The Recognition and Justifiable Infringement of Indigenous Rights in Canada and New Zealand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canada and New Zealand are both nations with substantial indigenous populations, with the Māori in New Zealand constituting around 15 per cent and the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada constituting around 4.5 per cent of the total population. Other parallels include a colonization effort that was largely led by England and subsequently Great Britain (for Canada certainly after the defeat of France in the Seven Years War in 1763) which brought with it a legal system that has its foundations primarily in English law. Despite these parallels, it should be noted that the colonization of New Zealand commenced substantially later than the one of Canada and occurred at a time when Great Britain already had a long history of engaging with the indigenous communities of territories it intended to colonize. Finally, while early relations with aboriginal communities in Canada were governed by both general proclamations and a variety of treaties with individual tribes, New Zealand has, in the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty), a single overarching treaty between the British Crown on the one side and the Māori on the other side.\n\nThis paper will look at two elements of the rights of indigenous community. First, it will analyse how the rights of indigenous communities can be recognised. In Canada, this will entail an analysis of the relevant case law that sets out the test needing to be passed for rights to be recognised. For New Zealand, it will look at the various avenues how the Treaty can affect the domestic law of New Zealand. The paper will not look at the obligations of New Zealand and Canada under international frameworks, in particular the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to what extent such frameworks would require them to recognize rights. It will also focus on rights under the Treaty and s 35 of the Canadian constitution, with rights of indigenous communities arising out of common law aboriginal title and customary rights only touched upon sparingly.\n\nSecond, it will analyse how such rights can be justifiably infringed. For Canada, this will entail a review of the relevant conditions for such infringement set out by the Supreme Court. For New Zealand, it will analyse the concept of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that is incorporated in various statutes and to what extent such principles may affect the Crown when it wishes to make use of assets that are subject to claims by Māori under the Treaty, illustrated by way of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (Mighty River Power).\n\nSubsequently, it will aim to set out certain lessons that each jurisdiction can learn from the different approach that the other jurisdiction has taken, with the ultimate purpose being to protect the rights of indigenous communities in an effective manner while preserving the government’s ability to infringe on such rights if it can prove that it has a legitimate purpose to do so.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».