Constitutional conflicts and aboriginal rights: hunting, fishing and gathering rights in Canada, New Zealand and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial resolution of non-aboriginal conflicts was crucial to the vindication of indigenous rights within the new state as the determination of the nature and quality of aboriginal legal interests and entitlements involved fundamental questions of land ownership, secure legal title for settler alienation, as well as governmental priority and competence. If not for these disputes, court decisions and common law doctrine solicitous of indigenous interests based on the idea of indigenous occupancy, use and possession of their territory, and the creation of law based on colonial and imperial policy -- which incorporated notions of indigenous sovereignty and supported pluralist legal relations -- would have been discarded by the courts due to the underlying dynamism and logic of colonialism. Using a recent judicial decision by the highest court in each jurisdiction as a window to discuss the various approaches courts have taken to usufructuary rights, this thesis discusses the major components of the legal doctrine of hunting, fishing and gathering rights in Canada, New Zealand and the United States. It argues that the judicial protection of these aboriginal or treaty rights have been profoundly affected by non-aboriginal disputes over the constitution and the nature of national polity. At the same time the analysis suggests that values ―external to the law are not the sole determinant of judicial outcomes over time. Rather in certain instances the legal doctrine and decisions implicate values inherent to the legal system, such as a conceptual commitment to a logical internal structure, a respect for precedent and previous governmental policy as well as the principle that courts are disinterested dispensers of neutral justice. These internal values comingle with deep-seated commitments held by individual decision-makers and the judiciary more generally, regarding the constitutional structure of the state and the role of the judiciary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".