Realizing Indigenous Rights in International Environmental Law - A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples when it has either real or constructive knowledge of an Aboriginal right and title and is contemplating action that might affect either the right or title. To date, the majority of Canadian Aboriginal case law has focused on applying the duty to consult to statutory decisions that could interfere with domestic Aboriginal or treaty rights. Aboriginal peoples have an opportunity to transform international decision making if Canada determines there is a legal requirement to include indigenous voices when negotiating and ratifying international agreements, especially those pertaining to the environment. Formal legal consultation with indigenous peoples on a country’s international negotiating position for agreements that have the potential to impact indigenous rights will be a significant governance and policy shift. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal in Hupacasath First Nation v Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) rejected consultation requirements for the ratification of an international investment treaty, the negotiation of environmental agreements has much clearer links to Aboriginal rights. As well, the Canadian government’s promise to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also has the potential to influence future court decisions. This proposed legal change is not without challenges. Given that there are more than 600 recognized First Nations bands in Canada and many non-status and urban indigenous populations, as well as Metis and Inuit peoples, a workable solution for legal consultation for legislation and other administrative matters should be a focus of indigenous political organizations as they prepare for the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".