NAFTA, the Mining Law of 1781, and Environmental Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After spending $15 million to mine gold on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in California and then failing to secure federal approval, a Canadian mining company claimed $50 million in damages for a regulatory taking under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).The mining company, Glamis Gold, Ltd., argued that under the U.S. Mining Law of 1872, BLM's delay in approving its mining plan violated NAFTA by unfairly targeting the company.Glamis also argued that California's retroactive environmental regulations destroyed the economic viability of its project, rendering the mining property worthless and subject to compensation under NAFTA.This article explores this dispute, the first environmental takings challenge of its kind under NAFTA.While the NAFTA tribunal concluded no regulatory taking had occurred, considerable uncertainty remains as to what environmental regulations constitute a taking under this international agreement, even though, in this case, NAFTA did not become a "sword" to cut through U.S. environmental protections.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".