BeskrivelseEnvironmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) frequently market their work as helping to promote minority voices in political discourse, such as indigenous peoples on Arctic issues. With ENGOs often targeting audiences residing far from the Arctic, it can be difficult for those not familiar with the region or the peoples there to decipher whose interests are actually being represented in ENGO campaigns. Using the literature on non-governmental organizations, this paper will engage with the debate about ENGO legitimacy, focusing on the core points of contention in the literature: accountability and representativeness. Focusing the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2017 ruling Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo Services Inc., this paper will argue that the growing independent political voices of indigenous communities and peoples have resulted in a push against outside actors claiming to represent their interests, but a continued willingness to engage with these actors (e.g. Greenpeace) when such engagement is seen as beneficial to their own campaigning efforts.
|Periode||8. aug. 2018 → 11. aug. 2018|
|Begivenhedstitel||NACS-XII Exploring Canada: Exploits and Encounters|
Conference Programme: null
|Grad af anerkendelse||International|