"iSi a la vida, no a la mina!" The criminalization of socio-environmental defenders in Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latin American communities affected by mining projects have repeatedly taken the streets to challenge harmful practices for the environment, and demand the respect of the rights to consultation and consent.Far from taking measures to respect or even listen to these claims, states have developed a wide range of strategies to neutralize the resistance and proceed the exploitation of natural resources.Because anti-extractivist movements challenge powerful political and economic powers, states have usually taken the side of the mining companies.Only between 2014 and 2016, 322 socio-environmental activists have been murdered across the continent, making Latin America the most dangerous place to defend nature.As such, strategies to limit dissent include murders, repression, physical abuses, forced displacements, but also less visible and less direct forms of social control.In fact, to avoid the costs of the use of force, states have increasingly answered to anti-extractivist mobilization by criminalizing the protesters.The criminalization of dissent aims at portraying and treating challengers as a social threat, and therefore as legitimate objects of state punitive powers.This disturbing pattern poses a challenge to democracy as it entails the restriction of citizen's basic rights and consider peaceful gatherings to express an opinion as a criminal activity.The goal of this thesis is precisely to capture state strategies of criminalization by going beyond the evidence of direct and visible forms of repression.In that sense, it seeks to analyze how states criminalize socioenvironmental movements.By focusing on the conservative regime of Mexico and the so-called progressive regime of Ecuador, I argue that states have sought to make antimining mobilization socially and legally unacceptable by discursively and judicially treating challengers as criminals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".