MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411354997 · doi:10.1017/plc.2025.10003.pr1

Author comment: How to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the Global Plastics Treaty — R0/PR1

2025· peer-review· en· W4411354997 sur OpenAlexaff
Max Liboiron

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepeer-review
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHuman Rights and Development
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDeclarationIndigenousTreatyPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyBiologyEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Since the 1980s, international governance documents have acknowledged the importance of recognizing, incorporating, and protecting Indigenous Peoples' rights and knowledge related to environmental governance.This trend continues, albeit unevenly, in the draft Global Plastics Treaty (UNEP, 2024).The primary issue with the current draft is that while Indigenous knowledge is referenced, Indigenous Peoples are absent.Indigenous Peoples are rightsholders, not stakeholders (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)).Indigenous Peoples and Nations possess sovereignty, legal rights and intergenerational responsibilities for their ancestral lands and waters that are distinct from and beyond the interests of stakeholders.The International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Plastics (IIPFP) has emphasized that the Treaty must "recognize that Indigenous Peoples have distinct status and inherent collective rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)" (UN, 2007; 2024a).The Declaration and the Treatyboth authored by United Nations bodieshave the potential to reinforce one another (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)), but this alignment has not yet materialized, even in the most robust Treaty drafts.The draft Treaty offers three sets of "Principles and Approaches" (Article 1).Only one includes "The use of relevant traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems" (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f).Even within that version, the emphasis is on Indigenous knowledge rather than on Indigenous Peoples themselves (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f, 3.5, 3.6.e,5.1.b,9.2.b, 17.1.cand 18.3.b).This reflects a common pattern of extracting value from Indigenous communities for non-Indigenous goals without upholding Indigenous rights: to self-determination, to governance of Indigenous lands and waters and to free, prior and informed consent.The IIPFP makes clear that "the knowledge and science of Indigenous Peoples [must] only [be] considered in conjunction with protections and safeguards that guarantee the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples holding that knowledge" (UN, 2007; IIPFP, 2024a).There remains a significant opportunity to integrate Indigenous rights into the Treaty, especially when such inclusion is guided by UNDRIP (see Table 1 andIIPFP, 2024a).Central to these rights is the participation of Indigenous representatives in decision-making bodies (Table 1, Row 1; Ecojustice, 2024).This argument stems from an approach that begins with Indigenous rights and then turns to the Global Plastics Treaty, rather than framing Indigenous Peoples as resources that can enrich the Treaty.Several imperatives support this approach.First, Indigenous Peoples are not value-added assets to be leveraged by Parties or Committees outlined in the Treaty (Liboiron, 2021).Second, under international human rights law, all rights are inalienable and immutablethey cannot be subordinated to the desires of other stakeholders (Liljeblad, 2023).Third, while the Treaty references Indigenous knowledge, without the broader socio-epistemological frameworks from which that knowledge arises, it will often be misinterpreted or misapplied, weakening the reason for its inclusion in the first place (UNEP, 2024; IIPFP, 2024a, Principle 6; Liboiron and Cotter, 2023).For example, when a state Ministry for the Environment compared its 8 indicators of freshwater health with the 29 developed by Mori, only 4 overlapped.The Mori indicators included "fitness for cultural usage" and "the number of species of traditional significance that are still present" (Tipa and Teirney, 2006, p. 2).Indigenous knowledge is not simply a datasetit is a system of understanding that is intergenerational, place-based, relational and grounded in responsibilities to land and water.It cannot be separated from the Peoples who hold and maintain it.A core barrier to aligning the Treaty and the Declaration remains that "this treaty is being negotiated in rooms where Indigenous Peoples have been excluded" (Elliott, 2024;Jacobs, 2024; IIPFP, 2024b IIPFP, , 2025)).Even if the Treaty begins to integrate UNDRIP (see Table 1), two critical issues persist.First, the Treaty assigns authority to "The Parties"the state actors bound by the convention (UNEP 2024, Article 2.a).These states often fail to recognize the legal personality and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples (Brown, 2024).This structural exclusion underscores the need to incorporate Indigenous Peoples into the Treaty's Committees and Secretariat (Table 1, Row 1; IIPFP, Point 12).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,704
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetHuman Rights and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207