Abstract: As climate change enables access to energy resources in the circumpolar Arctic region, many actors are increasingly concerned over the local and global impacts of hydrocarbon extraction. In Canada, the development of Arctic energy is also implicated in the operation of two core concepts of International Relations: sovereignty and security. Exercising Canada’s Arctic sovereignty has often involved promoting hydrocarbon energy extraction, while the pursuit of energy security has been an important driver of resource extraction and inter-state sovereignty disputes. This construction of sovereignty and energy security may, however, be in conflict with the sovereignty and security claims articulated by Northern Indigenous peoples. This paper examines the relationship between energy, sovereignty, and security in Northern Canada. It employs three cases to examine the contradictory dynamics that arise between sovereignty and security claims made by Canada, neighbouring states, and Arctic Indigenous peoples: the disputed status of the Northwest Passage; the dispute between Canada and the United States over maritime boundaries in the Beaufort Sea; and the relationship between the Alberta bitumen sands and the wellbeing of Indigenous peoples downstream. The cases illustrate that state claims to sovereignty and energy security may be mutually reinforcing or exclusive, resulting in policy incoherence and political contestation. The paper concludes that Arctic sovereignty and energy security claims in Canada are made to the detriment, and over the objections, of many Indigenous peoples, and are difficult to sustain in a context of radical environmental change.

Abstract: "In 1984, the Inuvialuit, an Inuit people located in the northwest part of the Northwest Territories, Canada, signed a comprehensive land claims agreement with the Canadian federal government. Under the terms of their modern treaty, the Inuvialuit received ownership and jurisdiction over approximately 91,000km2 of land in the Western Arctic, of which 13,000km2 included surface and subsurface rights. Collectively, these lands are known as the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. To administer these new lands and jurisdictions, the Inuvialuit created two land claims organizations: the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Inuvialuit Game Council. Although the Inuvialuit have yet to negotiate “Aboriginal self-government,” they do have a form of “defacto” self-governance, called Indigenous corporate governance, through these organizations. In this paper, I analyze these developments using relatively new definitions of multilevel governance (MLG) and intergovernmental relations that turn on the presence or lack of co-production in public policy decision-making and implementation processes (Alcantara, Broschek, and Nelles 2015; Alcantara and Nelles 2014). Using these categories, I investigate the extent to which Inuvialuit participation in the policy-making processes in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has changed dramatically or remained fundamentally the same since 1984. My findings suggest that instances of MLG and Inuvialuit influence are prevalent in the area of resource management, less so in education, and virtually non-existent in housing policy."

Abstract: In Canada as elsewhere around the world, Indigenous peoples have gained considerable agency in challenging decisions regarding resource development on their traditional lands. This growing agency is reflected in the emergence of the international right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) when Indigenous peoples and their traditional lands may be adversely affected by major resource development projects. Building on the literature on norm translation, this paper discusses how the right to FPIC has entered the Canadian political landscape and is increasingly mobilised in relations between Indigenous peoples, governments and extractive industries. We argue that in the absence of clear government policy to that effect, the politics of consent is largely playing out through private negotiation between project proponents and Indigenous communities. We discuss the implications of this privatized model for Indigenous peoples.