Environmental constitutionalism in the Arctic : indigenous rights recognition through environmental restorative justice

Abstract

This doctoral dissertation examines how constitutional law responds to environmental degradation that threatens the cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. It asks whether constitutional systems, understood not merely as foundational legal texts but as evolving frameworks of justice, can recognise environmental harm as cultural harm and respond effectively to the complex relationship between ecological protection and Indigenous cultural continuity.

To address this question, the dissertation develops Environmental Restorative Justice (ERJ) as an analytical framework for evaluating constitutional responses to environmental conflicts affecting Indigenous Peoples. ERJ operates through three interrelated dimensions: distributed environmental management, meaningful indigenous participation in environmental decision-making, and culturally grounded environmental impact assessments. Together, these dimensions provide a common framework for assessing how constitutional systems accommodate Indigenous rights, knowledge, and legal traditions within environmental governance.

In doing so, the dissertation highlights the role of constitutional and supreme courts, together with national legislative mechanisms, in shaping culturally responsive interpretations of environmental law. Grounded in rights-based constitutionalism, it argues that constitutions are not static blueprints but compromissory legal frameworks capable of evolving through constitutional interpretation, legislative development, and dialogue with Indigenous legal traditions and international human rights law. Within this framework, culture is understood not merely as a symbolic or representational right, but as a constitutionally protected collective interest, particularly where environmental degradation threatens Indigenous identity, cultural continuity, and intergenerational relationships. In this respect, ERJ does not replace existing constitutional doctrines; rather, it provides an evaluative framework through which constitutional systems can better accommodate plural conceptions of justice and strengthen the constitutional legitimacy of environmental governance affecting Indigenous Peoples.