Denying Indigenous Environmental Justice: Experiences from Australia, Brazil, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deliberates on the nature of justice in Indigenous engagement with settler-colonial legality. I use the case law-based evidence from the three jurisdictions, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, to reflect on the abstract and material representations of Indigenous environmental justice in contemporary settler-colonial societies. There are two elements at play here. While some of the constituent elements of ‘Indigenous environmental justice’ may remain undefined in the legal system, they function as an invitation to the courts for interpreting them widely. How far has this been used, and in what manner speaks to the nature of juridical engagement with indigeneity? Second, the need for certainty and procedural integrity within the legal interpretation often belies the assumption ofneutrality. This is pronounced when political and historical questions are antecedents to the legal questions to be determined by a court. Settler colonial nations illustrate this contradiction by laying bare the past and present historical injustices that accompany Indigenous rights and sovereignty. To think about ‘justice’ in these cases requires principle-led juridical innovations. I argue that courts are yet to recognize their key role in identifying and remedying the violence scripted by the law on Indigenous people. While it may be a difficult and complex task to develop a radical jurisprudence without violating the separation of power, courts continue to be the final altars of justice with a wide range of creative and untapped powers. The responsibility to articulate Indigenous environmental justice as a legal principle in the Anthropocene calls for deploying those powers.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".