Arctic Athabaskan Council’s petition to the Inter-American Commission on human rights and climate change—business as usual or a breakthrough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2013, the Arctic Athabaskan Council representing the Arctic Athabaskan peoples filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Council sought relief for violations of their rights resulting from rapid Arctic warming and melting caused by emissions of black carbon by Canada. The aim of the paper is to show legal complaints and arguments of a particular indigenous people, Arctic Athabaskans—arguments intended to enforce Canada’s obligation to reduce or eliminate black carbon emissions, which negatively affect numerous rights of indigenous Athabaskans. Additionally, the article will point to the new legal developments and potential success of those arguments and litigation itself. The article analyses issues at the intersection of human rights, indigenous peoples and climate change. The concluding remarks attempt to answer the research questions and offer some reflections on the potential to protect indigenous peoples’ rights offered by this type of advocacy strategy and, more specifically, the petition in particular. The research method adopted is that of legal-institutional analysis as well as content analysis of relevant literature (analysis of the discourse). This paper moves forward existing climate litigation literature which focuses on human rights. As Osofsky and Peel (2018) highlight, human rights-based climate litigation is a new development in the field, and this paper expands it further.
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) | 0.001 | 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".