The central aim of this thesis is to evaluate how the current system of moose hunting on the territory above the cultivation limit has affected the local hunters and members of the local Sami communities. This highlights the question of how the different sides in the study have the ability to influence the decisions that affect their actual landuse. This in turn poses three of the following questions. What historical aspects are foundational for today’s system of the double registered moose hunting on the land above the cultivation limit? What consequences have the double landuse had with regards of moose hunting on the two sides in the study? How does the two sides describe the actual problem of the current system and how could alternative system be formulated?   Historical state agendas in Sweden created a situation of two parties with claims to landuse on the same territory. This in turn created the double landuse in question of moose hunting above the cultivation limit in Västerbotten County. Juridical statements determine the conditions for how these two sides should coexist on the same land. These have been found to be the source of problematic situations in real life situations. Requirements of today’s system of a recommended consultation between the two sides have in many cases not been functional. The current system builds in high extent on the consultation between the two sides, but in context no tools for implementing this is made available in ruling documents. This consultation presupposes for example some kind of connection and common ground between the two parts. This is an aspect that in many cases is not present or obvious. The question about the double nature of the problem has under a long time been subject to many legal proposals for change. Though in present time no new changes has been made. Many arguments point to the superior function of a system that is administered and controlled locally, if the effects of the decisions have local impact. From this there are mixed feelings and several uncertainties about how to find a way to implement a system that addresses the difficulties in today’s system.

In a recently published official Report from the Swedish Government (SOU 2010:73) a leg- islative proposal has been introduced. Its main purpose is to prevent parallel registrations of ships that are bareboat chartered to other countries. The legislative proposal claims that by preventing parallel registration of ships the Swedish Maritime Code will better corre- spond with the UN convention on the law of the sea. The UN convention on the law of the sea clearly states that ships are forbidden to fly two flags. There is however no restriction concerning parallel registration, simultaneously, in two registers. A ship that is bareboat chartered out from Sweden does not fulfil criteria re- quired in order to be deregistered, according to the Swedish maritime code. In matter of fact ownership remains unchanged in a bareboat procedure. The situation leads to parallel registration, and uncertainty can arise regarding which country has full state control over the ship. This may cause problems, and should be dealt with. There are however more ap- propriate ways of dealing with the issue rather than prohibiting parallel registration, and that are compatible with the UN convention on the law of the sea. By allowing bareboat registration according to the UN convention on conditions for regis- tration of ships, the issue of which country has full state control over the ship is resolved, and assures that the ship sails under only on states flag. Sweden has held a passive position regarding the issue of parallel registration of ships and a legislative change is necessary, mainly because parallel registration, as it is currently con- ducted in Sweden today, is in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea, but also because it leads to uncertainty concerning which country has full state control over the ship. However, a prohibition against parallel registration is not compatible with the rest of EU, where the majority has chosen to permit parallel registration. Bareboat registration ac- cording to the UN convention on conditions for registration of ships is not in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea and should therefore be permitted in Sweden.