Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent scholarship has argued that many of the distinctive features of Indigenous land tenure in common law countries can be explained by a single basic idea: under these regimes, property in land serves the unusual function of delineating the territorial authority of self-governing political communities. Among the recurring features that can be explained by this self-government function are special restraints on the alienation of land interests, distinctive co-ownership rules favouring collective governance, special group governance powers linked to land ownership, the relaxation of the numerus clausus principle, and special immunities from outside interference. This article attempts to assess the implications of this approach for understanding Indigenous land tenure. The author argues that there are important theoretical implications to this approach, both for understanding the relationship between property and sovereignty as legal concepts and for understanding the values reflected in a property system. In this area of law, property and sovereignty appear to operate as conceptual poles along a spectrum rather than as essentially distinct concepts. Moreover, the comparison with specialized systems of Indigenous land tenure can tell us something about the values reflected in the common law property systems that apply outside of Indigenous communities. Among other things, this approach shows the ways in which common law property systems normally work to discourage cultural enclaves. In addition to its theoretical implications, this approach to understanding Indigenous land tenure also has potential implications for land tenure reform. The theory helps bring into focus the unique trade-offs associated with institutional design in this area of law. It also allows for the identification of anomalous doctrinal features that cannot be explained by this theory. The article concludes with some insights relevant to statutory reform and the judicial development of the common law of Aboriginal title.
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 | 0.001 | 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".