Language Policy in Scandinavia

Language Policy in Scandinavia A comparative study of Sámi policy in Norway and Sweden

Monty Richmond Student ID: 440134804 EUST2002 Final Essay

Language Policy in Scandinavia

Monty Richmond

Abstract This essay presents the differences in current language policy and its implementation between Norway and Sweden. After a comparison of the content of the two respective language policies, the implementation is compared. The assessment of implementation is based on Sámi commentary, governmental reports on the maintenance of legally bound obligations (such as the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages), and the most up-‐to-‐date research on the respective linguistic landscapes. It is clear that, whilst the international situation for Sámi language rights is far from ideal, and self-‐determination has still not been achieved, Norway’s language policy and its implementation are stronger than that of Sweden. The reasoning for the choice of nation states to compare is two-‐fold. Firstly, Norway and Sweden have tightly linked history, geographical proximity, and a comparable sociolinguistic situation. Because of this, differences in the treatment of the Sámi lead to more subtle and nuanced conclusions than a comparison between, for example, Norway and Russia (see Chełstowska, 2009 & Rasmussen, 2011 for detailed comparisons of these two nation states). Secondly, both nations frequently top Social Progress lists1 and are stereotyped as being world leaders in human rights and social welfare, so any evidence to the contrary is surprising and revealing about the nature of indigenous rights today, and thus valuable in order to make progress. To conclude, this essay looks to the future. The importance of the Draft Nordic Sámi Convention of 2005, expanding the Sámi administrative area, and the ‘catching up’ that Sweden must do are discussed as imperative to securing full language rights and self-‐determination for the Sámi people. A note on orthography and spelling: The word for the indigenous people of northern Scandinavia and far north-‐western Russia can be represented in a variety of ways in English i.e. Sami, Saami, Sámi, Same, Saame, Samic, Saamic, Lapp, Lappic, Lappish. The last three (and any derivative of ‘Lapp’) are derogatory exonyms that are disapproved of today, with the first seven being valid. In this essay I will use ‘Sámi’ to refer to the people and their language because it is the base form of the word they use to refer to themselves in the North Sámi language (with ‘á’ represented the long ‘a’ sound present in Australian English “father”).

1

st

nd

Norway and Sweden placed 1 and 2 respectively in the 2015 Social Progress Index. (http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi)

1


Monty Richmond

Introduction The differences in Sámi language policy and their implementation in Norway and Sweden are greater than one might assume given their geographical proximity and historically similar sociolinguistic and governmental situations. The development of the two states’ legal framework for the protection and promotion of the Sámi languages has followed different paths since the rapid growth of the recognition of minority rights following the WWII period. Proper Sámi policy in Norway was catalysed by the Alta River protest, an influential, multi-‐faceted demonstration of Sámi solidarity and political visibility in the early 1980s. Norway was thus quicker to form Sámi language policy than Sweden. Although several superficially beneficial steps have been taken recently, Sweden’s development of the relevant policy has been slower and weaker than that of Norway, and many political decisions of major importance regarding rights of the Sámi have yet to be made, such as the ratification of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO-‐convention 169). Until self-‐ determination is granted to the Sámi people, language rights can never be fully realized across all of the Sámi languages. Practicably, until the 2005 Nordic Sámi Draft Convention, which promises a huge step forward in achieving this self-‐determination, is properly adopted, and concrete steps are taken to improve the enforcement of existing policy, the Sámi people will remain somewhere between oppression and emancipation.

Background The Sámi people are an indigenous group native to an area known as Sápmi (formerly Lappland), which stretches from central Sweden to the Kola Peninsula, partly covering each of the four nation-‐states Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The ten distinguishable Sámi languages are structurally and lexically comparable, but differ to a similar degree as Romance languages, thus are not mutually intelligible (Sammallahti, 1998).

2


Monty Richmond

According to the UN Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, nine of the languages are endangered to some degree, with one, Akkala Sámi, becoming extinct in 2003. Five of the nine surviving varieties are spoken in Norway and Sweden: South, Pite, Lule, Ume, and North Sámi. It is nearly impossible to obtain official numbers of Sámi speakers because counting practices differ great across the four nations, and neither Norway nor Sweden collects language census data (Salo, 2012, pp. 245). Recent estimations vary between 50,000 and 150,000 total Sámi people, with only half of them being Sámi language speakers (Rasmussen, 2011; Salo, 2012). North Sámi is by far the largest group, with 20-‐ 23,000 speakers living in Norway and 5-‐7000 in Sweden, whilst the other four groups, Pite, Lule, Ume, and South Sámi have less than 600 total speakers each (Rasmussen, 2011). Like many indigenous groups internationally, the Sámi were subjected to assimilationist policies from the second half of the 19th century until the end of WWII. As Bull (2002) describes, all school instruction in Norway was to take place in Norwegian from 1880 onwards. In 1902, a law was passed rendering state-‐owned land in Norway’s northernmost county, Finnmark, sellable or loanable to fluent and regular users of Norwegian exclusively. Minority membership became a stigma (Huss & Lindgren, 2011, pp. 9). The situation in Sweden was much the same; but whilst all four nation states relied on assimilation, Norway implemented the most extreme form (Chełstowska, 2009). In the 1950s and ‘60s, priorities began to alter, and the foundations for later, more inclusive Sámi policy were laid in what Huss & Lindgren called the “worldwide ethnic awakening” (2011, pp. 9). Norway was quicker to act than Sweden, largely because of the Alta River dam protests of the early 1980s, which saw Sámi and non-‐Sámi activists hunger striking outside the Norwegian parliament and chaining themselves to a barrier in an attempt to halt the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Alta River, which runs through the reindeer herding grounds of the Sámi. Despite being unsuccessful in stopping the construction, the event helped crystallize a sense of identity and pride amongst Norway’s Sámi (Lawrence, 2011) and led to the establishment of the national Sámi Rights Commission in 1980, and eventually the Sámi Parliament in 1987. Sweden

3


Monty Richmond

followed suit and established their Sámi Parliament six years later. These Sámi Parliaments are both representative bodies democratically elected by Sámi speakers, but their roles and extent of power differ slightly (Fitzmaurice, 2009) (this issue will be discussed in the final part of the essay).

Sámi language policy in Norway As mentioned above, Norway’s Sámi language policy has a stronger foundational base and has developed faster than that of Sweden and the other three Sápmi nation states. All Sámi policy presented here only applies in the “Sámi administrative area”, which in Norway is a limited area comprised of nine rural municipalities across four counties. The same goes for all Swedish policy and their respective administrative area. The problems with this geographical limitation will be discussed in the final section. The three international documents that serve to form the foundation of Sámi rights when ratified are: the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992), and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995), Tribal and Indigenous Peoples’ Convention (ILO-‐convention 169, 1989). Norway has ratified all three of these documents: the EU Charter in 1993, the Framework Convention (FC) in 1999, and ILO 169 in 1990 (the earliest ratification in the world). Norway’s ratification of the FC is unique because they have opted to exclude the Sámi. The reasoning for this, as explained by Pietikäinen et al. (2010), is that the Sámi already enjoy indigenous status in Norway, and thus minority policy (a lower status) should not apply to them. This is likely in line with Sámi preferences: as Skutnabb-‐Kangas et al. (1994) indicate, “most indigenous peoples do not accept a minority label” (author’s emphasis). The Sámi are included, by definition, in the other two ratifications.

4


Monty Richmond

The ratification of the EU Charter was the most significant step forward in the legal recognition of the Sámi language, in both Norway and Sweden, and remains so. Article 7 outlines the specific objectives and principles of the charter, with the most fundamental being: •

the facilitation and/or encouragement of the use of regional or minority languages, in speech and writing, in public and private life;

•

the provision of means for the teaching and study of regional or minority languages at all appropriate ages.

At least superficially, the EU Charter grants the Sámi languages and their speakers many fundamental language rights, such as the right to access education in Sámi. Crucially, it calls for periodical reports at three-‐yearly intervals that must report on the “policy pursued…and measures taken” (Article 15). Many provisions in Part III of the charter, which include critical are possible to opt out from, because they are implemented “according to the situation” of the languages (Articles 8-‐11). This is a major flaw of which a discussion would be too lengthy to begin here. In relation to language, the ILO 169 convention notionally recognises the aspirations of indigenous peoples to “maintain and develop” their languages (pp. 1), and practicably calls for indigenous children to be taught to read and write in their own language, and for measures to be taken to “preserve and promote the development and practice” of the languages (Article 28). The nation-‐state-‐specific foundations for the recognition and security of Sámi language rights in Norway grew from the Norwegian Sámi Act of 1987, which, in its most recent form, includes extensive rights for the Sámi, including the rights to a reply in Sámi from local bodies, to use Sámi in court, and to use Sámi in the health and social sector (§3-‐3 – 3-‐5). Perhaps the most important statement of the convention, at least symbolically, is: “Sámi and Norwegian are languages of equal worth” (§1-‐5). In 1988, a clause was added to the Norwegian constitution that recognizes the responsibility of the State to “create conditions enabling the Sámi people to preserve and develop

its language” (Article 110a) (Fitzmaurice, 2009, pp. 89). On paper, Sámi language rights are well

5


Monty Richmond

protected at least in the Sámi administrative area of Norway. However, the reality of implementation does not accurately reflect this.

Sámi language policy in Sweden As far as base language policy goes, Sweden is lacking when compared to Norway, and has developed at a slower rate. Both the EU Charter and the FC were ratified in 2000, later than Norway in both cases. In Sweden, however, the FC does apply to the Swedish Sámi, for they are considered a minority and have not yet been granted indigenous status. In Sweden, Sámi languages are labelled minority languages (Heikkila, 2010). The FC contains several clauses pertaining to language, two of the most important of which being: The Parties undertake to recognise:

•

‘the right to use freely and without interference his or her minority language, in private and in public, orally and in writing’; (Article 10)

•

‘the right to learn his or her minority language’. (Article 14)

Despite being superficially promising, many of the FC’s clauses (including those pertaining to education and communication with authorities) are hedged by the phrase ‘as far as possible’. This, combined with the fact that the FC does not add many new provisions on top of the EU Charter, and the lack of practicality, render Sweden’s obligation to upholding fundamental Sámi language rights weak. This is reflected in the current state of implementation. Sweden has not yet ratified the ILO 169 convention. The current reasoning for this is that ‘Sweden does not fulfil the conditions set down by the Convention with regard to land rights’ (Chełstowska, 2009, pp. 18).

6


Monty Richmond

Up until 2011, the Swedish constitution had no mention of Sámi languages, culture or societal status; it only recognized the right to herd reindeer (Article 20). A clause has since been added that requires public authorities ‘to promote the possibilities for Sámis and other ethnic minorities, language based minorities and religious minorities, to preserve their culture and societal life’ (Norberg, 2010). Thus, the Sámi are not recognized as an indigenous people in Sweden. The language act of Sweden (2009) recognizes Sámi as one of five national minority languages (Section 7), states the public sector’s responsibility to promote these minority languages (Section 8), and states that national minorities are to be given the opportunity to learn, develop and use their language (Section 14). Compared to Norway, the Sámi in Sweden have a weaker base of policy on which their language rights lie. Although the EU Charter has been ratified, Sweden does little more to constitutionally and institutionally legitimize the Sámi languages. The lack of indigenous status greatly hinders any progress towards eventual self-‐determination, and minimizes the priority of practically realizing the Sámi’s language rights.

Implementation in Norway The implementation of policy in Norway reflects a generally fair dedication from central government to the enforcement of Sámi language rights and visibility. However, some areas are still lacking. The North Sámi language is undoubtedly privileged over the other, smaller languages, and whilst the visibility of Sámi in the linguistic landscape is much higher in Norway than in Sweden, shortages still prevail in the education system and regarding the proficiency of local authorities. Again, all implementation occurs in the Sámi administrative area only. Rasmussen’s (2009) study, in which he conducted interviews with Sámi people in Norway, revealed perceived inadequacies in the local state of Sámi language rights. A strong theme that runs throughout is the lack of promotion by local authorities; Rasmussen points out that there are never

7


Monty Richmond

any campaigns promoting the use of Sámi at home or in the community (2009, pp. 51). In spite of Sámi language policy, some interviewees described how they were not able to use Sámi in contact with local authorities, at the doctor’s office; even elderly people were unable to communicate with nurses after losing their abilities in Norwegian (pp. 52). These are glaring problems that Skutnabb-‐ Kangas would refer to as questions of linguistic human rights (1994, pp. 20). The education system has some positive implementation of policy taking place, such as the ability to study and use Sámi as a first language from primary school to lower secondary; however this means that latter education is primarily Norwegian (Chełstowska, 2009). From 1997, the primary and lower secondary systems in the Sámi administrative area was changed to foster functional bilingualism of students (Ibid), however, this is clearly not accommodated for in the proficiency of local authorities. The biggest problem is the blatant privilege afforded to the North Sámi variety: only one town (Ájluokta) offers any instruction in Lule Sámi, and only one school (in Snåsa) offers education for South Sámi (Ibid). The most recent follow-‐up report on the situation of the Sámi by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, was released in 2014. Anaya’s main concern with regards to language is the lack of active promotion and funding by local authorities. A recommendation is made to provide immediate and adequate funding for the implementation of revitilisation and strengthening strategies for the Sámi languages. In reply, the Norwegian authorities recognize that although better than their parent’s generation, coastal speakers of North Sámi and speakers of Lule and South Sámi are vulnerable. The authorities also admit a lack of teachers trained in the Sámi languages. A 2013 report from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reveals that, to date, supervision on the fulfilment of education policy has been somewhat limited, so results are unclear for the time being. Also, a lack of Sámi teaching materials is noted. A recent study on the linguistic landscape of the Sámi languages by Salo (2012) collected data in one town from each Sámi nation state. He points out that linguistic landscape is useful

8


Monty Richmond

because it often reflects the state of language policy (pp. 250). The Norwegian town chosen was Karasjok, the self-‐proclaimed ‘Capital of Sápmi’; a title that suggest the strength of the Sámi languages within (Salo, 2012). Out of 53 signs, North Sámi was represented on 27 of them: 14 in the public sphere, and 13 in the private sphere. For a regional minority language, this visibility in the linguistic landscape is relatively strong. The prominence was evident in that all street signs were monolingual in North Sámi (Ibid, pp. 251). Compared to the Swedish town surveyed, as we will see, Karasjok demonstrates the relative strength of North Sámi in Norway. However, Salo points out that North Sámi’s visual prominence likely indicates the weakness of other Sámi varieties in Norway. Although varieties other than North Sámi are clearly underrepresented in Norway, and inadequacies definitely exist within the education system and the proficiency of local authorities, North Sámi’s visibility in the “Capital of Sápmi” is strong.

Implementation in Sweden Sweden demonstrates a more severe lack of effective implementation than Norway. Chełstowska’s (2009) paper on language policy, Sweden’s fifth periodical report on the EU Charter (2013), and a large-‐scale study on the discrimination of Swedish Sámi by Pikkarainen (2008) reveals institutional inadequacies and social issues. Salo’s survey of the linguistic landscape in a large Sámi town, Kiruna, illustrates the alarming lack of visibility of the Sámi languages in Sweden. The trend of North Sámi’s relative privilege continues in Sweden, with the lesser-‐used Swedish Sámi languages, Pite and Ume, facing almost inevitable language shift. Chełstowska’s (2009) survey of Sámi education shows significant weaknesses in Sweden. As of 2005, in the Sámi schools that do exist in Sweden, instructions are mostly restricted to North Sámi, with other Sámi language education extremely rare (there are no Ume Sámi schools) (pp. 23). There were ten times fewer students receiving Sámi courses in Sweden than in Norway (Ibid). In

9


Monty Richmond

2011, Sámi schools still only provided Sámi language from grades 1-‐6 (UNECSCO, 2012). In Erik Ullenhag’s fifth periodical report on the EU Charter (2013), stern recommendations were made to “strengthen education for all regional or minority languages” (pp. 6), “increase the amount of bilingual education available in Sami” (pp. 7) and to “establish a dedicated and properly resourced system for teacher training” (pp. 7). Pikkarainen (2008) also points out that although students have the right to be taught in their native language, “a municipality is only obliged to arrange mother tongue teaching in Sami if a suitable teacher is available and the pupil has a basic knowledge of Sámi” (pp. 15). The situation is the same for upper secondary school but the requirement is a good knowledge of Sámi, rather than a basic one (Ibid). It is clear than in the 15 years since Sweden ratified the EU Charter, not many productive implementation practices have gone ahead with regards to education. This same study by Pikkarainen is a survey of complaints to the Ombudsman of discrimination (DO) in Northern Sweden, and it reveals significant issues. Of all complaints submitted to the DO since 2000, most of the concern related to Sami linguistic rights, such as shortcomings in mother tongue teaching, as well as a lack of information in the Sámi language when dealing with authorities (pp. 16). Another common complaint shows that many Sámi parents feel that they have to arrange for Sámi language teachers themselves (pp. 25). An alarming situation is a South Sámi school for which no school transport is arranged. The teacher has not been allowed keys to the classrooms, so lessons are often held in the corridors. Textbooks are often delayed or not provided at all (Ibid). A problem that came up frequently in the DO’s dialogue with the Sámi is the lack of action on the part of government and municipal authorities to ensure the Sami linguistic rights (pp. 29). It is again clear that Sweden has not lived up to its obligations under the FC and the EU Charter. As Lantto (2008) states it: “legislative development in this field has been rather insignificant in Sweden, and the system of Sami rights is today in many ways similar to the one established over a century ago” (pp. 27).

10


Monty Richmond

Compared to Karasjok, the Swedish Sámi town surveyed by Salo in his linguistic landscape study (2012), Kiruna, showed a stark lack of visibility for Sámi languages. Out of 40 signs, 7 displayed any representation of North Sámi.

Looking to the future

In 2005, a substantial document pertaining to the rights of all Sámi was presented to

parliament. Regarding language rights, this document, The Nordic Sámi Draft Convention (NSC), grants the Sámi the full right to pass on their language to people with little to no command of it (Article 23). This specific right, combined with the obligations of Norway and Sweden under international conventions, could mean an increase in the ease of access to Sámi education. Article 24 requires the possibility to use Sámi languages effectively in courts of law and in public domains. This is a subtle but meaningful modality strengthening from former policy. States would also be required to actively promote the use of Sámi: an extremely important factor currently missing. Crucially, the convention stipulates that Sámi students have the possibility to be taught in Sámi outside the Sámi areas. As Fitzmaurice (2009) explains, the fate of the NSC is still undecided. Although the convention has gained support from the Sámi people, the Sámi parliament, and the UN Special Rapporteur, James Anaya (Sametinget, 2014 & Anaya, 2010), “public authorities representing forestry and mining (thus competing with the Sámi traditional livelihoods), municipalities and county administrative boards in the Sámi areas had expressed a negative approach” (pp. 127). For language rights, the proper adoption of the NSC is currently the best way forward.

Two other possible developments that would aid the language situation for the Sámi people

are the widening of the Sámi administrative area, and the expansion of the role of the Sámi parliaments (Lantto, 2008). Even though Sweden has recently extended their administrative area, Salo (2012) reminds us that language rights are only (relatively) stable in the Sámi administrative

11


Monty Richmond

area, whilst a considerable part of the Sámi have moved to southern centres. This furthers the complexity of hierarchies of privilege amongst Sámi speakers, which would have North Sámi speakers on top, speakers of other Sámi languages underneath, then Sámi living in southern cities at the bottom. A uniform system of language rights and effective implementation across the nations must be established to ensure the best treatment of the Sámi. Another flaw in Sámi rights is the relative weak power of the Sámi parliaments. Whilst the Norwegian parliament has considerably more influence than the Swedish, neither been granted meaningful political influence or real power, for their roles are primarily consultative (Lantto, 2008). Lantto argues that a radical policy change must include the expansion of these roles, veto rights, and extensive cultural rights. However, he admits that as long as the final right of decision on indigenous issues remains with the sovereign nation state, the prospect for these radical changes are low. Both Norway and Sweden suffer from glaring implementation weaknesses, more so in Sweden. If language rights are to be properly secured, self-‐determination must first be achieved. Particularly in Sweden, the power to define indigeneity must be transferred to the Sámi (Ibid), and the first step would be to ratify the ILO 169. The adoption and subsequent ratification of the NSC and the further expansion of the area in which Sámi language rights are implemented could be an effective plan to help achieve self-‐determination for the Sámi.

12


Monty Richmond

References Articles

Bull, T 2002, ‘The Sámi Language(s): Maintenance and Intellectualisation’, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 28-‐39. Chełstowska, N 2009, ‘Language policies in Northern Europe: The case of Sámi minorities in Scandinavia and Russia’, MA Thesis (General Linguistics), University of Amsterdam. Fitzmaurice, M 2009, ‘The new developments regarding the Saami peoples of the North’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 16, pp. 67-‐156. Heikkila, R 2010, ‘The language situation in Sweden: the relationship between the main language and the national minority languages’, Sens Public Revue Internationale, pp. 3-‐9. Huss, L & Lindgren, A 2011, ‘Defining language emancipation’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 209, pp. 1-‐15 Lantto, P & Mörkenstam, U 2008, ‘Sami rights and Sami challenges’, in Scandinavian Journal of History, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 26-‐51. Lawrence, W 2011, ‘Saami and Norwegians protest construction of Alta Dam, Norway, 1979-‐1981’, Global Nonviolent Action Database, pp. 1-‐6: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/saami-‐and-‐norwegians-‐protest-‐construction-‐ alta-‐dam-‐norway-‐1979-‐1981 Pietikäinen, S, Huss, L, Laihiala-‐Kankainen, S, Aikio-‐Puoskari, U & Lane, P 2010, ‘Regulating multilingualism in the North Calotte: The case of Kven, Meänkieli and Sámi languages’, Acta Borealia: A Nordic Journal of Circumpolar Societies, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-‐23. Pikkarainen, H & Brodin, B 2008, ‘Discrimination of the Sami – the rights of the Sami from a discrimination perspective’, in Ombudsmannen mot etnisk diskriminering report 2008:1eng, Stockholm, pp. 5-‐39. Rasmussen, T & Shuan Nolan, J 2011, ‘Reclaiming Sámi languages: indigenous language emancipation from East to West’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 209, pp. 35-‐55. Salo, H 2012, ‘Using linguistic landscape to examine the visibility of Sámi languages in the North Calotte’, Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape, Gorter, D. Heiko, F. & van Mensel, L. (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 243-‐263

13


Monty Richmond

Books

Sammallahti, P 1998, The Saami Languages: An Introduction, Davvi Girji, Kárášjohka. Skutnabb-‐Kangas, T & Phillipson, R (eds.) 1994, Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Government Documents

Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 concerning the Sameting (the Sami parliament) and other Sami legal matters (the Sami Act) as subsequently amended, most recently by Act of 11 April, 2003 No. 22, Norway. Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, most recent amendment (23/07/1995) Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden, most recent amendment (1/1/2003) Council of Europe, ‘Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities’, CETS No.: 157, 1/2/1995, Strasbourg: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm Information on ratifications at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=157&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG Council of Europe, ‘European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages’, CETS No.: 148, 5/11/1992, Strasbourg: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm Information on ratifications at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=1&DF=&CL=ENG Per Norberg 2010, ‘Constitutional changes regarding anti-‐discrimination’, European network of legal experts in the non-‐discrimination field, Sweden: http://www.non-‐discrimination.net/content/media/SE-‐18-‐2009 -‐ Template -‐ Flash Report-‐ constitutional changes 2011.pdf International Labour Organisation 1989, ‘C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989’, English PDF accessed at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-‐-‐-‐ed_norm/-‐-‐-‐ normes/documents/publication/wcms_100897.pdf Information on ratifications at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO::P11300_INSTRUMEN T_ID:312314 Moseley, C (ed.) 2010, ‘Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger’, 3rd edn. Paris, UNESCO Publishing. Online version: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas

14


Monty Richmond

Nordisk samekonvensjon: utkast fra finsk – norsk – svensk – samisk ekspertgruppe (Nordic Saami Convention, draft from Finnish-‐Norwegian-‐Swedish-‐Saami expert group), issued 26/10/2005, Oslo. English translation taken from: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/AID/temadokumenter/sami/sami_sameko nv_engelsk.pdf Sametinget (Sámi Parliament) 2014, Pronouncement: The declaration by the Sami Parliamentary Conference on the Nordic Sami Convention adopted in Umeå 2014, 140220. Ullenhag, E, Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) 2013, Sweden’s report on the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: presented, in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter, fifth Periodical Report, Regeringskansliet, Stockholm. UNESCO 2012, ‘World Data on Education’, IBE/2012/CP/WDE/SW, VII Ed. 2010/11: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-‐ versions/Sweden.pdf United Nations 2013, ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention: Norway’, CERD/C/NOR/21-‐22, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, pp. 1-‐35. United Nations Special Rapporteur 2010, ‘UN expert on indigenous people supports restart of negotiations on Nordic Sami convention’, statement found at: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/statements/un-‐expert-‐on-‐indigenous-‐people-‐supports-‐restart-‐ of-‐negotiations-‐on-‐nordic-‐sami-‐convention

15