Rights-based judicial review and subtantive equality for aboriginal peoples: The case of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their attempts to obtain differential treatment under the law, Aboriginal peoples are increasingly choosing rights-based judicial review as a promising alternative to political negotiations. However, it remains to be seen to what extent, and under what conditions, rights-based judicial review will live up to the expectations Aboriginal people have vested in choosing this route. In order to measure the effectiveness of rights-based judicial review for Aboriginal peoples, this article proposes to study Canadian case law. More specifically, it reviews the constitutional jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada pertaining to five key Aboriginal rights issues: fishing and hunting rights, institutional representation, welfare policies, land rights and self-government. It also considers how this jurisprudence was received and applied by governmental authorities. The article reveals that the constitutional recognition of specific Aboriginal rights, which go beyond fundamental political and civil rights brings about positive political change for Canada's Aboriginal communities, even though these rights have been given a narrow interpretation. However, in this climate of positive political change, the inability for Aboriginal peoples to obtain self-government through judicial review emerges as a clear problem. The article comes to the conclusion that institutional nation-building objectives may limit judicial review's potential for recognising a deep level of substantive equality for Aboriginal peoples.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".