EU Arctic Bid Off to Poor Start

As widely reported, the European Union Parliament voted overwhelmingly (550 to 49 with 41 abstentions) on May 5^th to begin the process of enacting legislation which would effectively prohibit the import of seal products into all member countries. The intended legislation would provide for a couple of exceptions to the ban, including one aimed at traditional hunting activities of Inuit around the circumpolar world who hunt seals for purposes of subsistence.

The more precise reach and implications of such an exception for Inuit remains up in the air, but the world’s Inuit have little reason to believe that their cultural values and tough socio-economic circumstances lingered long on the minds and consciences of those Parliamentarians who voted for the ban. Many who voted in favour of the ban voiced, with a kind of giddy candour, their happiness at being able to institute a measure that would offer them cheap, if uninformed, popularity with many voters.

The EU Parliament’s vote is striking in its open disrespect for the rule of law and for the EU’s international commitments.

As revealed in an Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) Press Release dated March 27, 2009 (“Inuit of Canada: European Union Knows Proposed Seal Ban Would Be Unlawful”), the EU Council’s own in-house lawyers provided legal opinions on a proposed ban in February and March of this year. Two separate opinions were prepared, one in relation to whether a seal product import ban would violate the EU’s own internal trade rules under the EU Treaty, and the other in relation to whether the ban would violate EU trade obligations under WTO Agreements (specifically, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT Agreement).

The legal opinion in relation to EU internal trade rules found that the ban would not improve the functioning of the trade market within the EU, and the most the EU could consider within its rules would be some kind of ‘harmonized labeling system’ to give consumers more information as to the source of seal products. This legal opinion also found that there are no reasons to be concerned about the conservation status of seals, and that conservation cannot be used to justify a total ban. This legal opinion concluded that a ban would be contrary to the EU Treaty.

The legal opinion in relation to WTO Agreements found that the ban would infringe upon general principles that prevent unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The opinion found that the inflexibility of a total ban, and the lack of effort by the EU to find a genuine multilateral agreement, would undercut any attempt to justify the ban under trade rules.

These two opinions, read together, indicate that the EU knows, from its own lawyers, that the ban it is now in the process of legislating is contrary to the EU’s internal laws and international trade commitments.

In ITK’s March 27^th Press Release, ITK observed “Inuit know that the European Union was founded out of the tragedy and chaos of World War II to create a new and peaceful Europe anchored firmly in cooperation among neighbours and respect for the rule of law. We have great respect for the project of a united Europe and we are confident that EU and its peoples will be anxious to ensure that both the EU itself, and all its member countries, conduct themselves in full conformity with both EU and international law.”

Sadly, the EU Parliament’s May 5^th vote to ban seal product imports does not live up to Inuit expectations that the EU Parliament, on careful reflection, could be counted upon to govern its affairs in full respect of its own domestic rules and its international responsibilities. We note, out of fairness and gratitude, that a number of EU members and a number of Members of the European Parliament chose to defend those rules and respect those responsibilities by not climbing on the pro-ban bandwagon.

It must also be pointed out that the precipitous vote by the EU Parliament to ban seal products runs counter to the responsibilities of the EU and its members under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (September, 2007), which now forms part of the international human rights architecture. By undercutting the livelihoods and well-being of Inuit communities and households across the circumpolar Arctic, and by doing so with little effort to obtain the views, let alone the consent, of Inuit, the EU Parliament has ignored both the spirit and many of the express commitments in that Declaration that the representatives of its member states voted for at the United Nations General Assembly less than two years ago. It appears that, for many, it is easier to speak against a legacy of colonialism to indigenous peoples, than it is to change old habits.

The willingness of the EU Parliament to ignore UNDRIP and other human rights considerations has not gone unnoticed. In a May 6^th news report from Greenland following the EU Parliament vote, Greenland’s Foreign Minister, Per Berthelsen, was quoted as saying, “The European Court should study whether this is the murder of a culture. The ban does major damage to our traditional hunting without providing alternatives for those who are dependent on being able to sell sealskin.”

The EU has recently announced to the world that it hopes to play a more active role in international affairs in the Arctic and do so in a way that attaches high priority to respecting the rights and interests of Arctic aboriginal peoples. Among other things, the EU would like to become a permanent observer at the Arctic Council. So far, the EU is off to a very poor start in making its case.