MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W237833800 · doi:10.5070/p8201022157

A Contractual Approach to Indigenous Self-Determination in Aotearoa/New Zealand

2002· article· en· W237833800 on OpenAlex
John Buick-Constable

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAotearoaSelf-determinationState (computer science)PoliticsIndigenous rightsDemocracyLawConstitutionSociologyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsTribunalPolitical economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A CONTRACTUAL APPROACH TO INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION IN AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND John Buick-Constablet I. INTRODUCTION The contemporary realities of international law and politics are such that if Indigenous Peoples are to peacefully and effec- tively realise self-determination, they will most likely have to ex- ercise it within existing State structures and orders. This requires (re)establishing and (re)orienting Indigenous-State relations away from policies of assimilation and integration, and towards a partnered process of belated State-building. ' To this aim, an international legal right of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples would provide a politico-legal mechanism that legiti- mately advances Indigenous self-determination at the interna- tional level. 2 Another significant step would be to establish, at f Solicitor, Bell Gully, Barristers & Solicitors, Wellington, New Zealand. 1. The phrase belated State-building is adopted from Erica-Irene A. Daes, Some Considerations on the Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination, 3 TRANSNAT'L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 1, 9 (1993). With few exceptions, Indigenous Peoples were never a part of State-building. They did not have an opportunity to participate in designing the modern constitution of the States in which they live, or to share, in any meaningful way, in national decision-making .... Whatever the reason, [by law, force, language, poverty, or prejudice,] Indigenous Peoples in most countries have never been, and are not now, full partners in the political process, and lack others' ability to use democratic means to defend their fundamental rights. Id. at 8-9. Accordingly, the concept and process of belated State-building seeks to right such historical injustices by imposing obligations on States to accommodate Indigenous Peoples through constitutional means in order to share power democrat- ically. The approach of belated State-building (and that of contractualism) in this paper may be contrasted with more radical approaches to self-determination (e.g., secession and independence) that are disruptive to the existing fabric of the inter- national order of States. Id. at 9. For useful overviews and analyses of more radical approaches to self-determination, see ALLEN BUCHANAN, SECESSION: THE MORAL- ITY OF POLITICAL DIVORCE FROM FORT SUMTER TO LITHUANIA AND QUEBEC (1991) and JORRI DUURSMA, FRAGMENTATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL RELA- AND STATEHOOD (1996). 2. The international legal right of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples, as articulated in Article 3 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo- ples, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Mi- TIONS OF MICRO-STATES: SELF-DETERMINATION

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it