Nested Regulation in Law and Development: Identifying Sites of Indigenous Resistance and Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite a radical change in the contemporary regulation of Indigenous lands, comparative scholarship remains focused on state determined rights and their development by the judiciary. This focus is rooted in an assumption that rights recognition bestows protection on identified groups and their lands. However, the model has limited the ability of comparative law to engage with regulatory approaches to Indigenous land tenure – instead characterized by regulatory institutions that enable decision-makers to avoid encounters. This article corrects this anachronism by reframing comparative Indigenous law to better recognize how rights are embedded in nested regimes that legitimate rationalized decision-making. The concept of nested regimes, which has mostly been used internationally, is applied in the domestic context in order to clarify where regulatory authority overlaps and how decision-making on rights or its avoidance impacts other actors. Using several institutions – the judiciary, the executive, private industry, police, and Indigenous communities – the article illustrates how overlapping regimes attempt to avoid a rights based discourse and therefore complicate Indigenous strategies of resistance and reform. In doing so, this article presents the outlines of a larger project to develop methodologies that pay attention to the regulatory dimension of implementing constitutionally secured rights. This contributes to the growing interest in synthesizing law and development, comparative law and regulatory perspectives; disciplines which have remained intellectually isolated from each other until recently.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".