Distinction Between Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in International Environmental Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2020, the Inuit Circumpolar Council ( ICC ) expressed concern regarding terminology that confuses Indigenous Peoples with ‘local communities’, emphasizing Indigenous peoples right to self-determination, which was first recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This study examines the possible distinction between the terms Indigenous peoples and local communities, focusing mainly on the different traits of development between international environmental and human rights laws. On the one hand, this study points out that the ICC ’s arguments have several limitations. First, it indicates the ambiguity of the definitions of ‘Indigenous peoples’ and ‘local communities’. Second, it clarifies that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas now recognizes the collective rights of local communities, including their rights to land and resources; thus, closing the gap between ‘Indigenous peoples’ and ‘local communities’ remains a relevant issue even in international human rights law. Still, this study acknowledges the importance of the arguments raised by the ICC . In particular, their concern that the rights to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, as achieved in the UNDRIP , could be diluted if they are treated on an equal footing with local communities is crucial. If Indigenous peoples continue to emphasize their distinction from local communities at the national and international levels, and if this receives some support from States, then new developments can be expected.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".