摘要：Rapid climate change in the arctic is threatening the life, health and cultural traditions of the Inuit. Although they are among the least responsible for climate change, they are suffering disproportionately from its negative effects. In particular, the inherent link between Inuit land and culture means that their traditional practices are being threatened along with the arctic environment. However, their efforts to obtain redress from those responsible for greenhouse gas emissions have so far been unsuccessful. Claims in common law public nuisance have been plagued by issues of standing, justiciability and causation, and claims at international law are difficult to prove and enforce. It seems that a different approach may be required.This article examines whether the Crown’s fiduciary obligation toward Canada’s Aboriginal peoples might provide a useful conceptual framework for addressing arctic climate change. Although this obligation is typically applied in situations involving Aboriginal lands or distinctive cultural practices, it can arguably be invoked to protect the traditional subsistence lifestyle of the Inuit. Both the fiduciary obligations and the honour of the Crown require a minimum level of consultation and accommodation where significant Aboriginal interests are threatened. This could translate into an obligation to, at least, assist the Inuit in adapting to the changing arctic environment and preserving cultural practices to the extent possible.Les changements climatiques rapides dans l’Arctique menacent la vie, la santé et les traditions culturelles des Inuits. Même s’ils sont parmi les peuples les moins responsables de ces changements climatiques, ils souffrent de façon disproportionnée des effets négatifs de ces changements. Tout particulièrement, comme la culture inuite est intrinsèquement liée à la terre, les pratiques traditionnelles inuites sont menacées en même temps que l’environnement arctique. Par ailleurs, les efforts des Inuits pour obtenir réparation de la part des responsables des émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont restés vains. Les demandes fondées sur la nuisance en common law se sont heurtées aux questions relatives à la qualité pour agir, à la justiciabilité et à la causalité; de plus, en droit international, il est difficile de prouver et de faire valoir des réclamations. Il semble clair qu’une approche différente s’impose.Le présent article examine si l’obligation fiduciale de l’État envers les peuples autochtones du Canada pourrait constituer un cadre juridique utile pour traiter des changements climatiques dans l’Arctique. Bien que cette obligation soit systématiquement reconnue dans les situations concernant des terres autochtones ou des pratiques culturelles distinctives, il est permis de penser qu’elle pourrait être invoquée pour protéger le mode de subsistance traditionnelle des Inuits. Tant les obligations fiduciales que l’honneur de la Couronne requièrent un degré minimal de consultation et d’accommodement lorsque des intérêts autochtones significatifs sont menacés. Cela pourrait se traduire par une obligation minimale d’aider les Inuits à s’adapter à l’environnement arctique changeant et à préserver leurs pratiques culturelles dans la mesure du possible.
其他摘要：Rapid climate change in the arctic is threatening the life, health and cultural traditions of the Inuit. Although they are among the least responsible for climate change, they are suffering disproportionately from its negative effects. In particular, the inherent link between Inuit land and culture means that their traditional practices are being threatened along with the arctic environment. However, their efforts to obtain redress from those responsible for greenhouse gas emissions have so far been unsuccessful. Claims in common law public nuisance have been plagued by issues of standing, justiciability and causation, and claims at international law are difficult to prove and enforce. It seems that a different approach may be required.This article examines whether the Crown’s fiduciary obligation toward Canada’s Aboriginal peoples might provide a useful conceptual framework for addressing arctic climate change. Although this obligation is typically applied in situations involving Aboriginal lands or distinctive cultural practices, it can arguably be invoked to protect the traditional subsistence lifestyle of the Inuit. Both the fiduciary obligations and the honour of the Crown require a minimum level of consultation and accommodation where significant Aboriginal interests are threatened. This could translate into an obligation to, at least, assist the Inuit in adapting to the changing arctic environment and preserving cultural practices to the extent possible.
