Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada and Norway we are witnessing commensurable processes of social-structural change largely directed towards improving the conditions for indigenous peoples within these nation states. There are parallels in time, scope and objective between the processes affecting the Sámi in Norway and the Nisga´a in northern British Columbia, Canada. In each case Aboriginal customary law, or customary rights, is a significant element both in legal and cultural terms when it comes to attaining and establishing legitimacy for stated claims.The primary thesis for this inquiry is that customary law is part of culture, not just a matter of jurisprudence. It is suggested that customary law discourse, a topical feature in the continuous process regarding indigenous rights in Canada and Norway, achieves two ends. It offers legitimate strength in the attempt to establish a state of legal pluralism, where state law and indigenous customary law can both play a role in reaching court decisions, and it maintains and develops a significant body of knowledge.For the Sámi in Norway the period 1979–80 was a phase of confrontation between them and the state government over a hydro-power development, the Alta case. The legal case ended in the Norwegian Supreme Court with the conclusion that the Sámi were unable to prevent construction of the dam, but the court recognized that preconditions of international law could be relevant, and could even overrule state law. The protest actions eventually led to negotiations with the state authorities. These resulted in the second stage, a Sámi Rights Commission appointed by the Ministry of Justice, to investigate all relevant aspects of the issue of Sámi rights. Thirdly, a new research project on Sámi customs and Sámi legal perceptions has been carried out independently of the commission since 1996.The Nisga´a Final Agreement was completed in 1998, following a long political struggle for recognition of their aboriginal title and of their right to self-determination. Phase I of this involved confrontation through a law suit asserting the Nisga´a Nation’s tribal ownership over the entire watershed of the Nass/Lisims. The Supreme Court verdict in this case in 1973 is considered to be a moral victory, mainly for the Nisga´a but also for First Nations in Canada at large. It triggered a change in federal policy vis-à-vis aboriginal people in Canada, the former assimilationist policy being replaced by a new policy emphasizing land claims settlement regarding all non-treaty Indians. In Phase II, to make the complicated body of traditional knowledge comprehensible for the other negotiation parties, the Nisga´a conducted a Land Use and Occupancy Study. The Nisga´a Final Agreement, the main feature of Phase III, is a formal treaty emanating from the negotiation process. In future Nisga´a self-determination will be governed and influenced by their own Constitution. Through their newly acquired autonomy the Nisga´a are able to give effect to their own characteristic justice to a fairly large extent whenever appropriate.There are marked similarities in the current customary law discourse of the Nisga´a and the Sámi, although they also differ on some issues.Both are establishing or likely to establish courts of their own, and common to the two nations is customary law as a foundation on which such a justice system is built.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,030 | 0,077 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».