Indigenous Rights Before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : A Call for a Pro Individual Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its traditional conception, international law regulates relations between sovereign states. This definition is challenged by current developments of international law, especially in the area of human rights. The human person is arguably a bearer of rights and duties under international law. However, recognizing this individual legal personality is not enough. International bodies and treaties need to acknowledge that individuals are subjects of international law within a pluralistic world. In other words, the law of nations must crystalize the idea that individuals are, with all their cultural differences, subjects of international law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognizes this view through its pro homine principle, which informs that human rights instruments must seek the best possible protection for the human person. In this interpretative framework, the Inter-American Court crystalized a body of norms protecting indigenous rights and their cultural and historical backgrounds within the general protection system of the American Convention. The extensive interpretation of rights articulates a new view on the individual legal personality. Accordingly, this article seeks to understand this approach based on key decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on indigenous cases.
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 | 0.036 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".