La gouvernance autochtone avec ou sans la Charte canadienne? (Aboriginal Governance with or without the Canadian Charter?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article se veut une contribution au debat doctrinal sur la question de savoir si la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes s’applique aux institutions gouvernementales autochtones visees par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. La Charte est-elle, comme l’affirme une importante doctrine, completement ou tres substantiellement inopposable a un gouvernement autochtone agissant en vertu d’un droit ancestral ou vise par un traite ? Avant d’aborder ce probleme juridique sous son angle technique, l’auteur le place dans le contexte d’une reflexion plus large sur le rapport entre la bonne gouvernance, les droits fondamentaux et l’affirmation du particularisme culturel autochtone. Il remet en cause le reflexe tres repandu chez les juristes qui consiste a affirmer l’incompatibilite de l’ideologie moderne des droits et libertes individuels avec la culture autochtone.Apres une analyse detaillee des articles 32 et 25 de la Charte, l’auteur rejette la these de l’immunite absolue et propose une immunite plus limitee fondee, non pas sur la difference autochtone avancee par certains, mais sur le principe de validation constitutionnelle, un principe de portee generale qui trouve un rappel explicite dans l’article 25 de la Charte. Selon le professeur Otis, l’article 32 de la Charte exprime un principe fondamental de bonne gouvernance qui s’etend aux autorites autochtones meme si celles-ci ne sont pas expressement mentionnees dans cette disposition. Il fait en outre valoir que l’article 25 de la Charte ne fait qu’interdire d’invoquer la Charte de maniere a abroger un droit constitutionnel ou a deroger a une de ses caracteristiques essentielles. Or, dans la plupart des cas, l’application de la Charte a l’action gouvernementale autochtone fondee sur l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ne produira pas d’effet abrogatoire ou derogatoire sur un droit ancestral ou issu de traites.L’interpretation des articles 25 et 32 de la Charte canadienne preconisee dans cet article aura, dans un grand nombre de cas, pour effet de rendre cette Charte invocable a l’encontre des autorites autochtones exercant un droit a l’autonomie gouvernementale reconnu et confirme par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Les questions relatives aux droits et libertes garantis constitutionnellement feront des lors partie integrante de la gouvernance autochtone de demain.English Abstract: The purpose of this article is to contribute to the doctrinal debate whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to aboriginal governmental institutions protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Is the Charter, as one important doctrine suggests, totally or substantially void against aboriginal governments acting according to existing aboriginal or treaty rights? Before addressing this legal problem from a technical standpoint, the author situates the issue in the broader perspective of relationships between good governance, fundamental rights and expression of distinct aboriginal culture. According to the author further thought should be given to the widespread tendency among lawyers to affirm that there is an inconsistency between the modern ideology of individual rights and freedoms and aboriginal culture? After an in-depth analysis of sections 32 to 35 of the Charter, the author rejects the absolute immunity thesis in favour of a more circumscribed immunity based not on aboriginal distinctiveness, as suggested by some, but on the principle of constitutional validation, a broad principle explicitly stated in section 25 of the Charter. According to Professor Otis, section 32 of the Charter formulates the fundamental principle of good governance that extends to aboriginal authorities, even though these authorities are not expressly mentioned in the provision. He furthers states that section 25 of the Charter only prohibits the use of the Charter so as to abrogate a constitutional right or to derogate from any of its essential elements. In fact, in most cases, applying the Charter to aboriginal governmental action under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, will not result in abrogation of or derogation from existing aboriginal or treaty rights. The interpretation of sections 25 and 32 of the Canadian Charter as proposed in this article will make it possible, in many cases, to plead the Charter against aboriginal authorities exercising their right to autonomous government as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Issues relating to constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms would thereby be part and parcel of tomorrow's aboriginal governance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".