Umeå University's logo

In northern Sweden, large forest areas are used both for timber production and Sámi reindeer herding, and intense forest management practices have had predominantly negative effects on reindeer herding. Through case law, it is elucidated that Sámi land rights are private property rights based on the longtime use of land. At the same time, landowners own the forest areas. Hence, there exists parallel property rights on the same land. This chapter analyses the recognition and protection of Sámi land rights in the Forestry Act, which regulates the landowners’ forest management. The analysis is based on legal mechanisms that are usually used when property rights relations are regulated within Real Estate Law. This type of legal mechanisms is missing in the Forestry Act, and the legislation does not provide an adequate protection of the land rights of the Sámi. Instead, reindeer herding is regarded as a public interest that is balanced in relation to the public interest of timber production. To achieve a just and sustainable development in line with the rights of Indigenous peoples, there is an urgent need for a legislative reform, and the chapter proposes amendments to provide better protection to the land rights of the Sámi.

This chapter compares the post-extraction dynamics of two mining regions in the Fennoscandinavian Arctic: the Pite valley, Sweden, and Kolari, Finland. In 1946 the Swedish mining company Boliden closed a mine in Laver, which became a ghost town. Decades later, state authorities tried to turn Laver into a cultural heritage site. Boliden joined the effort to support its plan to re-start mining at Laver, a project that has, however, become highly controversial. The Finnish case deals with a similar controversy. Hannukainen mining company wants to re-open an iron ore mine that was in operation 1975-1990. As part of their strategy to gain acceptance for re-opening, the company and supporters of the project have mobilized the history of the mining sites and argues mining is a core element of the heritage of the Kolar municipality. Both cases have generated tension regarding the type of history and heritage of these regions: those of reindeer herding by Sámi and other local communities, or that of extractive industries? The cases show that heritage making can be useful, but it can also be a source of conflict, further underscoring the importance of the long-term view of extraction.

For the first time in the Swedish Supreme Court, a small Sami reindeer herding community has won an important victory affirming the community’s small game hunting and fishing rights. Because of protracted use and the concept of immemorial prescription, the Court recognised the community’s exclusive hunting and fishing rights, including the right to lease these rights to others. Such leases have long been prohibited by legislation and the State has retained its powers to administer such leases. This case signifies a considerable development in the area of Sami law. In its decision, the Supreme Court made some adjustments to the age-old doctrine of immemorial prescription, and provided insights into how historic evidence should be evaluated when the claimant is an Indigenous people. A common motivator for these adjustments is an enhanced awareness of international standards protecting Indigenous peoples and minorities. Even ILO Convention No. 169 – the only legally binding convention concerning Indigenous rights, but which Sweden has not yet ratified – is relevant when it comes to evaluating Sami customary uses. The Court addressed the problem of gaps in the historical material and used evidence from other parts of Swedish Lapland and adjacent time-periods, making reasonable assumptions to fill in these gaps. The Court imposes on the State the burden of proof regarding the extinguishment of already established Sami rights, as well as proof that extinguishment by legislation or expropriation, is “clear and definitive”. These conditions were not met in this case.

Even though Swedish case law clarifies that Sámi land rights are private property rights, the implications for the legal system still remain unclear and debated. Since the political system has failed to clarify Sámi property rights, Girjas sameby, as a representative of the reindeer-herding Sámi, have turned to the judicial system to have these rights enforced. After more than ten years of legal proceedings, at the end of 2019, the Swedish Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the so-called Girjas Case. The heart of the lawsuit is who holds the hunting and fishing rights within a specific high mountain area in the north-western part of Sweden and thus who decides on the granting of licenses to others. The case illustrates the ongoing dispute between the Indigenous Sámi people and the Swedish state over the meaning of property rights with respect to land within Sapmi, the homeland of the Sámi. This chapter describes the historical background of the lawsuit and briefly outlines the legal assessments of the District Court and the Court of Appeal. In addition, the chapter discusses why litigation is being used by the Sámi as a strategy to enforce Sámi land rights within the legal system and the challenges associated with presenting historical perspectives in a court setting.

I januari 2020 avgjorde Högsta domstolen det s.k. Girjasmålet, där rätten att upplåta småviltsjakt och fiske i fjällområdena prövats. Stridigheter om huruvida det är staten eller samebyn som har rätt att göra sådana upplåtelser har pågått i decennier och har inte gått att lösa politiskt. I artikeln analyseras domen och vilka konsekvenser den får; domens längd och komplexitet motiverar en längre rättsfallsanalys. Det konstateras att domen klargör viktiga förhållanden såsom att samiska markrättigheter upparbetats genom urminnes hävd och att ILO:s konvention nr 169 om urfolks rättigheter i delar är bindande även om den inte har ratificerats. Domen innebär att en betydande rättsutveckling skett inom det samerättsliga området.

Within Swedish law, Saami land rights have been highly controversial since early in the 20th century. In case law, Saami land rights have been placed in the historical context, since it has been established that they are based on long-standing land use. This conclusion puts historical use of land at the very center of any judicial assessment. Herein, two lawsuits about Saami land rights, in which archeology has been used to validate pre-historic and historic land use are compared: the Härjedalen Case, initiated in 1991 and relating to winter grazing rights, and the Girjas Case about hunting and fishing rights. This article describes how archaeological and historical material has been interpreted within the lawsuits and analyzes the impact on the legal assessments. The comparison illustrates how it can be problematic to use archaeological arguments in court proceedings. Nevertheless, it is concluded that archaeology, as part of wider interdisciplinary research, may contribute with knowledge about past land use, thus allowing the understanding of Saami land rights to evolve. Furthermore, how researchers within archeologyand other disciplines could respond to the fact that the results of their work might be used outside academia and within the very different environment of judicial proceedings is discussed.

In 1981 the Swedish Supreme Court stated that Sami land rights are based on the longtime use of land and that these rights are to be regarded as property protected by the Swedish constitution. It is thereby elucidated within the Swedish legal framework that Sami land rights are private property rights. This was also confirmed through an amendment in the Reindeer Herding Act in 1993. However, Sami land rights are primarily interpreted and protected through other land use statutes. It has been concluded that Sami land rights have not been implemented properly in the Forestry Act, which regulates forestry management. nstead, reindeer herding is primarily regarded as a public interest that needs to be considered when logging is planned and executed. In the balancing with timber production as another public interest, reindeer herding is considered as less important and must yield. Consequently, severe damages are accepted on the grazing lands without the consent of the Sami or financial compensation being payed. It has been concluded that the regulation does not comply with the constitutional protection of property. Several public inquiries have proposed changes in the Forestry Act to better reflect Sami land rights. However, no amendments have been enacted, due to strong opposing interests. This political failure to implement Sami land rights will most likely result in juridical proceedings where Sami argue that Sami land rights are not protected in compliance with constitutional requirements. The article discusses legal aspects that should be considered when courts evaluates the implementation of Sami land rights.

I januari 2018 meddelade Hovrätten för Övre Norrland dom i det så kallade Girjas-målet. Tvisten gäller frågan om Girjas sameby eller staten innehar jakt- och fiskerättigheterna inom samebyns marker ovan odlingsgränsen och vem som därmed har rätt att bestämma över de upplåtelser som görs till andra. Vid en första anblick tycks målet främst gälla förhållandena i Norrland och dess intressegrupper. Tvisten berör dock flera rättsliga frågeställningar som är av intresse även ur ett mer övergripande juridiskt perspektiv. I artikeln beskrivs den historiska bakgrunden till tvisten och domstolarnas bedömningar i målet. Därefter behandlas ett antal rättsliga frågeställningar om markrättigheters innebörd som aktualiseras genom hovrättens dom. Det konstateras att det är nödvändigt att ytterligare klargöra vissa rättsfrågor, vilket gör att förutsättningarna för prövningstillstånd hos Högsta domstolen bör vara goda.