Autonomy and indigenous peoples of the Arctic Llegal status of Inuit (case study of Greenland and Nunavut)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the foregoing study, an attempt has been made to present a comparative empirical and normative survey of the concept of governance in the Arctic jurisdictions of Greenland and Nunavut. In so doing, the thesis addresses the question of whether there is an emerging right to autonomy for indigenous peoples of Inuit in Nunavut and Greenland. This thesis first analyses several methodological and theoretical aspects of the concept of autonomy in general and the right to indigenous self-government in international and constitutional law in particular. It then compares Greenland and Nunavut from the perspective of historical, political, social, economic and legal factors that conditioned the road to modern governance structures of these Arctic jurisdictions. With this analysis in hand, the study turns to an examination of the legal scope of autonomy in the Arctic. Finally, it explores the jurisdiction of Greenland and Nunavut in non-transferable areas as an important indicator of the concept of autonomy for Northern hinterlands. This study draws on the aspirations of Inuit authorities to take over responsibilities in international relations, judicial and legal systems, and security or defence matters as means of promoting their autonomy and examines potential sources of legal authority for these actions. This thesis concludes that even the confusing legal concept of autonomy can be rendered more determinate by means of comparative constitutional analysis of measures that secure autonomy in Arctic areas where indigenous Inuit peoples are the majority. Despite a relatively weak legal ground for normative recognition of the right to autonomy, an empirical analysis of Greenland and Nunavut governance systems reveals that autonomy is not a static phenomenon. It is a dynamic concept constantly developing and evolving towards more recognition at the de jure level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".