When Law Forgets: Coherence and Memory in the Determination of Stateless Palestinian Refugee Claims in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article highlights the incoherence in Canada’s treatment of many Palestinian refugee claims, and argues that this state of affairs is best understood as a failure of legal memory. The drafters of the Refugee Convention recognized both Palestinian refugees’ collective entitlement to protection, and the distinct protection needs of stateless persons. Canadian refugee law, however, contains no trace of this history. As a result, refugee determination in Canada does not account for the persecution that caused and maintains Palestinian statelessness, and holds an often-misplaced focus on where a stateless person ‘habitually resided’ at the expense of where they are actually at risk. This article charts the path to the present legal regime for stateless Palestinian refugee claimants in Canada, and identifies three problematic trends in the application of the Convention refugee definition to Palestinian claims. Alternative interpretations of the law are then offered to restore recognition of the collective nature of the persecution of Palestinian refugees, and the distinct human rights problem of statelessness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".