Climate change law and colonialism: the rights of nature and a hypothetical case for bison person in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The views of Indigenous Peoples around the world on nature have been disregarded in the process of law making since colonization. Consequently, laws and policy to address climate change, for the most part, continue to evolve in absence of Indigenous knowledge. Legal standing for animals and natural resources that are ecologically and culturally significant to Indigenous Peoples could be a way to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into decision making on climate change and in mending relations with States and Indigenous Peoples that have been strained for more than a century. In Canada's case, this could also be a form of active reconciliation. To illustrate this point, a hypothetical case for bison personhood in Canada will be presented. Arguments to support bison personhood will be drawn from the key legal principles, and cultural and ecological reasoning that led to the personhood of the Ganga, Yamuna, and Whanganui Rivers. It will also be shown how granting Rights to Nature could help States operationalize international treaties such as the Paris Agreement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".