Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Klikk her for for å skjule denne meldingen
Ikke pålogget
{{session.user.firstName}} {{session.user.lastName}}
Du har tilgang til Idunn gjennom , & {{sessionPartyGroup.name}}
(side 120-121)
(side 122-147)
av Anne Julie Semb
Engelsk sammendrag


This article tries to explain an apparent legal anomaly: Norway, Sweden and Finland seem generally quite similar, but they have differed in their behaviour vis-à-vis the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Norway was the very first state to ratify C169, in June 1990. Sweden and Finland, however, are yet to ratify. How can the differing actions of these three neighbouring northern states as regards ratification of C169 be explained?

(side 148-173)
av Eeva Nykänen
Engelsk sammendrag


This article focuses on the Finnish system of complementary protection for forced migrants. The Aliens Act contains rules on two forms of complementary protection – subsidiary protection, based on the EU Qualification Directive, and humanitarian protection. The article assesses how the personal scopes of these complementary protection categories are defined and how the line of demarcation between them is drawn. In regards to eligibility, particular focus is placed on whether the threat the applicant would encounter in his or her home country has to be ‘individual’, in the sense that it is particular to the victim because of his or her personal circumstances, such as their membership in a particular ethnic group. Or whether the term ‘individual’ describes the likelihood of the threat, so in order to constitute a ground for complementary protection, the threat of harm ought to be real and not a mere possibility. The article concludes that as a result of the ambiguity of the criteria for complementary protection under the Aliens Act, the scopes of subsidiary protection and humanitarian protection are blurred.

(side 174-204)
av Aksel Tømte
Engelsk sammendrag


A key law concerning religious matters in Indonesia is the so-called “Blasphemy Law”, which underwent a judicial review at the Constitutional Court in 2009-10. This article seeks to analyse and contextualise the way the judicial review was handled, and the viewpoints put forward by various stakeholders. In doing so, it will explore the various meanings attached to ‘freedom of religion’ in the Indonesian context. It will also discuss the legal framework for freedom of religion or belief in Indonesia.

Book Reviews
(side 217-220)
av Sindre Bangstad
  • ISSN Online: 1891-814X
  • ISSN Print: 1891-8131
  • DOI: https://doi.org/
  • Utgiver: Universitetsforlaget
Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon