La Protection Constitutionnelle De La Pluralité Juridique: Le Cas De 'L'Adoption Coutumière' Autochtone au Québec (Constitutional Protection of Legal Plurality: The Case of Aboriginal 'Customary Adoption' in Québec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract:Cet article examine dans quelle mesure le cadre constitutionnel canadien determine les conditions et les modalites de la reception de la coutume autochtone dans le droit quebecois. Dans la premiere partie, l’auteur analyse les enjeux de la reconnaissance de la coutume par le droit etatique a la lumiere de la theorie du pluralisme juridique. Il s’attache aussi a demontrer que la pratique de l’adoption coutumiere constitue pour plusieurs peuples autochtones du Quebec un droit ancestral protege par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Il explique ensuite comment l’obligation constitutionnelle de reconnaitre l’adoption coutumiere contraint la legislature a faire une place au droit autochtone de l’adoption sans le denaturer ni le subordonner a la culture juridique dominante. Dans la seconde partie, l’auteur montre de quelle maniere la protection constitutionnelle de l’adoption coutumiere peut etre renforcee par les regles du partage des competences entre le pouvoir federal et les provinces. La reglementation de l’exercice des droits ancestraux relevant du cœur de la competence federale sur les Indiens aux termes de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, le Parlement du Quebec ne peut regir directement les regimes autochtones d’adoption, ce qui ne le prive toutefois pas de tout pouvoir de protection des enfants adoptes selon la coutume. Les regles du federalisme donnent cependant a la province les pouvoirs necessaires a la reception et a l’application des effets de la coutume dans le cadre des lois du Quebec. En definitive, la constitution conforte la pluralite juridique en matiere d’adoption et induit une obligation de dialogue des cultures juridiques autochtones et civiliste voire meme, dans une certaine mesure, leur acculturation reciproque. English Abstract: This article examines the extent to which the Canadian constitutional framework determines how indigenous customary adoption should interact with Quebec law. In the first part, the author uses the theory of legal pluralism to analyse which indigenous interests are at stake in the process of recognizing customary adoption by the State’s law. He also argues that customary adoption rules and practices are constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and must therefore be recognized by Quebec law without being distorted and subordinated to the dominant legal culture. In the second part, the author shows how the constitutional protection of customary adoption is reinforced by the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provinces. The regulation of aboriginal rights being at the core of the federal jurisdiction over “Indians”, it is beyond the reach of the Parliament of Quebec. This does not mean, however, that the province is totally deprived of any power to protect children and parents involved in customary adoptions. Nor is Quebec denied the powers that are necessary for the reception and application of indigenous custom and its effects in provincial law. Overall, the constitution strengthens legal pluralism with regard to adoption. It imposes a dialogue between indigenous and civil law cultures and, to some extent, it favours their mutual acculturation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".