El rol de Canadá frente a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en el contexto de la OEA/ The role of Canada before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the framework of the OAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente trabajo tiene como objeto valorar la interaccion entre Canada y la Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), en el contexto de la Organizacion de Estados Americanos (OEA), a la cual pertenece con membresia plena desde 1990. El estudio parte de la valoracion sobre algunos elementos definitorios de la politica exterior canadiense frente a la OEA en distintos periodos. Se analiza el marco regulatorio sobre los derechos y libertades fundamentales en Canada, asi como la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema en relacion a la aplicacion o no de estandares del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, respecto a lo cual se concluye que no se aprecia una marcada influencia en la jurisprudencia domestica, aunque se senala como aspecto positivo la presencia de referencias del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y de estandares del Sistema Interamericano en algunas sentencias. Por otra parte, se concluye que la no ratificacion de la Convencion Americana sobre Derechos Humanos por parte de Canada es un obstaculo para el fortalecimiento del rol del Estado frente al Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos y la OEA en general. Llama la atencion que la CIDH ha conocido muy pocas peticiones en relacion a Canada, evidenciandose que los ciudadanos canadienses no suelen acudir a este organo, por lo cual se recomienda al Estado el diseno de politicas publicas de promocion del Sistema Interamericano. La investigacion tiene caracter documental. Tambien se acudio a la entrevista a expertos academicos canadienses como fuente de conocimiento. Abstract This paper aims to assess the interaction between Canada and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in the framework of the Organization of American States (OAS), to which Canada belongs with full membership since 1990, when the State outlined a closer foreign policy before the Americas. The study starts with the assessment of some Canadian foreign policy elements in front the OAS from different time, the contextualization of the regulatory framework on the rights and freedoms in Canada and the analysis of the Supreme Court case-law regarding the implementation or not of some International Human Rights Law standards. In this regard it concludes that there is not a substantial influence in domestic case-law. However, the presence of some references of International Human Rights standards and especially Inter-American System standards in some Canadian courts decisions is remarkable as very positive. Moreover, the refusal to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights is valued as an obstacle to strengthen Canada’s role before the Inter-American Human Rights System and the OAS in general. It is remarkable that IACHR has decided very few petitions related to Canada, which denotes that Canadian citizens are not related to this institution. In this regard, domestic public policymakers should consider the promotion of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The research is documentary. Conducting interviews to experts as a source of knowledge was remarkable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".