Resource rights of Indigenous Peoples and the judicial practice of their observance in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Resource rights of Indigenous Peoples form the basis of their Indigenous way of life. To preserve it, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls upon nation states to observe and legally guarantee the resource rights of Indigenous Peoples. In its first section, the paper studies the judicial steps undertaken by Canada to recognize and enforce Indigenous resource rights. Indigenous land rights (titles) receive special attention in the paper’s second section. Focusing on the history of judicial decisions determining Indigenous titles, the paper traces how the Supreme Court of Canada has treated Indigenous titles as an element of the Canadian legal system. To establish the legal boundaries of Indigenous titles, the Court introduced special criteria for evaluating and adjudicating the presence of Indigenous titles. Unfortunately, some of those criteria have not contributed to legal certainty in recognizing Indigenous titles by the Canadian government and actually have restrained Indigenous communities from claiming and possessing these rights on their ancestral lands. The paper reveals these judicial dynamics and connects them with administrative efforts made by the Canadian government to control the use of Indigenous lands, especially as to resource extraction even if this negatively affects the lives of Native Peoples. The third section of the paper studies the constitutionally required consultations with Indigenous peoples, which are in fact used as an administrative tool by the Canadian government for controlling Indigenous engagement in the governmental decision-making process regarding resource development projects that can adversely affect Indigenous resource rights and titles. These consultations are formalistic and do not give Indigenous peoples a real role in evaluating the justification for and safety of natural resource extraction affecting them. Although the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls for national governments to conduct Indigenous consultations through the institutions of the Indigenous representative authority, a government agency typically leads and conducts Indigenous consultations through close collaboration with an industry proponent. The paper examines the Indigenous consultations for the Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (2018–2019) as an example of agency-led consultations where Indigenous communities were invited to participate but were unable to influence either the agenda or the outcomes of the consultations. As a result of the Native communities’ appeals to the Supreme Court, the Indigenous consultations over the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project were overturned. The Court directed the government to redo them but still was reluctant to recognize that the government had not satisfied the Indigenous communities’ requests but instead had rushed through the consultation procedure for approval of the project. It was obvious that the Court was powerless to protect the natural resource rights of Indigenous peoples when the extraction project is a governmental project.
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 | 0,007 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,047 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».