Amparos Filed by Indigenous Communities Against Mining Concessions in Mexico: Implications for a Shift in Ecological Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four indigenous communities in Mexico have initiated amparos seeking constitutional protection against mining concessions that have allegedly violated their constitutional rights. In addition to their significant implications for indigenous rights in Mexico, these amparos are part of a growing reaction against laws that prioritize mining interests over community land uses and ecological values. This article explores the relationship of these cases with a new legal paradigm that is emerging in response to the inability of environmental law to adequately address the deepening ecological crisis: ecological law. From an ecological law perspective, these amparos are of interest because of the possibility for courts to give priority to indigenous values ascribing spiritual, ecological and relational meanings to the land and its resources, over economic interests seeking to exploit the land and resources for commercial gain without regard to ecological limits. The article introduces a “lens of ecological law” conceived to understand the nature of the required shift from the current law to ecological law, and then examines the amparo filed by the community of San Miguel del Progreso–Júba Wajíín from this standpoint. The analysis shows that the provisions of the Mining Law challenged by the amparo pose serious obstacles for ecological law (prioritizing mining over any other land use), and it points to certain synergies between indigenous rights and ecological law. While the SCJN did not examine the merits of the amparo because the concessions had been withdrawn, the amparo offers insights into the challenges facing a shift away from the current legal paradigm.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".