Indigenous legal traditions and Canadian<i>Bhinneka Tunggal Ika</i>: Indonesian lessons for legal pluralism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bhinneka Tunggal Ika is a popular Indonesian phrase meaning “unity in diversity.” Through comparing Canadian and Indonesian approaches to conceptualizing and administering legal pluralism vis-à-vis indigenous peoples, the paper uses this concept to recommend direction for the administration of justice in Canada. The areas of comparison are the three main barriers to instituting a robust legal pluralism in Canada – legitimacy, dependency, and implementation. Where Asian and particularly Indonesian philosophies of legal pluralism create an atmosphere that legitimates legal pluralism's role as a nation-building tool, North American philosophies exacerbate an already adversarial and hierarchical relationship between multiple coexisting legal orders. While these divergent ways of framing legal pluralism have not resulted in large differences for these countries in terms of legislating to reconcile the existence of indigenous legal orders with those of the state, they have affected the way indigenous peoples and state citizens actually practice such coexistence. In general, current Indonesian practices founded on the idea of regionalism and bhinneka tunggal ika (unity in diversity) offer more opportunities for indigenous legal traditions to function. In contrast, Canadian practices founded on the centralization of power and the dominance of state legal order over indigenous ones hinder such opportunities. Ironically, the origins of the Canadian legal system and the creation of the nation were dependent on and shaped significantly by indigenous and non-indigenous societies' early respect for each other's legal orders – as treaties and early Canadian jurisprudence show. This paper advocates for a return to that respect in the interest of Canadian nation-building.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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".