In Search of the 'Golden Thread': Common Law Interactions With Indigenous Law in Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis explores the interactions of the common law with indigenous law in three jurisdictions: Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Case law involving family, criminal and land law is examined in detail, to establish how the common law has interacted with indigenous law. Two aspects of common law interactions are explored: judicial approaches to the recognition of indigenous law; and, judicial perceptions about the relationship between the common law and indigenous law. Courts faced with indigenous law have taken one of three approaches to recognising it. These are respectively referred to in the thesis as the non-recognition approach, the accommodation approach and the recognition approach. With regard to judicial perceptions about the relationship between the common law and indigenous law, the case law reveals seven different perceptions. They are: no relationship; mere acknowledgement; separate but capable of recognition; adjustment; assimilation/domination; assimilation/search for partnership; and absorption. Where a relationship is acknowledged, although perceptions may vary, essentially they can be placed in one of three categories. Courts may regard the relationship as one between two separate bodies of law, with points of intersection. They may regard it as one of convergence, perhaps even partial integration, between separate legal traditions. Finally, they may regard indigenous law as having been absorbed into the dominant legal system. Courts with this latter perception regard indigenous law as analogous to English local customs. Having identified more than one approach to the recognition of indigenous law, consideration is given to the circumstances in which the approaches are used, exploring differences arising out of the subject area in question and the jurisdiction in which the case is considered. The thesis also demonstrates that some correlation exists between the judicial approach to recognition of indigenous law and judicial perceptions about the relationship of the common law with indigenous law, though this correlation cannot be demonstrated in all cases. Lastly, the capacity of the common law to recognise changes to indigenous law is considered, where the case law reveals that both the judicial approach to recognition of indigenous law, and judicial perceptions about the relationship between the common law and indigenous law have a bearing on the capacity of the courts to recognise change. The thesis demonstrates that both the judicial approach to recognition of indigenous law and judicial perceptions about the relationship between the common law and indigenous law affect common law interactions with indigenous law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".