Home State Responsibility and Local Communities: The Case of Global Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home states that are actively engaged in global mining have considered and\nrejected calls to regulate the conduct of transnational mining corporations so\nas to prevent and remedy human rights and environmental harms. This\nreluctance to regulate is often expressed as a concern that extraterritorial\nregulation will conflict with the sovereignty of foreign states. This paper\nargues that the public international law of jurisdiction is permissive of home\nstate regulation that can be justified under the nationality or territoriality\nprinciples, provided that there is no true conflict with an exercise of host state\njurisdiction. In the human rights and environment contexts, it is more likely\nthat home state regulation would result in concurrent but not conflicting\njurisdiction, particularly where the regulation is designed to further shared\ninternational norms. Beyond permissibility, this paper argues that\ninternational sustainable mineral development law imposes an emerging\nobligation on all states, including home states, to ensure that the three pillars\nof public participation rights are respected. These rights are access to\ninformation, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in\nenvironmental matters, and they are formulated in the global mining context\nas a right of indigenous and local communities to free, prior and informed\nconsent. Support for the existence of such a home state obligation may be\nfound in the recommendations of international human rights treaty bodies,\nand in the work of the International Law Commission on both state\nresponsibility, and the prevention and allocation of loss for transboundary\nharm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".