Interrogating International Environmental Law’s Approach to Nature
An Arctic Indigenous Model?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36368/jns.v17i1.1233Keywords:
International Environmental Law (IEL), nature, Arctic, climate change, Indigenous knowledge, sustainability, respectAbstract
International Environmental Law (IEL) reflects a rooted misconception of nature present across the international legal system, whereby nature is presented as instrumental to satisfying human needs oriented to unlimited economic growth. Such an anthropocentric view lacks an ecological awareness that conceives and values nature in its own right, and fails to recognize humans as part of it, leading to relentless exploitation of the natural world, at the core of the climate and ecological crises. In this article, I contend that rethinking IEL in a way to interrogate its inherent conceptual premises and embrace non-Western views on and relationalities with nature is essential. The Arctic being at the forefront of climate effects that severely and disproportionally impact its ecosystems and (human and non-human) communities; and “sustainable development” projects contextualised as part of the green transition pose additional risks to the region. I argue that Indigenous knowledge from Arctic peoples can contribute to expanding IEL’s conceptual horizons and correcting inherited (mis-)understanding of nature and reimagining the human–nature relationship. Integrating, for example, the overarching principle of respect of the Skolt Sami in ordinary human–nature relationships can assist in rethinking IEL and inform a truly sustainable design, interpretation and implementation of its provisions.
References
Literature
Adelman, S. (2015). “Epistemologies of mastery,” in Research Handbook on Human Rights and the Environment, eds. A. Grear & L. Kotzé, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 9–27.
Bookchin, M. (1982). The Ecology of Freedom. The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, Cheshire: Cheshire Books.
Cambou, D. (2022). “Indigenous peoples right to self-determination and the principle of state sovereignty over natural resources. A human rights approach and its constructive ambiguity,” in Edward Elgar Research Handbook on the International Law of Indigenous Rights, ed. D. Newman, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 148–168.
Code, L. (2006). Ecological Thinking. The Politics of Epistemic Location, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Depelteau, K. (2021). “Anthropocentric and biocentric narratives in the context of neoliberalism and catastrophe narratives,” Politicus, 7, pp. 18–28; https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/politicus/article/view/14399; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024.
Ellen, R. (2008) “Forest knowledge, forest transformation. Political contingency, historical ecology and the regeneration of nature in Central Ceram,” in Environmental Anthropology. A Historical Reader, eds. M.R. Dove & C. Carpenter, Madden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 321–338.
Finger, M. (2022). “Sustainable development of the Arctic?” in Global Arctic. An Introduction to the Multifaceted Dynamics of the Arctic, eds. M. Finger & G. Rekvig, Cham: Springer, pp. 331–348.
Finger, M. & Rekvig, G. (2022). “Introduction,” in Global Arctic. An Introduction to the Multifaceted Dynamics of the Arctic, eds. M. Finger & G. Rekvig, Cham: Springer, pp. 1–17.
Grear, A. (2015). “Deconstructing anthropos. A critical legal reflection on the ‘anthropocentric’ law and Anthropocene ‘humanity’,” Law Critique, 26:3, pp. 225–249.
Hughes, A. & Grumbine, R. (2023). “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. What it does and does not do, and how to improve it,” Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, pp. 1–12; www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1281536/full; accessed on 23 Jan. 2025.
IPCC (2018). “Summary for policymakers,” in Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.
Itkonen, P. (2022). “Environmental sustainability generated by the views of the Skolt Sámi and Gregory Bateson,” Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics, 16:2, pp. 290–307.
Kotzé, L. (2019). “Coloniality, neoliberalism and the Anthropocene,” Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 10:1, pp. 1–6.
Kotzé, L. & Adelman, S. (2023). “Environmental law and the unsustainability of sustainable development. A tale of disenchantment and of hope,” Law and Critique, 34:1, pp. 1–22.
Kotzé, L. & French, D. (2018). “The anthropocentric ontology of International Environmental Law and the sustainable development goals. Towards an ecocentric rule of law in the Anthropocene,” Global Journal of Comparative Law, 7:1, pp. 5–36.
Laframboise, L. (2022). “Brussels looks north. The European Union’s latest Arctic policy and the potential for ‘green’ colonialism,” The Arctic Institute—Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, 20 Sept.; www.thearcticinstitute.org/brussels-looks-north-european-unions-latest-arctic-policy-potential-green-colonialism/; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024.
Lindroth, M., Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. & Tennberg, M. (2022). “Introduction. Alternative lenses on the Arctic,” in Critical Studies of the Arctic. Unravelling the North, eds. M. Lindroth, H. Sinevaara-Niskanen & M. Tennberg, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–14.
Natarajan, U. & Dehm, J. (2022). “Introduction. Where is the environment? Locating nature in international law,” in Locating Nature. Making and Unmaking International Law, eds. U. Natarajan & J. Dehm, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18.
Minority Rights Group website; https://minorityrights.org/communities/Sámi/; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024. Payva Almonte, M. (2023a). “Vulnerability in the Arctic in the context of climate change and uncertainty,” The Arctic Institute—Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, www.thearcticinstitute.org/vulnerabilityarctic-context-climate-change-uncertainty/; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024.
Payva Almonte, M. (2023b). “Rethinking the relationship between humans and nature in law. An Indigenous Peoples’ perspective,” in Arctic Yearbook. Arctic Indigenous Peoples. Climate, Science, Knowledge and Governance, eds. L. Heininen, J. Barnes & H. Exner-Pirot, pp. 1–13; https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2023/2023-scholarly-papers/488-rethinking-the-relationship-between-humans-and-nature-in-law-an-indigenous-peoples-perspective; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024.
Rantanen M., Karpechko, A.Y., Lipponen, A., Nordling, K., Hyvärinen, O., Ruosteenoja, K., Vihma, T. & Laaksonen, A. (2022). “The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979,” Communications Earth & Environment, 3:168, pp. 1–9; https://doi.org/10.1038s43247-022-00498-3.
Raygorodetsky, G. (2017). “Skolt Sámi path to climate change resilience,” The Arctic Institute—Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, www.thearcticinstitute.org/skolt-sami-path-climate-change-resilience/; accessed on 22 Sept. 2024.
Reid, J. (2013). “Interrogating the neoliberal biopolitics of the sustainable development–resilience nexus,” InternationalPolitical Sociology, 7:4, pp. 353–367.
Tennberg, M., (2022). “Narratives,” in Critical Studies of the Arctic. Unravelling the North in Critical Studies of the Arctic. Unravelling the North, eds. M. Lindroth, H. Sinevaara-Niskanen & M. Tennberg, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185–204.
Case-Laws
Trail Smelter Arbitration case, between United States and Canada, Decision, 11 March 1941. (United States v. Canada) (1938 and 1941) 3 R.I.A.A. 1905.
UN Documents
Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975 (993 UNTS 243).
Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1984 (1833 UNTS 397).
Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993 (1760 UNTS 79).
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972.
Declaration on Environment and Development. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol.1), UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992.
International Labour Organization, “Gender, Labour and a Just Transition Towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies for All,” 7 November 2017.
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, UN Doc. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 19 December 2022.
Paris Agreement to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force Nov. 4, 2016 (T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104).
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994 (1771 UNTS 107).
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Just Transition of the Workforce, and the Creation of Decent Work and Quality Jobs,” Technical Paper, 2016.
UN General Assembly, “United Nations Millennium Declaration,” UN Doc. A/RES/55/2, 8 September 2000.
UN General Assembly, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015.
UN General Assembly, “The ‘Just Transition’ in the Economic Recovery: Eradicating Poverty within Planetary Boundaries,” UN Doc. A/75/181, 7 October 2020.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marlene Payva Almonte
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
