A Comparison of Inadequate Doctrines: The Canadian “honour of the Crown” and the U.S. Federal Trust Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically examines and compares the Canadian doctrine of the "honour of the Crown" and the United States' federal trust responsibility as legal frameworks intended to protect the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples. Through historical and doctrinal analysis, the authors argue that both doctrines, while rooted in fiduciary ideals, have been reinterpreted by courts and policymakers in ways that prioritize governmental interests over those of Indigenous communities. The U.S. trust responsibility, once grounded in treaty obligations and sovereign-to-sovereign relations, has devolved into a vague, largely unenforceable moral and legal obligation, allowing for unilateral federal and state action that often undermines Indigenous sovereignty. Similarly, the Canadian honour of the Crown, though often invoked rhetorically as a guiding principle in Crown-Indigenous relations, suffers from doctrinal vagueness and paternalism, providing limited practical accountability or mechanisms to advance Indigenous rights and self-governance. The article details the consequences of these shortcomings, highlighting persistent gaps in protection, limited recourse for Indigenous peoples, and the failure of both countries to achieve genuine reconciliation. The authors conclude by recommending reforms inspired by international standards, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and emphasize the need for legal frameworks that meaningfully center Indigenous agency, autonomy, and partnership in law and policy.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".