The European Union’s Animal Welfare Policy and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: The Case of Inuit and Seal Hunting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates whether the European Union (EU) achieves a fair balance between the protection of seals and the rights of indigenous peoples to engage in their traditional economic activities. It does this in the context of the EU legislation on trade in seal products, which imposes a sale and import ban on products from commercial seal hunts, but exempts indigenous peoples from its scope. Despite this exemption, Inuit of Canada have been unable to access the EU market under the legislation. In this thesis, it is argued that the balance is fair, if the EU legislation recognises and respects the rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; does not impose a disproportionate restriction on the right of indigenous peoples to engage in the commercial exploitation of seal products; is consistent with the EU’s obligations under international trade agreements in that it does not discriminate against products of Inuit origin from Canada as opposed to those from Greenland; and results in improved animal welfare outside the EU. In order to assess what the concept of‘fair balance’ may mean in the context of the EU seal products legislation, this thesis examines three specific legal tests balancing human rights and societal interests. The thesis concludes that despite the EU’s arguments to contrary, the balance is unfair due to the de facto discrimination against products originating Inuit regions of 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".