Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper explores how key concepts now underlying the EU approach toward a Sustainable Blue economy have started entering the European legislation without speaking the word already four decades ago; concepts that were in fact learned by the representatives of the European institutions from the Greenlandic Government’ and Inuit associations’ narrative and arguments in support of Inuit seal hunting since the beginning of the seal issue (1980s). By analyzing one of the most controversial issues between Inuit and the EU, namely the development of the “EU Seal Regime”, this paper argues that the core of the “Inuit exception”, formally elaborated in 2009, was grounded on the acknowledgment that Inuit hunt, as traditionally – or historically- conducted by Inuit, endorsed a more complex economic approach to sustainability that surpasses the notion of simple “species conservation” to embrace concepts now ascribable to resource efficiency, community resilience, sustainable and responsible food production, and a respectful attitude to the ocean. Therefore, it is here argued that a vision that links the “Inuit exception” of 2009 to a simple upright and formal compliance by the European Union to Indigenous Peoples Rights, not only fail in fully understanding the historical and complex processes that led to the adoption of the Seal regime and the Inuit exception contained within but also fail in acknowledging the fundamental and proactive theoretical contributions Inuit brought in outlining a different and more complex approach to sustainability. Sommario: “Economia circolare”, “resilienza delle comunitá costiere”, “produzione alimentare sostenibile”, e, piú in generale, un approccio economico che dia prioritá a sostenibilità e resilienza invece che al mero sfruttamento delle risorse marine, sono alcuni dei concetti introdotti dal nuovo approccio per un’economia blu sostenibile nell’Unione Europea adottato della Commissione Europea nel Maggio 2021, cui attuazione é considerata fondamentale per il conseguimento degli obiettivi ambientali stabiliti dal Green Deal Europeo e di quelli economici del Recovery Plan for Europe. Tuttavia, un’ approfondita analisi storico legale di una delle questioni piú controverse tra popolazioni indigene e Unione Europea, ovvero lo sviluppo e conseguente adozione di un regime Europeo sui prodotti derivati dalla foca, suggerisce che tali concetti fossero giá stati implicitamente utilizzati e introdotti dal Governo Groenlandese e dalle associazioni Inuit per distinguere metodologie e fini della caccia Inuit dalla cosidetta caccia commerciale giá agli arbori degli anni ’80. Nonostante tali concetti possano considerarsi di conseguenza alla base della cosidetta “eccezione Inuit” prevista dal regime Europeo sui prodotti derivati dalla foca, il contributo del Governo Groenlandese e delle associazioni Inuit a un concetto di approccio economico piú sostenibile non é mai stato riconosciuto, e anzi, la stessa caccia alla foca e il conseguente benessere economico culturale e sociale delle popolazioni Inuit é messo a repentaglio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".