Indigenous rights and state opposition : a case study on the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study considers international law and indigenous peoples in relation to the four States who voted against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September of 2007. The four states -the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -share a common bond in voting against the Declaration, as well as a common colonial heritage as all four States are former British colonies. The study considers the means and modes of the British colonial project; the perception of indigenous peoples under both natural and positivist international legal theory during colonization; the subsequent treatment of indigenous peoples within the jurisprudence and legal frameworks of the four emerging States; the resulting treatment of the indigenous peoples within the four States; the subsequent re-engagement of the issue if indigenous peoples in international law; and the provisions of the Declaration in relation to the oppositional stance of the four States, as well as the legal status of the provisions within the text of the Declaration itself. The objective of the study is to consider the resulting legal relationship and progress made in the contemporary international engagement of indigenous rights in relation to Cassese's description of international law shifting from universalism to eurocentricism by the 19th century, only to begin to swing back towards a universal approach to international law contemporarily.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".