La protection juridique des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones : analyse comparée des décisions de deux juridictions régionales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objet de notre article a trait a la problematique de la protection des modes de vie autochtones et minoritaires, qui se traduit aujourd'hui par un contentieux croissant, devant deux juridictions regionales des droits de l'homme, a savoir les Cours Europeenne et Interamericaine des droits de l’homme. L'evolution se manifeste a la lecture des jurisprudences recentes, sans qu'il ne s'agisse d'un processus acheve de reconnaissance. L'annee 2001 verra en effet, consacrer deux decisions phares en la matiere. La premiere, l’affaire Chapman c. Royaume Uni, du 18 janvier, devant la Cour europeenne des droits de l’homme, declare pour la premiere fois que « l’article 8 [de la Convention europeenne] impose aux Etats contractants l’obligation positive de permettre aux Tsiganes de suivre leur mode de vie ». La seconde, l’affaire Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, du 31 aout, devant la Cour interamericaine des droits de l’homme, reconnait la propriete collective des terres et l’importance des terres ancestrales pour la preservation de leur culture, de leur spiritualite, de leur integrite et de leur survie economique. Depuis, cette evolution jurisprudentielle, audacieuse bien que non homogene, se poursuit. Or, existe-il aujourd'hui, un droit au respect des modes de vie traditionnels pour les communautes minoritaires ou autochtones? Quelle est sa valeur, son regime juridique et ses limites? Qui beneficie de ce droit, l'individu ou le groupe?
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".