1. Michel 1
Background Information on the 2009 Ban of Seal Products on the EU Market
Introduction
The Inuit are a group of indigenous people who live in the artic regions of northern
Canada, Alaska, and Greenland (“Who are the Inuits?”). It’s currently estimated that there are
around 135,000 Inuit people world wide (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). The Inuit
people have been living in these places and hunting the seals and other marine life native to the
land for hundreds of years, since their ancestors, the Thule, emigrated from Alaska around 1200
(Lynnerup 1001). Due to the very specific climate of the arctic, the Inuit have eaten a limited diet
consisting of seals, fish, and other marine life for centuries (Pelletier 13.50). The climate hasn’t
changed very much in the last several hundred years and neither has their diet or way of life,
until recent that is. On September 16th, 2009 a law, REGULATION (EC) No 1007/2009, was
passed that banned the trade of all commercial seal products to the European Union (Hossain
154-155).
A Bit About Seals
All species of seals are a part of the group called, “pinnipeds,” which mean “fin-footed.”
This larger group of pinnipeds includes species such as walruses and sea lions as well as what
are referred to as “true” seals. True seals, or phocids, are earless, meaning that they do not have
external ear flaps. Eared seals can use their back flippers as actual feet which can be walked on
but earless seals can’t do this. There are about 18 different species of true seals, all of which give
birth on land (or on icebergs). Most true seals are found in the Arctic or the Antarctic. The
species that the Inuit hunt are the ones that are common to the arctic: “Harp, ringed, hooded,

2. Michel 2
spotted, bearded and ribbon seals.” (Bradford). The main differences between these species are
their sizes and the coloring of their fur.
How does this EU law affect Canada and Greenland?
While Canada is its own country, Greenland is actually an autonomous territory of
Denmark. Greenland does have their own rule to a certain extent over internal affairs but
Denmark still maintains control over Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense policy (“Greenland
Profile”). Denmark itself is a member of the EU and so Greenland must follow EU law as well.
But what exactly does it mean to be a member state of the EU? According to the Delegation of
the European Union to the United States, “The European Union is a unique economic and
political partnership among 28 diverse democracies united in their commitment to peace,
democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. EU Member States have transferred
part of their sovereignty to EU institutions.” So Denmark and the other member states have
agreed to follow rules set by the EU in regards to certain aspects of social and economic policy
(“How the EU Works”). The EU’s purpose was simple; “It was created in the aftermath of the
Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that
countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to
avoid conflict,” (The EU in Brief). Canada is not actually a member state of the EU but does a
good portion of its trade with the member states and so is indirectly affected by EU policy. That
being said, the Inuit who live in both Greenland and Canada were effected by this law.

3. Michel 3
Why does the Seal Ban Matter to the Inuit?
There were several exemptions to the EU law, one of which was targeted at the Inuit.
This particular exception allowed the, “placement on the market of seal products resulting from
hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to
their sustenance,” (Perisin 376). Despite good intentions on the behalf of the European Union,
there were many inadvertent consequences borne by the Inuit people.
Seal hunting is something that’s been common all over the world in North America,
Europe, Asia, and even Africa for several hundred years. The Inuit have been doing it humanely
for just as long. While seals are a novelty to some for their fur for lush coats or their oil for
Omega 3 vitamins, this was not the case for the Inuit. The documentary, Nurturing Sea, recants
that, “A successful seal hunt was a matter of life and death for the hunter and his family,”
(Pelletier 9.30). Perhaps this is better illustrated by the fact that the GDP of Greenland was
$1.267 billion as of 2009, an especially small number. This is comparable to the GDP of Liberia
in 2009 or the GDP of Rwanda in 1981 (“GDP”). GDP accounts for the value of finished goods
and services that are bought and sold on the legal market. The fact that the Inuit have lost several
million in profits over the seal hunt is a significant issue because just a few million dollars is a
large portion of the GDP as a whole. Greenland’s low GDP demonstrates how little of Greenland
participates in the global economy, choosing rather to rely upon food they hunt themselves.
Killaq Enuaraq-Strauss, an Inuit teenager, gave a look into the Inuit perspective on their
relationship with seals, saying “We see animals as gifts, precious things that we were given for
us to survive, to be able to feed our families and move forward” (Gell). Seals are a staple for the
Inuit’s survival and have been for as long as historians can discover. The attack on the seal hunt
as a whole has found a way to generalize all seal hunters, both commercial and Inuit, as being

4. Michel 4
“atrocious and inhumane” as Ellen DeGeneres put it in her general statement about seal hunting,
something that has deeply offended the Inuit and has led to their backlash (DeGeneres). Enuaraq-
Strauss responded to DeGeneres’s actions saying, "A huge part of your fan base is targeting us as
a people for practicing our own rights and traditions as an indigenous group ... It's detrimental to
our culture. It's oppressive" (Gell). Enuaraq-Strauss isn’t the only one who feels targeted.
Canadian hunter, Harald Maqe, was quoted in the Toronto Star saying, "Sometimes we hear on
the news we're killing animals, we're hunting in a commercial way. That's not true. We're only
hunting what we need to feed ourselves and our dogs. We're not guilty" (Purtill). Celebrities and
local news stations weren’t the only ones to champion against seal hunting; several large,
international environmentalist groups took a stand as well.
Environmentalist Groups and Seal Hunting
Not all practices of seal hunting are as benevolent as Inuit traditional practices and this is
where many humanitarian groups have stepped in to try and pass legislation to curb this. One
such organization is called Greenpeace. According to their website, Greenpeace describes
themselves as, “an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and
behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace,” (“About
Greenpeace”). Greenpeace is most well known for their 1970’s campaign against the commercial
hunting of seals which was characterized by bloody images of battered baby seals (Flanagin).
Back in the 1970s, volunteers worked hard to push seals out of the path of Canadian sealing
ships and even dyed the coats of many seals, with non toxic dye of course, that made their fur
unusable (Hopper). Since the 1970s, though, Greenpeace had taken a back seat to the active
protesting and involvement in the seal campaign until the early 2000s. In 2005, Greenpeace

5. Michel 5
released an updated report stating their position on the seal campaign titled The Canadian Seal
Hunt: No Management and No Plan. In this report, they reasoned that legislation to better
manage the seal populations should be put into place. Besides this though, they took an explicit
stance on seal hunting. The report clearly stated, “Greenpeace opposes any human activity,
which is harmful to populations of pinnipeds; the killing of pinnipeds for commercial trade; the
taking of any pinnipeds from endangered, threatened, or seriously reduced populations, or from
populations whose status is unknown, or where it is thought that such takes may have an adverse
effect. Greenpeace does not oppose the indigenous hunt in Canada and Greenland,” (Johnston 3).
Though Greenpeace didn’t actively campaign again, their call for legislation along with public
moral concerns played a role in inspiring the 2009 legislation. Another group who has taken a
different approach to protesting the commercial seal hunt, in Canada especially, is IFAW, short
for International Fund for Animal Welfare. They have stuck to a more systematic method. On a
page on IFAW’s website titled Ending Canada's Cruel Commercial Hunt, IFAW celebrated the
2009 ban but stated that, “Until Canada’s commercial seal hunt ends forever, we will fight
against it: documenting its cruelty, presenting our evidence to the authorities, researching,
educating, lobbying for legislative change and working to shut down markets for seal products,”
(“Ending”). Their methods, though different than Greenpeace, were just as effective, especially
in more recent years leading up to the 2009 legislation.
Prior EU Seal Hunting Legislation
The 2009 law that banned the importation of seal products into the EU was not an overnight
ordeal; several previous pieces of legislations had been put into place in decades prior. Though it
had little concrete effect on the seals at the time of its passing, the 1982 United Nations

6. Michel 6
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was the first piece of international legislation that
had the possibility to aid in the conservation of seals. However, according to 2009 essay by
attorney Cynthia Hodges, UNCLOS has been failing to do so due to Canada’s refusal to follow
their commitments under the law by not listening to scientific advice when creating their seal
hunting quotas (Hodges). The first direct step towards this total seal ban took place in 1983 when
the Seal Pups Directive was passed, a proclaimed victory for the Greenpeace campaign. This
banned the import of seal pups into the EU and this directive was reaffirmed in 1985 and then
again in 1989 when it was reaffirmed indefinitely (“Background Information”). This particular
legislation did not directly or intentionally affect the Inuit as it still allowed them to hunt but it
crashed the global market for seal skins (Hopper). In the 1992 Habitats Directive, there was an
Annex that included earless seals and so that particular species was considered protected
(Sellheim 274). A 1996 Council Regulation, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), listed several species of pinnipeds, or seals, under the category of
being threated unless trade of their species is regulated. After this, there was no updated EU
legislature until the 2009 law was initially proposed. While some species are currently in danger
of being endangered, there are no artic seals that are technically on any endangered lists right
now. According to an opinion piece on EurActiv.com, “This legislation had immediate impact.
Despite high kill quotas, the number of seals being slaughtered fell dramatically. Animal
protection groups estimate around 1.8 million seals have been spared a horrific death as a
consequence of the EU ban” (Martin). The author strongly viewed that the legislation was a
success for the seals due to the lives saved.
One such species that is at risk though, is the ringed seal, whose main cause of death is due
climate change. These seals require ice floats to raise their young and due to global warming, and

7. Michel 7
the significant loss of ice, many newborn seals are dying and the population is decreasing
(“Ringed Seals” 3). This declining trend, though human caused, was not affected significantly by
the 2009 legislation. However, for a species to be considered endangered, the other side of the
coin must be examined as well; what does it mean for a species to be successful? Gary Frazer,
the assistant director for endangered species at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, simply defines
success of an endangered species as “a species not going extinct” (Platt). Based on this
definition, any of the arctic seals, who are not considered endangered, are very successful. If the
species as a whole is successful, does the life of one little seal really matter in the grand scheme
of things?
Proposal for and Backlash about Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
In 2006 it was requested that the European Commission regulate the trade of the harp and
hooded seals (Hossain 155). The law was inspired by what many saw as inhumane or cruel
hunting practices and so it was intended to ban seal products only from countries who use these
practices deemed inhumane. According to the law itself, “The hunting of seals has led to
expressions of serious concerns by members of the public and governments sensitive to animal
welfare considerations due to the pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering which the
killing and skinning of seals, as they are most frequently performed, cause to those animals.
(“REGULATION (EC) No 1007/2009”). Many people, the Inuit especially, felt that the ban was
based on evidence and emotions produced from the 1980s Greenpeace campaign and was not
based in contemporary facts (“Canadian Inuit”). This proposal was initially shut down in January
of 2007 when the the EU’s European Commission ruled that the the 1983 Seal Pups Directive
provided sufficient protection for young seals. At this time, they decided to further investigate

8. Michel 8
the humaneness of the hunt independently (Brautigam). The EU decided to again propose the
ban in 2008. In their press release titled Commission Proposes Trade Ban in Products from Seals
to Improve Animal Welfare, the EU states that, “The aim of the proposed regulation is to address
the animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals during a hunt by ensuring that
products derived from seals killed and skinned in ways that cause pain, distress and suffering do
not find their way to the European market (European Union). Denmark abstained from the vote
(Fitzpatrick). The ban was passed in 2009. Norway and Canada immediately took legal action
against the EU, claiming that the regulation violated the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s
rules. The Inuit were very vocal about this topic and took an active role in the appeal. Duane
Smith, the President of Inuit Circumpolar Council – Canada had a lot to say about the case. He
stated, “The EU went from banning the seal pups of two subspecies of seal in 1983 to outright
banning all seal species in 2009, despite the growing and abundant population of seals in the
Arctic and North Atlantic. On a biological, management and trade level, this sledgehammer
approach is completely unwarranted and it appears that such an outright ban has been created
only to punish small communities for their way of life,” (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). After an
investigation, it was concluded in 2014 that the law was actually considered compatible with
WTO rules (“The EU Seal Regime”).
Several groups besides the Inuit took a stand about this. One such group, is the fur traders
who have practically found that their business for seal skins has been eradicated. Another group
is the fisherman, who rely on a lack of seals for their business. Paul Gallagher of the Independent
wrote a piece on the effect of the seal ban on both of these professions and stated that,
“Fishermen from several countries also allege that seals have become a menace, with growing
populations reducing fish stocks.” There was lots of contradiction to this point of view by

9. Michel 9
environmentalists and others in support of the ban. Rob Cahill, of the Fur Institute of Canada,
was quoted in the piece and put the fisherman’s opinions simply, saying, "It is not about
eradicating seals but about maintaining a balance between seals and fish" (Gallagher). Another
protester of the legislation, one who was very unexpected, has been Greenpeace. In an apology
for their original campaign that inspired the seal legislation, Greenpeace stated, “Though the
campaign was directed against the commercial hunting of seals — and not the small-scale,
subsistence hunting carried out by northern Indigenous and coastal peoples — we did not always
communicate this clearly enough, and the consequences of that, though unintended, were far-
reaching” (Kerr). Following the ruling and Greenpeace’s public apology, it appeared that it was
the WTO and the EU, both pro-ban, versus the Inuit with Greenpeace straddling both sides. So
what did Greenpeace have to apologize for?
Effect of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on the Inuit People
In 2007, the United Nations released the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This declaration guaranteed the indigenous residents of UN member states several things that
were relevant to seal hunting. First of all, it states that indigenous people have, “the right to be
free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on
their indigenous origin or identity.” So it can be interpreted that indigenous people cannot be
discriminated against for performing any cultural practices, in this case, the Inuit and seal
hunting. The Declaration also states that indigenous people have, “the right to maintain and
strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining
their rights to participate fully, if they choose to, in the political, economic, social and cultural
life of the state” (“Declaration on the Rights”). This reaffirms that indigenous people, such as

10. Michel10
Inuit seal hunters, are still to be included in the global economy. However not legally binding,
the Declaration seems to protect the Inuit people. So why are they still so mad?
The new legislation had a significant effect on the Inuit people. Because of the considerable
decrease in the legal market for seal products, there is now a surplus of seal products on other
markets. This surplus has resulted in a price drop for these goods, whose markets don’t require
them to be distinguished as the product of a traditional Inuit hunt, making it impossible to make a
profit, let alone a livelihood, from seal hunting (Perisin 378). Technically they can still put their
product on the market due to small technicalities in the law but there are many hoops that they
have to jump though to do so. The EU market does allow seal products that are the result of Inuit
hunts but it’s difficult and not to mention, expensive, to distinguish between what defines a
commercial hunt and an indigenous hunt (Hossain 156). And while they do have a monopoly on
the EU market for seal products, being that they’re the only ones who can put these goods on this
market, there aren’t many buyers due to the negative press that’s been circulated about seal
hunting. As so cleverly pointed out by author and professor Tamara Perisin, indigenous seal
hunts don’t have to necessarily be humane; they simply have to be from traditional, indigenous
hunts and aid in the sustenance of their community (Perisin 399). So because of the new
legislation, the Inuit people face a smaller profit margin on their products and are isolated from
the economy due to the lack of diversity of goods that they can produce given their climate and
location.
The idea of reparations has been something that is suggested. The issue is very multi-faceted,
though. The Inuit have suffered because of Greenpeace’s seal campaign that crashed the seal
market but also because of pollution in the ocean that has contaminated most of their food
sources. Greenland-born Inuit lawyer who now resides in Toronto, Canada, Aaju Peter,

11. Michel11
commented on Greenpeace’s campaign saying, “It’s a good thing they apologized but that is not
good enough. We need compensation,” (Flanagin). Inuit health as of recent has been somewhat
of a concern as well as their economy. According to an interview with Dr. Henning Sloth
Pedersen, Queen Ingrid's Hospital in Nuuk, Greenland's in BBC News, “Greenland is the only
place in the world where people have been found to be above the level of action when it comes
to environmental toxins found in the human body.” The article continues to note that, “Man-
made persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like PCBs have been linked to serious health damage
in animals and humans. Together with other pollutants like mercury, lead and cadmium, they are
carried north by sea currents and weather patterns.” These pollutants that often turn up in marine
animals, a key part of the Inuit diet, have led to diabetes, birth defects, and reduced fertility in the
native people. According to a statement from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme,
(AMAP), "To discover that the food which for generations has nourished them and kept them
whole physically and spiritually is now poisoning them is profoundly disturbing and threatens
Indigenous Peoples' cultural survival," (Bevanger). AMAP expanded on the effects of this issue
on the Inuit people saying, “The combination of high prices for store-bought foods and the work,
risks, and costs associated with obtaining traditional foods has made food security a large
concern for many Arctic residents” (“Arctic Pollution 2009”). Food is an ever growing issue for
the Inuit due to their decreased incomes as well as the increased pollution levels of marine life.
While the seals benefit from the help of the EU, the Inuit probably could as well. The EU could
very easily provide the Inuit seal hunters with a seal subsidy, similar to the farm subsidies that
US farmers receive, to help offset the ramifications the ban had on the Inuit.

12. Michel12
Conclusion
The main focus of the 2009 law that banned the trade of seal products in the European
Union was to protect the seals and maintain a standard of humane hunting practices. What the
EU didn’t bargain for, though, was the collapse of the Inuit economy and livelihood as well as
the environmental effects such as over population of seals and the declining population of their
prey. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Inuit and Greenpeace partnership and
what happens with the ban and the market for seal products.

13. Michel13
Works Cited
"About Greenpeace." Greenpeace International. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.
Arctic Pollution 2009. Oslo, Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 2009.
Web.
"Background Information on Seal Pups Directive." European Commission. N.p., 30 July 2015.
Web.
Bevanger, Lars. "Toxin Threat to Inuit Food." BBC News. N.p., 1 Apr. 2003. Web.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2906357.stm>.
Bradford, Alina. "Facts About Seals & Sea Lions." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 07 Aug.
2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. <http://www.livescience.com/27870-seals.html>.
Brautigam, Tara. "EU Seal Ban Proposal Fails." The Halifax Daily News [Nova Scotia] 27 Jan.
2007, National News sec.: 10. LexisNexis Academic [LexisNexis]. Web
"Canadian Inuit slam EU over proposed 'cruel hunting' seal product ban." The Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation 24 July 2008. General OneFile. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
"Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Frequently Asked Questions." United Nations.
United Nations, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/faq_drips_en.pdf>.
DeGeneres, Ellen. "Stop Seal Hunting in Canada Now." EllenTV. N.p., 4 June 2011. Web. 17
Nov. 2015. <http://www.ellentv.com/2011/04/06/stop-seal-hunting-in-canada-now/>.
"Ending Canada's Cruel Commercial Hunt." IFAW. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.ifaw.org/canada/our-work/seals/ending-canadas-cruel-commercial-hunt>.
European Union. Environment. Commission Proposes Trade Ban in Products from Seals to
Improve Animal Welfare. European Commission. N.p., 23 July 2008. Web.
Fitzpatrick, Meagan, and Linda Nguyen. "Canada Will Fight EU Seal Ban." Prince Rupert Daily
News [British Columbia] 28 July 2009, Final ed., News sec.: 5. Lexis Nexis. Web.
Flanagin, Jake. "Greenpeace Crashed the Seal-product Market, and Inuit Livelihood along with
It." Quartz. N.p., 3 June 2015. Web.
Gallagher, Paul. "EU Ban on Trade in Seal Fur Set to Be Overturned." The Independent.
Independent Digital News and Media, 24 Sept. 2015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-ban-on-trade-in-seal-fur-set-to-be-
overturned-8581496.html>.

14. Michel14
"GDP (current US$)." The World Bank. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?page=1>.
Gell, Aaron. "17-Year-Old Seal Hunter Takes Aim At Ellen DeGeneres, Prompting
'#SEALFIES' Campaign." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 04 Apr. 2014. Web. 14
Nov. 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/seal-hunters-ellen-degeneres-selfie-2014-
4>.
"Greenland Profile- Overview." BBC News. N.p., 19 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18249474>.
Hodges, Cynthia F. "The Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt: In Search Of International Legal
Protection For Harp Seals." Animal Law Legal Center. Michigan State University
College of Law, 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
<https://www.animallaw.info/article/canadian-commercial-seal-hunt-search-
international-legal-protection-harp-
seals#Unsatisfactory%20Sources%20of%20International%20Legal%20Protection>.
Hopper, Tristin. "Save (most Of) the Whales: Greenpeace Now Supports Inuit Hunting, but
Native Groups Still Wary." National Post. N.p., 15 Aug. 2014. Web.
Hossain, Kamrul. "The EU Ban on the Import of Seal Products and the WTO Regulations:
Neglected Human Rights of the Arctic Indigenous Peoples?" Polar Record 49.02 (2012):
154-66. Cambridge Journals. Web.
"How the EU Works." Delegation of the European Union to the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 10
Nov. 2015.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Inuit Leaders United in Opposition to EU Seal Ban as WTO Appeal
Hearing Begins in Geneva. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. N.p., 17 Mar. 2014. Web.
Johnston, Paul, David Santillo, and Greenpeace Research Labatories. The Canadian Seal Hunt:
No Management and No Plan. Rep. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Greenpeace.org. Greenpeace
International, Mar. 2005. Web.
Kerr, Joanna. "Greenpeace Hopes to Set the Record Straight on Aboriginal Hunting."
NunatsiaqOnline. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web.
Lynnerup, Niels. "The Thule Inuit Mummies From Greenland." The Anatomical Record 298.6
(2015): 1001-006. 22 May 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
Martin, David. "New Commission Proposal Is Good for Seal Protection." EurActiv.com. N.p., 11
May 2015. Web. <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/new-commission-
proposal-good-seal-protection-314491>.
Pelletier, Vic. Nurturing Sea. Montreal, QC: CinéFête, 1997.

15. Michel15
Perisin, Tamara. "IS THE EU SEAL PRODUCTS REGULATION A SEALED DEAL? EU
AND WTO CHALLENGES." The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62.2
(2013): 373-405. ProQuest. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
Platt, John R. "Endangered Species Success Stories: How Many More Are We Likely to See?"
Scientific American. N.p., 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/endangered-species-success-
stories-how-many-more-are-we-likely-to-see/>.
Purtill, Corinne. "It's Greenland Vs. Greenpeace." Toronto Star. Oct 12 2013. ProQuest. Web. 18
Nov. 2015. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1442215165?pq-
origsite=summon
"REGULATION (EC) No 1007/2009." Official Journal of the European Union L 52.286 (2009):
36-39. Eur-Lex. European Union, 31 Oct. 2009. Web.
<http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/november/tradoc_145264.pdf>.
"Ringed Seals and Climate Change: Arctic Ice Loss Seals the Deal." IUCN Red List. IUCN Red
List, 2009. Web.
<http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/fact_sheet_red_list_ringed_seal.pdf>
Sellheim, Nikolas. "The Goals of the EU Seal Products Trade Regulation: From Effectiveness to
Consequence." Polar Record 51.03 (2014): 274-89. Web.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Eskimo | People." Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.britannica.com/topic/Eskimo-people>.
"The EU in Brief." EUROPA.EU. European Union, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
<http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/about/index_en.htm>.
The EU Seal Regime & the World Trade Organization Dispute Summary & Next Steps (n.d.): n.
pag. IFAW. International Fund for Animal Welfare. Web.
"Who Are the Inuits?" Inuulistivik. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.inuulitsivik.ca/northern-life-and-inuit-culture/who-are-the-inuits>