Arctic 2035: Issue 2026 – 1 (25)

This article provides a critical analysis of the concept of «Indigenous Peoples» in the global legal space. The relevance of the study stems from the lack of a universally recognized and legally binding definition of this term, amid the simultaneous expansion of international legal standards for protecting the rights of these ethnic communities. In the context of increasing normative diversity and the politicization of human rights discourse, the problem of definitional ambiguity is acquiring both theoretical and practical significance. The aim of the study is to identify conceptual and definitional contradictions associated with the use of the category of «Indigenous Peoples» in international and national law, as well as to evaluate its content through the lens of legal pluralism. Particular attention is paid to the Russian model for regulating the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples, based on constitutional guarantees and specialized legislation. The study establishes that the concept of «Indigenous Peoples» does not have a universal and immutable legal nature. Its content is shaped by historical experience, colonial legacy, political and legal traditions, and the structure of interethnic relations in specific states. The absence of a legal definition in key international documents reflects a desire to maintain regulatory flexibility and accommodate regional diversity.

This article examines the representation of Arctic Council member states and permanent participants in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) from 2002 to 2025, that is, from the First to the Twenty-fourth Sessions of the Forum. The aim of the study is to identify the specific features of such representation during the period under study. The theoretical and methodological framework for this study is the “English School” of international relations, or international society theory. Hermeneutics and interpretivism are the primary methodological paradigms within this work. The source material is the official documents of the UN Economic and Social Council and the UNPFII. The author concludes that Arctic Council member states and permanent participants are involved in the work of the UNPFII at both the institutional and personal levels. The interests of Arctic indigenous peoples are promoted not only by the Arctic Regional Group but also by other regional groups comprising Arctic Council member states and permanent participants, allowing Arctic and Arctic-adjacent peoples to retain a third of the seats. All Arctic Council member states, except for Iceland, have participated in UNPFII in 2002–2025. At first Arctic Council member states often sent specialists in human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ interests, or ethnographers. Subsequently, priority was given to indigenous representatives engaged in human rights advocacy and civic activism. The practical significance of this study lies in understanding the current situation in the UNPFII to develop recommendations for strengthening the Russian Federation’s position in this sphere.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the prospects for the development of the institution of the Ombudsman of special competence on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the countries of the Arctic Council as a special mechanism for protecting the rights of vulnerable groups. The methodological basis of the research is a comparative legal and institutional analysis of national and regional models, as well as the study of practices of the Arctic states. The empirical base is formed by scientific works on the vulnerability of the indigenous population and the deficits of universal human rights systems, annual reports of Commissioners for the rights of Indigenous Small- Numbered Peoples in the subjects of the Russian Federation, official materials on the website of the Arctic Council, as well as foreign legal acts, including the legislation of Norway and Canada on specialized institutions. As a starting point, it is argued that universal national human rights protection systems demonstrate systemic failures in relation to the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic. Against this background, the institution of a specialized ombudsman is considered as a link between Indigenous Peoples, the state and business, focused on correcting the shortcomings of law enforcement, mediative conflict resolution and representation of the interests of NGOs. Special attention is paid to the Arctic Council, which, by granting six Indigenous organizations the status of permanent participants, builds the potential to develop common standards for the activities of specialized human rights institutions. The scientific novelty of the work consists in clarifying the essence of the specialized ombudsman through the prism of its dual nature as a state and public institution and in conceptualizing its mediation and preventive functions in the human rights protection system. The practical significance of the results lies in the possibility of using them in designing national models of specialized ombudsmen and shaping the Arctic Council’s agenda.

This article is based on a series of collective studies conducted by Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in Russia in 2024–2025 as contributions to thematic reports of United Nations expert bodies. The article summarizes the priorities of Indigenous Peoples in the development of legislation and policy, it analyzes the two-level model of Russian legislation, mechanisms of Indigenous participation in law-making, as well as current legislative priorities, including support for nomadic lifestyles, impact assessment, and the harmonization of sectoral legislation. Special attention is paid to the collection of disaggregated data, the role of Indigenous Peoples in the implementation of environmental conventions, and the development of standards for Indigenous Peoples’ engagement with business, including the adaptation of the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to Russian realities. The article contains examples of subnational practices, Indigenous Peoples organizations’ recommendations directed to authorities and business entities. The article also presents the Indigenous Peoples’ proposal to establish an independent National Expert Mechanism for developing sustainable relations between business and Indigenous Peoples. The author demonstrates the impact of these collective studies on national strategic planning documents and on the content of studies and reports of UN expert bodies.

The analytical review of the new Strategy of Russia’s national policy up to 2036 focuses on the key elements of the document related to strategic planning in the field of harmonising inter-ethnic relations over the coming decade. The aim is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the information contained in the Strategy, which outlines the most important tasks for goal-setting, forecasting, planning and programming of Russia’s ethno-national policy in the near term. One of the key features of the document is its focus on promoting the concept of the “state-forming people”, which received constitutional recognition in paragraph 1 of Article 68 of the country’s Basic Law following the nationwide vote on constitutional amendments in 2020. At the same time, in addition to the Russian people, the state pays attention to all Indigenous Peoples of Russia, giving special emphasis to the Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East as one of the priorities of ethno-national policy. The review employs the formal-legal method, as well as the methods of systemic and political-legal analysis. Within the framework of the conducted analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: 1) the consistent promotion of the concept of a “unified Russian civic nation”, 2) the growing threats of foreign influence through the extremist ideology of “separatisation”, disseminated by terrorist “decolonisation movements” banned in Russia. Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples act as a preserver of distinctive culture, traditional lifestyles and traditional economic activities in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation, thereby ensuring Russia’s presence in this strategically important region. Commitment to the “constitutional guarantees” of the rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples under Article 69 of the Constitution is reaffirmed by classifying them among the “principles of state national policy”. From the perspective of practical significance, the analytical review provides insight into the most valuable processes of forming a unified Russian culture in the context of political and legal regulation.

This article examines the main legal challenges facing Indigenous Peoples in Western Arctic countries – the Kingdom of Denmark, Canada, the United States, Norway, Finland and Sweden – at the turn of the 2010s and 2020s. There is no universally accepted definition of the term «Indigenous Peoples» in contemporary international law. There is also no uniformity in the national laws of Western Arctic countries when it comes to defining Indigenous Peoples as a social group. The legal approach to this issue has been to list specific ethnic groups and detail the criteria for classifying citizens/subjects as belonging to them. The consolidation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples as a special category in international law took place in the second half of the 20th century as the international human rights regime took shape. The process of decolonisation gave a significant impetus to this. Today, these norms are contained in the main universal and regional international legal instruments. ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989 and the 2007 UN Declaration are directly devoted to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although the latter is not legally binding, it has had a significant impact on the formation of international customary law with regard to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Despite years of efforts by Western states, the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic still face a number of political and legal challenges. Indigenous Peoples are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of natural and climatic changes and the increasingly active exploitation of resources and infrastructure in the Arctic territories. In the most general terms, the following typology of contemporary legal challenges facing the Arctic Indigenous Peoples in Western countries can be proposed: 1) those related to the implementation of personal, social and cultural rights; 2) of land and other property rights; 3) of environmental rights; and 4) of political rights. Another serious problem is the incomplete implementation of international legal norms in the field of Indigenous Peoples’ rights into the national legislation of Western Arctic countries, as well as the inadequacy and, in many cases, ineffectiveness of existing norms and mechanisms for ensuring and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. All this only underscores the need for further critical reflection regarding the contemporary political and legal situation of the world’s Indigenous Peoples.

This article analyzes the evolution of US public policy toward Alaska Native peoples from the moment the territory came under US jurisdiction in 1867 to the present day. It examines the key stages of this policy’s transformation—from practices of segregation, discrimination, and assimilation of the Native population to the gradual formation of a legal framework enshrining their rights to land, traditional land use, elements of self-government, and the preservation of their cultural identity. Particular attention is paid to key legislative acts, including the Native Claims Act of 1971, as well as institutional mechanisms for interaction between the state and Native organizations. The role of Native public associations in the struggle for civil and land rights is analyzed. It is shown that despite significant progress in the legal recognition of Native rights, a number of socioeconomic and demographic problems persist, including lower standards of living, healthcare, and education compared to the non-Native population. The conclusion is drawn about the contradictory nature of contemporary US policy, which combines elements of legal recognition, socio-economic support and persistent structural restrictions on the development of Alaska Native peoples.

The presented article is revealing main aspects of Indigenous participation in Canadian Arctic policy. The key feature of the article is a comprehensive analysis of all forms of Indigenous activity in Canada. Thus, it proves the val ue of the article as most scholar works on the theme are more specific. The relevance of the study is proved by two tendencies. The first one is the growing interest among Canadians in Arctic and Indigenous politics. The second one is the potential of Russian-Canadian Indigenous cooperation to improve bilateral relations nowadays. To reach the scholar goal, the author has accomplished three objectives. Firstly, he introduced the current political and law status of all Indigenous groups in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, Métis). Secondly, the author highlighted crucial trends in Crown-Indigenous relations and indicated main Indigenous organizations in the Canadian Arctic. Thirdly, he showed the case of the Inuit Circumpolar Council as an example of the international scale of Indigenous political activism, presented by the Canadian Inuit. The author concluded that if Indigenous peoples of the Canadian Arctic are interested in better involvement in politics they have to improve their non-governmental institutes protecting their rights. The Inuit example of political cooperation with the Canadian government is proving this thesis. The results of this research would be useful in the context of para-diplomatic relations between Russian and Canadian Arctic Indigenous groups.

Indigenous peoples’ relationships with the natural environment are based on the concepts of maintaining balance with nature, adhering to the laws of natural ecosystems, and reasonably limiting human economic activity. These ideas stem from the so-called «indigenous» knowledge (traditional knowledge), which underpins the fundamental principles of indigenous peoples’ lives and natural resource management, a deep understanding of their environment, and core values. Spiritual values and traditional knowledge are becoming increasingly important in modern society, as they can serve as the foundation for sustainable development. The objective of this article is to justify the importance of indigenous (traditional) knowledge for legal framework of states inhabited by indigenous peoples, based on the examples of several Arctic and BRICS countries. Since the international community has recently declared the need to develop new public policy directions and focus public authorities’ efforts on implementing specific measures to use indigenous knowledge, including in the management of traditional lands, the use of natural resources, and spatial planning, the author of this article believes it is essential to demonstrate, first and foremost, that indigenous knowledge is an important part of the worldview and way of life of indigenous peoples in any country. Based on Article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the international legal instruments that specify it, the most relevant areas for the application of indigenous knowledge are biodiversity conservation, environmental sustainability, and harmony with nature. Therefore, this article focuses on the ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and inspires to create legal mechanisms for its use, which have yet to be formalized at the national level. Using examples of traditional knowledge described by ethnographers and an analysis of the most significant international biodiversity documents, the author proposes several legal and political measures through which traditional knowledge, if applied, will contribute to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainability of natural systems during the intensive economic development of both northern and southern territories. The article outlines the directions in which the policies and legislation of most countries will develop in the coming years.

The Arctic, the Amazon and Patagonia are regions of central importance to the Earth’s climate system and territories historically inhabited by Indigenous Peoples whose ways of life and cosmologies have been shaped by long-term adaptation to extreme environments. Nevertheless, these regions have recurrently been framed in state and policy discourses as “voids,” enabling their incorporation into national development strategies guided by raison d’État. In recent decades, this logic has been reinforced by the expansion of mining, energy projects and large-scale logistical infrastructures aimed at securing strategic minerals for high-technology industries and electromobility. This article asks which actors, processes and rationalities make a comparative analysis of these regions analytically meaningful and what governance challenges emerge from it. Drawing on Inoue and Moreira’s (2016) framework of “many worlds” and “many natures” and on Milton Santos’s (1996) concepts of psychosphere and technosphere, the analysis examines the industrialization of the Arctic, the Amazon and Patagonia as interconnected processes shaped by cryospheric change, deforestation and new extractive frontiers. Based on cases involving Inuit, Waimiri-Atroari and Mapuche communities, the article identifies convergent patterns of territorial pressure and governance asymmetries, concluding that addressing systemic climate risks requires moving beyond raison d’État towards and raison de système (Prantl & Ramasubramanian, 2025) recognizing ontological plurality.