No description available.

No description available.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att klargöra om den svenska regleringen av samernas vinterbetesmarker är förenlig med egendomsskyddet i artikel 1 första tilläggsprotokollet Europakonventionen. För att uppfylla det syftet utreds hur den svenska regleringen av samernas vinterbetesmarker ser ut, hur egendomsskyddet i Europakonventionen är utformat och slutligen om den svenska regleringen är förenlig med egendomsskyddet. Eftersom Europakonventionen är ett folkrättsligt traktat som dessutom har till syfte att skydda mänskliga rättigheter påverkas tolkningen av konventionen dels av folkrättsliga regler om traktatstolkning, men också av andra folkrättsliga instrument som exempelvis rör skydd för mänskliga rättigheter. Samerna är ett urfolk, och det finns folkrättsliga regler som skyddar urfolks markrättigheter. För att uppfylla uppsatsens syfte utreds därför frågorna hur Europakonventionen påverkas av folkrätten, samt vilket skydd urfolk har för sina markrättigheter enligt folkrätten. Utredningen av den svenska regleringen av samernas vinterbetesmarker visar att det är mycket svårt och kostsamt för samerna att i domstol styrka att de har rätt till vinterbete. Detta leder till rättsförluster eftersom samerna inte har råd att gå i svaromål i tvister rörande sin rätt till vinterbete. De områden där samerna kan låta sina renar beta om vintern minskar på grund av detta, vilket påverkar rennäringen som är en viktig del av den samiska kulturen negativt. När de folkrättsliga reglerna för urfolks markrättigheter utreds visar det sig också att den svenska regleringen av samernas vinterbetesmarker inte ger samerna ett skydd vilket är lika starkt som vad som följer av den folkrättsliga standarden. Utredningen av de tolkningsregler som är tillämpliga vid tolkningen av Europakonventionen visar att de folkrättsliga reglerna om urfolks markrättigheter är högst relevanta för hur konventionen ska tolkas. När egendomsskyddet i artikel 1 första tilläggsprotokollet tolkas med beaktande av de folkrättsliga reglerna blir det tydligt att den svenska regleringen av samernas vinterbetesmarker inte är förenlig med Europakonventionen. / The purpose of this thesis is to ascertain whether the Swedish rules concerning Sami reindeer winter pastures is compatible with the right of property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). To fulfill this purpose, the rules concerning Sami winter pastures and the right to property in the ECHR will be examined, and finally it will be ascertained whether the Swedish rules are in harmony with the right of property in the ECHR. Because the ECHR as a treaty is part of public international law, and since its purpose is to protect human rights its interpretation can be affected by both international rules for treaty interpretation as well as other international law instruments. The Sami, as an indigenous people, have certain land rights according to several different international instruments. To fulfill the purpose of this thesis in a satisfactory manner will therefore require an examination of how the ECHR is affected by other rules in public international law, as well as the protection international law offers for indigenous peoples’ land rights. When the Swedish rules concerning Sami land rights are examined, it becomes apparent that it is very difficult and costly for the Sami to prove their right to winter pastures in court. Because of this the Sami oftentimes are not able to afford the legal costs necessary for them to adequately protect their right to reindeer winter pastures. Consequently, the areas which can be used by the Sami for reindeer herding during winters are shrinking. This affects the traditional Sami occupation of reindeer husbandry, which is an important part of Sami culture negatively. The examination of indigenous land rights under international law shows that the Swedish rules are not up to par with international standards. The examination of how the ECHR should be interpreted makes it clear that indigenous rights under international law are relevant for the interpretation of the convention. Finally, when the right to property in the ECHR is examined with regard to international rules concerning indigenous land rights it is clear that the Swedish rules concerning Sami reindeer winter pastures are not compatible with the ECHR.

This study compares USA and Swedish laws on Native Americans and Sami. Indigenous peoples are known to have inadequate rights because they are discriminated against. This is why the study has focused on examining what their rights look like and whether it is the implementation of the laws that has caused the high risk of discrimination. The study has focused on three areas: discrimination, self-determination and assimilation. the study has been based on these three areas when we look at the laws to see how it is in these areas among indigenous peoples. The approach will be to review the laws and compare them with similar laws in both countries, to see what similarities and differences there are around the laws of indigenous peoples. The different laws that the study will be going through in Sweden are Nationella minoriteter and minoritetspråk, Rennäringslagen and Sametingslagen and the US laws are the General allotment act, the Indian civil rights act, the Indian reorganization act and Native American language act. The results showed that the laws have some similarities but also large differences, because of the different forms of governments the countries have. One example of this is in the USA they have allot of power far down among the levels such as the states themselves and Native Americans own governments and courts, where they have the power to judge people and enforce laws. In Sweden the largest power exists in the parliament and the Sami there for do not have their own courts or governments where they have the power that Native Americans have. It also showed that many of the laws have changed some over the years, some more than others, but it turns out that it does not matter so much when they still have not made enough significant changes that help the indigenous peoples.