014.
  2. Declaration from the First Sami Parliamentarian Conference. Jokkmokk, 24 February 2005. Cited 23 Jan 2015.

Comparative Constitutional Legal Acts

    Northern Europe

    1. Sections 17 and 121 of Finland’s Constitution of 1999.Google Scholar
    2. Article 2 of The Instrument of Government of 1974 (Sweden).Google Scholar
    3. Art. 110a of Norway’s Constitution of 1814 (amended in 1987).Google Scholar
    4. Art. 69 of the Russian Constitution of 1993.Google Scholar
    5. Art. 21 of Code of the Murmansk Oblast of 1997.Google Scholar

Other Regions

  1. The Constitution of Peru of 1993 (art. 149).Google Scholar
  2. The Peruvian Criminal Code (art. 15).Google Scholar
  3. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Ratified. 26 January, 2004 (unofficial English translation).Google Scholar
  4. The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan 2005 (art. 20.2).Google Scholar

Finnish Law

  1. Act on the Sámi Parliament (974/1995), especially sections 1, 4, 5, 9.Google Scholar
  2. Sámi Language Act (1086/2003), especially section 2.Google Scholar
  3. The Reindeer Husbandry Act (848/1990). Cited 11 May 2016.
  4. The Reindeer Husbandry Decree (883/1990). Cited 11 May 2016.
  5. The Mining Act (621/2011). (Section 50 – Obstacles to granting of a permit in the Sámi Homeland, the Skolt area, or a special reindeer herding area). Cited 11 May 2016.
  6. The Water Act of 1961. Cited 11 May 2016.

Nordic Case Law

  1. “The Taxed Mountains case” of 1981 (Sweden). Nytt JuridisktArkiv (NJA) Avd. 1, Rattsfall fran Hogsta Domsto/en 1981, p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. The Könkämä and 38 other Sámi villages against Sweden case of 1996 (EHCR, Application No. 27033/95).Google Scholar

Canadian Legal Acts

  1. (available at Justice Laws website: Cited 11 May 2016).
  2. The Royal Proclamation of 1763.Google Scholar
  3. Section 91.24 of the Constitution Act of 1867.Google Scholar
  4. The Manitoba Act of 1870.Google Scholar
  5. Subsection 35 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.Google Scholar
  6. The Indian Act of 1876.Google Scholar
  7. The Metis Settlements Act of Alberta of 1990.Google Scholar
  8. The British Columbia Adoption Act of 1996, s.s. 46 (1) and 46 (2).Google Scholar
  9. The Northwest Territories Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act of 1994.Google Scholar
  10. The Employment Equity Act of 1985 (subsequently amended in 1995).Google Scholar

Canadian Case Law

  1. Calder v. British Columbia (AG) [1973] S.C.R. 313, [1973] 4 W.W.R.Google Scholar
  2. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010.Google Scholar
  3. R. v. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C.R.Google Scholar
  4. R. v. McPherson [1994] 2 C.N.L.R. 137 (Man Q.B.).Google Scholar
  5. R. v. Van der Peet [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507.Google Scholar
  6. R. v. Sioui [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025.Google Scholar
  7. Thomas v. Norris [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 139 (B.C.S.C.).Google Scholar
  8. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511.Google Scholar
  9. Casimel v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [1994] 2 C.N.L.R. 22 (B.C.C.A.).Google Scholar
  10. Manychief v. Poffenroth [1994], [1995] 3 W.W.R. 210, [1995] 2 C.N.L.R. 67 (Alta. Q.B.).Google Scholar
  11. Cheechoo v. R. [1981] 3 C.N.L.R. 45 (Ont. District Ct.).Google Scholar

Canadian Land Claims Agreements

  1. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. Cited 11 May 2016.
  2. The Inuvialiut Final Agreement (The Western Arctic Claim Settlement) of 1984. Cited 11 May 2016.
  3. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement-In-Principle of 2005. Cited 11 May 2016.
  4. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (S.C. 1993, c. 29).Google Scholar

Canadian Self-Government Agreements

  1. Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act (S.C. 1986, c. 27).Google Scholar
  2. The Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement (S.C. 2004, c. 17).Google Scholar
  3. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. Cited 11 May 2016.
  4. The Nisga’a Final Agreement of 1999. Cited 8 Nov 2014.

Documents Made by the Government of Canada

  1. Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult of 2008. Cited 11 May 2016.
  2. The Government of Canada Agenda for Action with First Nations of 1998. Cited 11 May 2016.
  3. The Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership. Cited 11 May 2016.
  4. The Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy. Cited 11 May 2016.

Research Project

  1. Multiculturalism Policy in Contemporary Democracies. Queen’s University, Kingston. Canada (available as “Multiculturalism Policy Index”)., Cited 4 Nov 2014. Go to the link: Indigenous peoples-Canada.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff Law SchoolCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  3. 3.Torun School of BankingTorunPoland
  4. 4.College of Social Sciences and International StudiesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  5. 5.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations