Canadian Corporations, Human Rights Violations and Third World Extractive Industries: Justiciability in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Your phone, the car you drive, the bicycle you ride, the aircraft you fly, and the computer with which you are reading this thesis most likely contains minerals extracted from a mine in a Third World State where Canadian corporations are routinely implicated in human rights violations. This thesis explores whether these human rights violations committed by Canadian corporations in the extractive industries of Third World states are justiciable in Canadian courts. Based on an empirical review of caselaw between 2000 to 2020, I argue that the justiciability of all human rights violations committed in this context is not yet resolved even after Nevsun. I demonstrate the plausibility of this conclusion by making two arguments in this thesis. The first argument is that Nevsun has only resolved the contention regarding the justiciability of violations based on jus cogens and Customary International Law norms. The contention regarding the justiciability of non-jus cogens and non-CIL violations is not yet settled. The justiciability of these other violations depends on the judicial philosophy and politics of the presiding Justice. After reviewing Canadian legislative history regarding the justiciability of these violations, I found that there is currently no legislative input toward resolving the existing contention because all the private member bills targeted at the resolution of the controversy regarding the justiciability of these violations have been defeated in the Canadian Parliament. Therefore, my second argument is that only a government bill, created through executive and legislative synergy for Parliamentary approval, can ensure the justiciability of all human rights violations committed by Canadian corporations in the extractive industries of Third World states.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".