Rights to land, fragmentation and fairness : the problem of transnational legal governance for indigenous groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis identifies what legal rights to land exist for persons claiming a special socio-economic, cultural and communal relationship to land. Through empirical case studies and legal examples, it identifies and evaluates land rights and related remedies through the theoretical lens of transnational law. This theoretical approach investigates modern law-making in contexts that challenge state sovereignty to include actors, norms and processes in ‘globalised’ contexts as part of the investigation. Rights are discussed through a legal framework placing ‘Indigenous’ actors (regardless of whether they enjoy formal legal protection) at the analytical core and includes norms (state and non-state, contract and policy norms) on land rights. Evidence of Indigenous rights is identified in transnational legal contexts of common law aboriginal Title, international human rights law on ‘displacement’, ‘rights to abode’, private contractual arrangements, financial policy resettlement ‘standards’ and definitions of ‘Indigenous’ in law and policy. Land rights might include a legally binding, independent and fundamental ownership right or collateral rights supporting the development of such right into a legally binding norm. Canada and Australia are key jurisdictions from which legal evidence is collected. Further evidence is drawn from countries typically un-associated with Indigenous persons, including Mongolia and the Chagos Islands to compare application of law and policy on land rights in disparate jurisdictions thus ascertaining any uneven application of the law in plural social contexts. To understand any disparity in the availability of rights and remedies, each chapter suggests evidence of legal, economic and political ‘transnational governance processes’ within judicial interpretation and development project spaces that resonate with colonial agricultural arguments and ultimately, compromise availability and effectiveness of land rights. Concluding suggestions explore what special measures might advance protection for Indigenous actors thus contributing to legal and development goal narratives on a ‘thick’ international rule of law and global fairness.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".