The recent 100 year anniversary of the autonomy of the à land Islands is the occasion for the publication of this book. The autonomy arrangements are widely known and frequently quoted as an advanced model of self-government, not least when seen from the outside. From inside, however, demands for improvements and tensions if not cracks have from time to time appeared in the à land relationship with Finland.
The purpose of the book is to provide an accessible and analytical overview of the legal and political issues that continue to generate debate about both the à land autonomy as a working institution and as a model for others. The authors are from the à land Islands and neighbouring States and most of them have previously written about the à land autonomy or related issues in international and constitutional law and politics.
The authors seek to examine the history of the à land autonomy, its current status in law and in fact and future prospects. They also address the series of legal, political, cultural, economic and security issues at global, regional, constitutional and other levels that affect both the autonomy and sovereign Finland. Despite a long history, it is interesting to note how many good questions remain unanswered.
Internally questions have arisen relating to both respect for the initial commitments dating back to the League of Nations and changing expectations and demands that have emerged over the past century. Do the current autonomy arrangements live up to the promises made in the original deal negotiated by the League? Has there been backtracking? Have the autonomous institutions and their powers grown along with similar bodies in Finnish society? Have they been given the opportunity to respond to the different political landscape within and beyond Finland?
External developments, such as the creation of sub-regional organisations like the Nordic Council and the Baltic Sea State Council, and more importantly Finlandâs membership in the European Union and NATO, have inevitably affected the autonomy arrangements. Are the autonomy institutions empowered and equipped to handle the additional issues and layers of governance which accompany these and other international undertakings? Have they been given the opportunity to participate in these organisations in a manner that continues to guarantee à landâs identity, culture and peaceful way of life?
Various actors, including sub-regional, regional and global intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations and other autonomies, are present at the table where à land-related issues come up. More basically, while the origins of the à land autonomy arrangements were with the League of Nations, it is unclear today whether the United Nations has replaced the League as the real or potential monitor and guarantor of the implementation of these arrangements. And if the UN has such a role, beyond its human rights monitoring mandates, which UN body or institution is responsible?
Not to forget the origins with the League of Nations and keeping in mind the Islandsâ location between Finland and Sweden, the à land autonomy served to prevent, manage and resolve a potentially violent conflict. Indeed, the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) has identified autonomy as one of the useful tools available for conflict prevention.1 Recommendations drafted under OSCE auspices clearly draw on human rights standards but they are based on a conflict prevention mandate. As far as autonomy is concerned, comparable international minority rights instruments do not exist.
Is autonomy a human right, that is do minorities have the right to autonomy? In the absence of express provisions in human rights instruments, is it possible that widespread autonomy practice by States has led to the emergence of international customary law? Does a human rights approach to minority rights somehow contradict the security approach? Can it really be the case that minorities stand a better chance of enjoying autonomy if threats of violence are involved?
What demands have been made by the à land Islanders concerning substantive and procedural changes to the autonomy? Are such changes backed up by international standards, either those based on conflict prevention or human rights, or both? What lessons, if any, can the à land Islanders draw from the autonomies and constitution-drafting in the Faroe Islands and Greenland? Should à land draft a constitution of its own?
Why have the autonomy-related wishes of the à land Islanders encountered Finnish resistance? Have negotiation positions of the Finnish Government at any point in time interrupted the holistic approach to the à land solution, by placing uneven emphasis on autonomy, language and the security components? Does ongoing strengthening of the integration of the Finnish State stand in conflict with the à land autonomy arrangements?
Which intergovernmental organisations (IGOs like for example UN system organisations, OSCE and the Council of Europe), and which bodies within them, are most suitable, able and willing to address issues relating to the à land autonomy? Does the mandate of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) extend to the peaceful à land Islands, or is the threat of armed or violent conflict necessary for HCNM involvement? Asking again, is it really so that minority rights will get more attention by IGOs if or when their demands for change involve threats or acts of violence?
The membership of Finland in the European Union has brought both opportunities and challenges to à landâs autonomy, in relation to both applicable laws and representation. As to many of the European law issues, we are grateful to Rainer Hofmann, his co-authors and the à land Government for allowing us to draw on their recent study.2 Similar questions arise in regard to Finlandâs recent membership in NATO â will it in law or in fact affect à landâs demilitarisation and neutralisation?
The à land autonomy has served and continues to serve as an example of what an international organisation can accomplish in the fields of conflict prevention, peace-making and minority rights. This is confirmed by the lessons from the à land Islands and Finland concerning delegated powers, self-governing institutions and the mostly harmonious interplay between autonomy and sovereignty and between law and politics.
On the basis of the 100-year experience, it ought to be possible to make use of the à land model in its holistic sense if either the OSCE Lund Recommendations on the political rights of minorities were to be revisited or a new instrument drafted, by the HCNM or other IGO bodies? By holistic we are referring to autonomy along with culture and language protection, demilitarisation and neutralisation. As to the minority rights approach, what is the interplay between equal rights, discrimination and special measures in the à land situation? Should linguistic and religious minorities within the à land population have their own minority rights?
Furthermore, is it realistic that à landâs autonomy can become a model for solving other minority situations? Should à land, or for that matter Finland, take an active role in promoting the à land autonomy model abroad? Could this model and the lengthy practical experience that comes with it constitute a serious positive contribution to actual situations currently in the news, for example Corsica and Nagorno-Karabakh?
Beyond what is already the case, should the à land Islanders be represented in global, regional and sub-regional organisations and at what level? Should they have seats of their own in the European Parliament, the Nordic Council or other parliamentary bodies? What about international sports organisations and sports events â should the à land Islanders be able to obtain membership and to compete under their own flag when they so want? In this context, one can also ask what is the role, if any, of the kin-State, in this case Sweden, in both sport-based and general terms?
What is the best method for promoting and strengthening minority rights? Special efforts relating to culture, education and employment, the adoption of national and international standards, emphasis on national implementation and international monitoring, and/or the enhanced role of domestic courts and international appeals? Again, one can ask whether the à land Islanders should seek to contribute to such efforts and in the process become more of an actor in international affairs?
What is the likely further evolution of the rules concerning the right of self-determination, with emphasis on the internal dimension? Does it in any way offer benefits to the à land Islands? What does the term âa peopleâ mean? Are the Sami, as an indigenous people of Finland, entitled to stronger autonomy and better protection than the à land Islanders? Certainly, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples offers stronger language on autonomy than any minority rights instrument. How do the Sami and à land autonomies compare?
It is our hope that this book can serve as a source of further debate and inspiration about autonomy and minority rights and related issues in the à land Islands and beyond. We welcome all comments on the bookâs contents, both what might be missing and what can be improved. And weâd be pleased if this kind of debate leads to subsequent meetings and new editions of the book. Indeed, many issues and questions have come up in the preparatory process putting the book together, and the answers to some of the questions are pending.
By way of conclusion, we say many thanks to several persons and institutions which have made this book possible. In addition to the authors and unnamed peer reviewers, essential contributions have been made by the Olof M Janssons Foundation for covering the costs of Open Access, Lindy Melman and especially Bea Timmer at Brill for good advice and all the Brill staff involved in getting the book published, Alexandra Gäddnäs for editing and layout and Graham Robins and Elspeth Randelin for language editing. Librarian Hans-Erik Ramström at the Library of à lands Lagting was very helpful with the bibliography. Of course, we the editors remain responsible for any missteps and mistakes that may have occurred during the preparation and presentation of the book.
Paragraph 35 of the 1990 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human Dimension and Part III of the 1999 Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of Minorities in Public Life.
The à land Islands in International and European Union Law: Present Situation and (Potential) Problems, submitted to the à land Government in 2023.