70
o
80
o
60
o
Arctic Human Development Report
Law provides a necessary framework for the
social, economic, and ecological goals of sus-
tainable development. We cannot manage natu-
ral systems, but we can try to manage the
human element of interactions between social
systems and natural systems. Law is a key tool
in managing those interactions. Law helps us
define such fundamental concepts as property
and ownership. It serves to allocate rights and
responsibilities and to define and protect the
human rights of individuals and peoples.
Following some brief comments on global
trends and basic characteristics of the legal sys-
tems of the Arctic states, this chapter pursues
three basic themes. The first is an increased
recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights. The
second discusses resource ownership. The third
is the increased transfer of legal authority to
regional governments. Each addresses how
Arctic regions can reassert control over land and
resources. A separate short article offers a cri-
tique of the submissions of two Arctic states,
Canada and the United States, as part of efforts
to elaborate the United Nations Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.
Legal trends and traditions
This chapter concentrates on the domestic laws
of the Arctic states rather than international law.
But the legal systems of the Arctic states and
current development are part of a global con-
text. This section therefore provides a brief
overview of global trends and legal traditions as
they relate to the Arctic.
Global trend of closer integration of
legal systems
Scholars of comparative law have identified a
number of global trends. One such trend is a
shift towards democracy and human rights, as
well as an increased emphasis on the rule of law
(1). Numerous authors from a range of disci-
plines also emphasize a trend towards global-
ization (2) and closer integration of legal sys-
tems.
The trend to globalization is reflected in the
development of international trade rules
through the World Trade Organization and
regional trading and political initiatives (3). It is
also reflected in the development of universal
human rights norms (4) and in a growing num-
ber of multilateral environmental agreements.
They include the Framework Convention on
Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants, and the Vienna Convention and
Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting
Substances (5-6), all of which are relevant to the
Arctic.
Along with these global developments, ana-
lysts are paying increasing attention to the rela-
tionship between international law and domes-
tic law (7-8). As international law demands
deeper commitments (9) from national govern-
ments, questions of the legitimacy of the inter-
national legal order and law-making processes
become more pressing (10).
The trend to integration and convergence of
legal systems is most apparent within the
member states of the European Union. This
can be seen as the voluntary reception of the
laws of another system to distinguish it from
the coercive imposition of new norms that
characterized the period of European coloniza-
tion (11). While there is increasing integration
of legal systems across national borders, there
is also increasing specialization within the
legal system, in areas such as environmental
law, trade law, indigenous peoples’ law, and
health law.
101
Chapter 6
Legal Systems
Lead author: Nigel Bankes, University of Calgary, Canada.
Contributing authors: Guðmundur Alfreðsson (Raoul Wallenberg Institute, University of Lund), Christina Allard (Luleå University of Technology),
Dalee Sambo Dorough (Inuit Circumpolar Conference), Guðrún Gauksdóttir (Reykjavik University), Ekaterina Goudina (University of Calgary),
Tore Henriksen and Ingvild Ulrikke Jacobsen (University of Tromsø), Timo Koivurova (University of Lapland), Hanne Petersen (University of
Copenhagen), and Michael Moers Wenig (Canadian Institute of Resources Law).

The implications of these trends for Arctic
legal systems are three-fold. First, the develop-
ment of international human rights law con-
firms a set of standards against which to meas-
ure the domestic laws of Arctic states. Second,
the convergence of legal systems creates
opportunities to transplant ideas from other
jurisdictions to help solve common problems.
Third, our growing appreciation of an inter-
connected world requires a legal response at
national and international levels and across a
range of subject areas from trade to the envi-
ronment.
Diversity of legal systems
National legal systems reflect differences in his-
tory, tradition, and socio-cultural values. Within
these traditions, the emergence of an Arctic
consciousness is a very recent development.
Therefore it is not surprising that the legal sys-
tems of Arctic states are heterogeneous.
The United States has a common law system
characterized by a strong emphasis on judicial
decisions as an independent source of law (12).
Canada combines this common law system with
civil law Quebec and considers itself bi-jural.
Civil law systems trace their origins to Roman
law and traditionally rely on comprehensive
codes for ordering their legal materials. Nordic
legal systems belong to the civil law tradition
but with some qualifications since Roman law
has played only a small part in their develop-
ment. More important is the shared history of
the Nordic states, which has ensured the close
interrelationship of their legal systems (12). The
distinctive Marxist theory of law required a sep-
arate category for the former Soviet Union, but
commentators now group Russia within the
civil law family. While the distinction between
civil and common law systems remains funda-
mental, global integration has the potential to
break it down. There is also evidence of a com-
mon approach in more recent areas of legislative
activity such as environmental assessment,
endangered species, and rules on resource dis-
position.
An equally fundamental distinction between
legal systems is that between federal states and
unitary states. In a federation, the national gov-
ernment has exclusive competence over inter-
national affairs (and alone has international
personality), but the authority to make laws
within the federation is distributed between the
national government and the sub-units of the
federation. In unitary states, all law-making
authority lies with the national government,
while regions and municipalities have only del-
egated law-making powers. Denmark, Finland,
Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all unitary
states. Canada, the Russian Federation, and the
United States of America are federal states, but
this broad category requires some qualification.
For example, the three territories of the
Canadian North lack the status of provinces as
sub-units of the federation. The Russian federal
system is distinctive because the federal govern-
ment has broad concurrent powers to make
laws, and because of the large number and
diversity of sub-units of the federation. There
are 89 “subjects” of the federation including
republics, oblasts, okrugs, and autonomous
regions.
Unitary states may permit some transfer of
law-making authority to local or regional gov-
ernments but generally this does not remove
the power of the central government to legislate
in these matters. Denmark in its relationships
with Greenland and the Faroe Islands suggests
an exception to this general rule. Under the
respective Home Rule arrangements with the
two jurisdictions (since 1948 for the Faroe
Islands and 1979 for Greenland), the Danish
Parliament has effectively waived its right to
legislate in local matters. Matters of a more gen-
eral nature, such as defense, citizenship, and
banking, continue to be the responsibility of the
central administration in Denmark (13). While
foreign policy and treaty making are vested
exclusively in the Danish Government, both the
Faroese and Greenland Home Rule govern-
ments have assumed the right to conduct bilat-
eral negotiations with the European Union and
others, for example with respect to fishery mat-
ters.
Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are members
of the European Union. The language of feder-
alism remains controversial in Europe, but the
European Union requires that members
renounce some degree of sovereignty to its
institutions. It is thus not unfair to characterize
the European Union as a form of functional
federalism or as a federation of member states
in all but name. From its early days, it has
expanded its membership and dramatically
deepened the degree of integration between
member states.
Denmark’s accession to the forerunner of the
European Union, the European Community,
included Greenland, but Greenland negotiated
its withdrawal from the European Community
102 Arctic Human Development Report