Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Mining law – Greenland »

The new Mining Law for Greenland, approved in 1991 by the Danish and Greenlandic governments, was designed to encourage interest in exploration and utilisation of mineral resources in Greenland by creating more favourable operating conditions for the oil and mining industry. The activities of the Geological Survey of Greenland (Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse, GGU) in 1991 have reflected this new strategy. In the hydrocarbon field a new information prospectus has been prepared for the forthcoming licensing round for selected areas offshore West Greenland, while initiatives to attract interests of mining companies have been intensified.

Increasing numbers of exploration companies are visiting the Geological Survey of Greenland's (GGU) headquarters in Copenhagen. A main reason for this was the announcement on 10th January 1991 by the Mineral Resources Administration for Greenland of a new policy to encourage exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in Greenland. Subsequently, new legislation replacing the previous mining law, was passed in June 1991. Some of the questions asked by visitors concern the relationship between the work areas of the industry and the role of the Survey. These questions focus on two of GGU's key functions: (1) the obligation to act as a data bank by collecting and compiling all types of geodata about Greenland; and (2) the active assessment of the mineral potential of Greenland by carrying out laboratory and field studies.

AbstractLarge scale mineral and petroleum extraction - in fact or in terms of industry projects and government hopeful expectations - has in recent years been one of the main sources of conflict between indigenous peoples and the larger society encompassing them. This is particularly true of Greenland - not because of the numbers or magnitude of projects - but because there is no individual ownership to land in Greenland, in the traditional western sense and some of the traditional sources of conflict have therefore been absent. For a discussion of aboriginal territorial rights in Greenland, it might therefore be appropriate to take your point of departure in the conflicts which may arise between mineral extraction and the traditional Greenlandic land use. I shall therefore shortly review legal data, which may contribute to the solution of such conflicts. By the same process I'll contribute to the understanding of the legal entity, which is endowed with the territorial rights in Greenland, or - popularly speaking: who owns Greenland. While it is generally recognized that the ownership of Greenland is vested in the public or in the society, is has been disputed which society or what public possess the legal claim to that entitlement. The Home Rule Commission For Greenland contributed no solution to this problem, and the "Home Rule Act" simply laid down, that "the permanent resident population in Greenland have basic rights to the natural resources of Greenland".2 The mining acts for Greenland - both the old one from 1965 (rev. 69) and the one adapted to home rule from 1978 - prescribes that mineral concessions shall respect existing (use) rights (§ 3 resp. 8).3 This suggests two issues: 1.: what are the contents of the protected existing rights and as a sub-issue: who are entitled. This first problem is my main subject in the following, while I shall only touch upon the 2. issue: namely, that the authorities in granting concessions have neglected their duty to examine and safeguard prior existing Greenlandic land use rights. This is still current practice and represent a major reason for the fact that the main issue has yet to be solved. I shall subsequently contribute to the elucidation of existing Greenlandic land use rights by discussing: 1) localized rights, 2) the more general Greenlandic territorial rights and finally 3) the issue of the protection of these Greenlandic rights according to the Danish constitution (§ 73).

The exploitation of minerals in Greenland is governed by the Greenlandic Mineral Resource Act of 2009. Among the mineral resources is uranium. The exploitation of minerals lies within the competences of the self-government. However, the areas of foreign policy and security remain the competences of the Realm. When the socalled zero tolerance policy was lifted in 2013, the Danish Government insisted that uranium mining could not be under the (sole) competences of the Greenlandic self-government, as uranium is a dual-use good. In January 2016, the Greenlandic and the Danish government signed an agreement on exploitation and export of uranium and other radioactive resources. We are now are left with the question of competences not being unequivocally legally solved. And in addition we have open questions as to responsibility under international law.

This article takes point of departure in the case of Greenland to examine how public authorities in Arctic societies may deploy the ideas inherent in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to engage multinational corporations or national companies in contributing to addressing societal needs. Drawing on the emergent international law regime on CSR, it discusses the role of OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to encourage companies explicitly or implicitly to contribute to societal needs. The discussion points to similarities between social and environmental impact assessment and the risk-based due diligence approach recommended by OECD’s Guidelines. It also points to similarities between Impact Benefit Agreements and the Guidelines’ recommendations for companies’ contributions to host societies through employment of local labour and transfer of skills. This focus fits closely with public policy objectives expressed by Greenland’s Self-Government in regard to mining and underscores the pertinence for Greenland to consider acceding to the Guidelines.

Abstract The paper demonstrates how the evolution of international law on colonial and indigenous peoples, in particular evolving rights to sovereignty over natural resources, shaped the changing relationship between Greenland and the rest of the Danish Realm. Greenland today is in a unique position in international law, enjoying an extremely high degree of self-government. This paper explores the history, current status and future of Greenland through the lens of international law, to show how international obligations both colour its relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark and influence its approaches to resource development internally. It considers the invisibility of the Inuit population in the 1933 Eastern Greenland case that secured Danish sovereignty over the entire territory. It then turns to Denmark’s registration of Greenland as a non-self-governing territory (colony) in 1946 before Greenland’s-purported decolonisation in 1953 and the deficiencies of that process. In the second part of the 20th century, Denmark began to recognise the Greenland Inuit as an indigenous people before a gradual shift towards recognition of the Greenlanders as a people in international law, entitled to self-determination, including the right to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. This peaked with the Self-Government Act of 2009. The paper will then go on to assess competing interpretations of the Self-Government Act of 2009 according to which the Greenland self-government is the relevant decision-making body for an increasing number of fields of competence including, since 1 January 2010, the governance of extractive industries. Some, including members of the Greenland self-government, argue that the Self-Government Act constitutes full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007), but this view is not universally shared. The paper also considers the status and rights of two Greenland minorities: the North Greenlanders (Inughuit) and the East Greenlanders, each of whom has distinct histories, experiences of colonisation, dialects (or languages) and cultural traditions. While the Kingdom of Denmark accepts the existence of only one indigenous people, namely, the Inuit of Greenland, this view is increasingly being challenged in international fora, including the UN human rights treaty bodies, as the two minorities are in some cases considered distinct indigenous peoples. Their current position in Greenland as well as in a future fully independent Greenland is examined, and the rights that they hold against the Greenland self-government as well as the Kingdom of Denmark explored. Greenland’s domestic regime for governance of non-renewable natural resources (principally mining and hydrocarbons) is briefly analysed and compared with international standards, with a particular emphasis on public participation. The paper assesses the extent to which it complies with the standards in key international instruments.

Abstract In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government was adopted. It recognises that “the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination”. Within this framework, the people of Greenland have gained significant control over their own affairs and the right to access to independence. Yet, the extent to which this framework ensures the right of self-determination in accordance with fundamental human rights can still be questioned. From a human rights perspective, the right of self-determination is not a one-time right. It is fundamental human right that applies in different contexts beyond decolonisation and which has implications not only for colonial countries and peoples but also for the population of all territories, including indigenous and minority groups. From this perspective, this contribution seeks to disentangle and analyse the different facets of self-determination in Greenland while considering the implications of the right based on the multifarious identity of the peoples living in the country as colonial people, citizens, indigenous and minority groups, including their claim to control mining resources.

Abstract Old lead–zinc (Pb–Zn) mining sites in Greenland have increased the environmental concentration of Pb in local marine organisms, including the shorthorn sculpin. Organ metal concentrations and histopathology have been used in environmental monitoring programs to evaluate metal exposure and subsequent effects in shorthorn sculpins. So far, no study has reported the impact of heavy metals on gene expression involved in metal-related stress and immune responses in sculpins. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of exposure to environmentally relevant waterborne Pb (0.73 ± 0.35 μg/L) on hepatic gene expression of metallothionein (mt), immunoglobulin M (igm), and microRNAs (miRNAs; mir132 and mir155) associated with immune responses in the shorthorn sculpin compared to a control group. The mt and igm expression were upregulated in the Pb-exposed group compared to the control group. The transcripts of mir132 and mir155 were not different in sculpins between the Pb-exposed and control group; however, miRNA levels were significantly correlated with Pb liver concentrations. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between liver Pb concentrations and igm, and a positive relationship between igm and mir155. The results indicate that exposure to Pb similar to those concentrations reported in in marine waters around Greenland Pb–Zn mine sites influences the mt and immune responses in shorthorn sculpins. This is the first study to identify candidate molecular markers in the shorthorn sculpins exposed to waterborne environmentally relevant Pb suggesting mt and igm as potential molecular markers of exposure to be applied in future assessments of the marine environment near Arctic mining sites.

Defence date: 10 May 1991
Examining Board: Professor Isi Foighel, University of Copenhagen; Professor Terence C. Daintith, University of London (Supervisor); Professor Hans Jacob Bull, Nordisk Institutt for Sjørett, Oslo; Professor Francis Snyder, European University Institute, Florence; Professor Thomas W. Wälde, University of Dundee
First made available online in defence version: 16 October 2015, and withdrawn on 28 October 2015.
The online version made available in Open Access on 20 April 2016 is the shorter and reworked version as finalised in July 1991 (distributed in print by the EUI in July 1994). It is based on the original manuscript of the defence version of the PhD thesis (May 1991).