The law-spacetime-justice nexus: International boundary disputes and indigenous territorial claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation analyzes international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and indigenous territorial claims from the perspective of legal geography, a field of study that investigates the mutually constitutive relationship between law, space and power in society. I use the term “international law-spacetime-justice nexus” to signify that the analysis is concerned with the spatiotemporal foundations of international law and their relationship with concepts of international political justice. The dissertation analyzes matters pertaining to the spatial and structural (in)justices associated with the international legal principle of uti possidetis, a doctrine that holds that decolonizing or seceding states are entitled to retain the boundaries of the previous colonial or state power. The concept of spatiotemporalities is used to analyze questions about how the ICJ produces and reproduces the spatial hierarchies and structural injustices associated with colonial legalism in contemporary contexts. The dissertation also examines the theoretical foundations of indigenous self-determination and self-government as articulated in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). It counters the statist spatial paradigm of traditional international border disputes by examining indigenous territorial claims based on historical entitlement, remedial claims such as corrective justice and treaty violations, as well as non-remedial claims based on cultural integrity arguments. These themes are explored in three case studies, including the 1992 boundary dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, the 1994 dispute case between Libya and Chad, and the 1995 response by the Grand Council of Cree of northern Quebec and James Bay to the Quebec government’s proposals for separation
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".