Organised hypocrisy? The implementation of the international indigenous rights regime in Sweden

The recognition of indigenous peoples' rights has gradually grown stronger the last three decades but the actual effect of this emerging international indigenous rights regime on state behaviour seems dubious. In this paper the author analyses how international norms are translated, interpreted and reshaped in a domestic context through the conceptual framework of organised hypocrisy. The starting-point is that hypocrisy is the normal state of affairs in domestic politics. It is a response by political organisations, like national parliaments or governments, facing conflicting values, demands and interests: talk, decisions and action are decoupled or counter-coupled. The empirical focus of the article is the indigenous rights regime in Sweden, a country well known for its record of ratifying human rights conventions. The author shows how all political reforms in Swedish Sami politics are justified (in political talk and decisions) by reference to international law, while the actual effects of this endorsement (the actions) are minimal. Moreover, an analysis of four recent legal cases shows that the Swedish legal tradition with weak judicial review is a hinder for the judiciary to challenge this organised hypocrisy by forcing the rhetorical endorsement of the international indigenous rights regime into action through court decisions.