Native ‘land claims’, Russian style
Native ‘land claims’, Russian style
复制标题
俄罗斯风格的本土“土地主张”
DOI：
10.1111/j.1541-0064.2001.tb01501.x
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Vasily Robbek
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Fondahl;O. A. Lazebnik;G. Poelzer;Vasily Robbek
引言 用 Peter Usher 在本杂志 1982 年卷中的话说，加拿大原住民的主张是“重新安排北方原住民与加拿大社会其他人之间关系的主要手段；是结束几代人的不公正并确保他们作为一个民族的未来的机会”（Usher 1982，187）。自从亚瑟写下这些话以来，原住民条约谈判在加拿大各地取得了进展。如果地理学家直到最近才对这一过程给予相对较少的关注（Peters and Wolfe-Keddie 1995; Peters 2000, 2001），那么媒体报道则鼓励了公众的认识。尽管大众媒体的页面或屏幕上偶尔会出现有关澳大利亚、新西兰或阿拉斯加的文章，但我们对世界其他地方的类似过程的了解相当有限。另一个很少受到关注的过程是横跨北冰洋的俄罗斯联邦。加拿大和俄罗斯之间的关键共同点——联邦制、对北方资源开发的依赖、独特而强大的原住民生活方式的持续存在，特别是在北方地区——使得俄罗斯的案例对于地理学家和其他对原住民重新领土化的比较方法感兴趣的人来说特别有趣。我们在本文中使用“原住民”一词作为俄语短语“北方土著人数较少的民族”[korennye malochislennye narodoy Severa] 的简写，这是法律上独立的土著 [korennye] 民族的子集。这些民族被定义为“居住在北方、西伯利亚和远东地区，在其祖先传统居住的领土上，保持传统生活方式、经济和贸易的人民，人数不足5万人，并认为自己是独特的民族社区”。 （Ob obshchikh 2000，[节] 1）。 (1) 在后苏联“过渡”时期，俄罗斯的原住民领袖抓住了改革的口号，要求在领土权利的法律编纂方面重新制定他们与国家的关系。这种努力类似于加拿大原住民领导人利用 20 世纪 70 年代和 1980 年代的“权利革命”来推进条约谈判（Blomley 和 Pratt 2001）。与加拿大一样，俄罗斯的原住民领导人也强调了重新领土化对于确保经济独立和文化持久至关重要，以及由此产生的领土必须如何得到法律保障。他们通过谈判制定了法律，以便对原住民空间进行立法，然后尝试利用该法律来产生法律所允许的物质空间。然而，受加拿大和其他地方正在进行的同源进程的启发，俄罗斯的“土地主张”模式采取了不同的路线。俄罗斯联邦尚未像加拿大那样选择通过政府间条约谈判进程来解决原住民权利问题。法院案件在推动这一进程方面也没有发挥重要作用，因为改革后的法院系统本身仍处于起步阶段（Smith 1996）。然而，原住民重新领土化正在通过致力于原住民权利的新立法制定的进程进行。俄罗斯联邦的这一进程有许多理由，有些与加拿大提出土地主张的理由相似，有些则不同。首先，随着俄罗斯走向市场经济的某种变体，后苏联时期俄罗斯发生的大规模社会、经济和政治变革引发了对全国范围内最佳土地保有权组织的重新思考。由此产生的土地保有权结构必须在其编织的某个地方包括原住民领土性的线索，至少在原住民占人口很大一部分的国家地区如此。这主要是在北方农村。其次，国家对全国所有地区的补贴显着减少，尤其是在北方地区，这就要求设计新的、理想的自给自足的经济组织形式，以满足市场化的要求。 ……
Introduction Native claims in Canada, in the words of Peter Usher in the 1982 volume of this journal, are a "chief means of reordering the relationship between native northerners and the rest of Canadian society; a chance to put an end to generations of injustice and to secure their future as a people" (Usher 1982, 187). Since Usher penned these words, First Nations treaty negotiations have advanced throughout Canada. If geographers have paid relatively little attention to this process until recently (Peters and Wolfe-Keddie 1995; Peters 2000, 2001), media coverage has encouraged a general public awareness. Our knowledge of similar processes elsewhere in the world is rather limited, though the occasional article on Australia, New Zealand or Alaska graces the pages or screens of the mass media. Another process that rarely receives attention is that across the Arctic Ocean in the Russian Federation. Critical commonalties shared between Canada and Russia -- federalism, a dependence on northern resource development, the persistence of distinct and robust aboriginal ways of life, especially in northern regions -- make the Russian case especially interesting for geographers and others interested in comparative approaches to aboriginal re-territorialization. We use the term `aboriginal' in this paper as shorthand for the Russian phrase `indigenous numerically small peoples of the North' [korennye malochislennye narodoy Severa], a legally distinct subset of indigenous [korennye] peoples. These peoples are defined as "the peoples living in the regions of the North, Siberia and the Far East on the territory of traditional occupancy of their ancestors, maintaining traditional ways of life, economy and trades, numbering less than 50 thousand persons, and considering themselves distinct ethnic communities." (Ob obshchikh 2000, [section] 1). (1) In the post-Soviet period of `transition' aboriginal leaders in Russia have seized on the narratives of reform to demand a reformulation of their relationship with the State in terms of legal codification of territorial rights. This effort is analogous to First Nations leaders in Canada appropriating the `rights revolution' of the 1970s and 1980s to advance treaty negotiations (Blomley and Pratt 2001). As in Canada, aboriginal leaders in Russia have underscored how re-territorialization is paramount to ensuring economic independence and cultural persistence -- and how resultant territories must be legally guaranteed. They have negotiated the creation of law in order to legislate aboriginal spaces, and then have attempted to harness this law to produce the material spaces enabled by the law. Informed by cognate processes underway in Canada and elsewhere, the Russian models of `land claims' nevertheless have taken distinct routes. The Russian Federation has not yet chosen to address aboriginal rights through a process of government-to-government treaty negotiations, as has Canada. Nor have court cases played a significant role in forwarding the process, as a reformed court system itself is still in its infancy (Smith 1996). Yet aboriginal re-territorialization is proceeding, via processes shaped by a new body of legislation dedicated to aboriginal rights. A number of rationales underpin the process in the Russian Federation, some similar to, some distinct from, those animating land claims in Canada. First, the massive social, economic and political transformations in post-Soviet Russia have spawned a rethinking of optimum land tenure organization across the country's vast extent, as Russia moves toward some variant of a market economy. The resultant fabric of land tenure must include the threads of aboriginal territoriality somewhere in its weave, at least in the parts of the country where aboriginal peoples constitute a significant share of the population. This is mainly in the rural North. Second, marked decreases in state subsidies to all areas of the country, but especially discernible in the North, demand the design of new, ideally self-sufficient forms of economic organization that meet the requisites of marketization. …