MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3123133155

Participatory Rights in the Ontario Mining Sector: An International Human Rights Perspective

2010· article· en· W3123133155 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Penelope Simons, Lynda Collins

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCorporate Law and Human Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHuman rightsGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationAccountabilityDemocracyPrivate sectorCorporate social responsibilityDutyInternational lawCitizen journalismLawBusinessPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

1. INTRODUCTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY--ASSESSING LEGITIMACY IN THE MINING SECTOR 3. THE ONTARIO MINING ACT (AS AMENDED) 4. THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING 5. THE RIGHT OF FREE PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT AT INTERNATIONAL LAW 6. FPIC, THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND CANADIAN LAW 7. THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AT INTERNATIONAL LAW 8. THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST IN THE CANADIAN MINING SECTOR 9. CONCLUSION meek shall inherit the Earth, but not its mineral rights. --John Paul Getty In November 2006, the Canadian government completed a series of National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing Countries. The roundtables were held pursuant to the recommendations of a report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade calling on the federal government to initiate a multistakeholder process with the goal of strengthening existing corporate social responsibility programmes and policies and developing new programmes and policies for Canadian extractive industries operating outside of Canada, in developing countries. (1) The roundtables Advisory Group, composed of members from the private sector, academia, and NGOs, produced a consensus report released in March 2007 that recommended to the Canadian government the adoption of a comprehensive CSR framework, including voluntary standards, reporting guidelines, and an accountability mechanism. (2) In March 2009, the Canadian government released its response, rejecting the bulk of the Advisory Group's recommendations and leaving unsettled the question of CSR norms for Canadian companies operating outside Canada. (3) In February 2009 the Hon. John McKay tabled a private member's bill (Bill C-300) which sought to impose accountability on mining, oil, or gas companies that are found to be complicit in violations of human rights or environmental standards in their activities in developing countries. (4) These developments signal a growing domestic concern with respect to the environmental and social impacts of Canadian extractive companies operating extraterritorially. In 2008 Canada was the domicile for seventy-five per cent of the world's largest exploration and mining companies. (5) Of these companies, approximately seventy per cent had plans to operate outside Canada. (6) The Advisory Group Report, the government's response and Bill C-300 are all based on the policy imperative that Canadian corporations operating abroad should comply with the same environmental and social standards to which they are legally bound in Canada, and that these standards are reflective of Canada's international legal obligations, including, in particular, its international human rights obligations. This view is expressed in recent Parliamentary debates (7) and in a bill tabled by the New Democratic Party on 16 June 2008. (8) Recent disputes concerning the lack of public consultation on proposed large domestic mining projects, (9) as well as disputes surrounding aboriginal rights in lands subject to mining claims (10) have highlighted, however, significant human rights concerns associated with Canada's domestic provincial and territorial mining regimes. Canada has some of the highest mineral exploration activity in the world within its own borders. In 2005, nineteen per cent of total global mineral exploration was planned to take place in Canada. (11) In addition, Ontario mines produce one third of Canada's mineral output. (12) Little academic research has been conducted on the human rights impacts of Canadian provincial and territorial mining regimes and, where it has been undertaken, it has focused primarily on environmental issues. (13) Thus while the federal government, the industry, and other members of civil society are focusing on non-mandatory regulation of corporate impacts abroad, and the provincial and territorial governments are beginning to revise their mining regimes, it is pertinent and timely to consider the extent to which international human rights (including indigenous peoples' rights and environmental human rights) are respected and protected in the domestic Canadian mining sector. …

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,920
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,987

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,262
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSRN Electronic JournalMême sujetCorporate Law and Human RightsTravaux en français237 207