No Winners Without Losers? : Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities on the Hunt for Cultural Rights in a Time of Limited Wildlife Resources

Hunting is an important cultural practice for many, including for indigenous as well as non-indigenous individuals. However, when resources are limited, the enjoyment of such a cultural practice may suffer. In order to follow the obligations arising from human rights law as well as obligations related to wildlife protection, states are often walking a tight-rope in order to ensure everyone’s right to culture. Hunting falls within the scope of what several human rights instruments consider to be culture, including the two international Covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In addition to human rights, culture and cultural rights are taken into account in several areas of international law. For example, hunting and fishing traditions are safeguarded in the context of the work of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and several agreements aiming to protect wildlife. States which are parties to the two International Covenants, should, first and foremost, avoid interfering with and hindering the individual's right to cultural life. State Parties should also ensure a satisfactory standard of participation in cultural life for all. Nevertheless, temporarily restricting hunting due to lack of resources may be justified, provided that the state ensures a satisfactory standard of participation in cultural life for all. A satisfactory standard includes, inter alia, the right of everyone to an acceptable minimum standard of living. Considering hunting as a part of indigenous way of life, the right to livelihood of indigenous peoples should not be denied when taking measures to protect wildlife. Furthermore, with regards to indigenous peoples, the principle of free, prior, and informed consent should be respected. On a regional European level, the thesis analyses the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and how its provisions correspond with the right to culture. In order to achieve this, the right to culture is examined through a dynamic interpretation of the ECHR. The ECHR and the reasoning made by the European Court of Human Rights also lends itself as a tool in order to analyse differential treatment, in which individuals from one group of the population are allowed to hunt before the other. Depending on the status and group belonging of the rights holder, the right to culture may differ. Indigenous peoples' cultural rights are often collective, whereas the cultural rights of non-indigenous peoples are individual rights whose realisation may depend on the collective. However, as is concluded in the thesis, it is not the collective nature of indigenous peoples' cultural rights that sometimes leads to prioritising their rights of indigenous peoples over those who are non-indigenous. In order to achieve true equality, there may be a need for differential treatment. Indigenous culture is often at a disadvantage compared to the majority culture. Indigenous peoples’ traditions are also often linked to their identity and, ultimately, survival. Therefore, special treatment may be justified in order to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples and to achieve true equality. In protecting biodiversity, states should take cultural rights into account. In particular, the rights of indigenous peoples, who often have a deep connection to practices regarding nature and the use of natural resources, shall be respected. As long as resources are scarce, states will struggle to prioritise the rights of one group over another, which can lead to one group feeling like the loser. What is certain, however, is that if biodiversity is not protected and species disappear altogether, everyone loses