The Cross-Fertilization of Human Rights Norms and Indigenous Peoples in Africa: From Endorois and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in the 20th century, international law expanded beyond law between nations to eventually embrace the concept of human rights. However, until recently, human rights efforts were focused mostly on individuals, their rights and the obligations of the state in question. Indigenous peoples, on the other hand, have always articulated their collective rights and, to their credit, achieved notable success. While there is no doubt that these achievements should be applauded, what is also of interest, and deserves further study, are the ways in which human rights jurisprudence concerning Indigenous peoples’ collective rights intermingle, cross-fertilize, and integrate. This dynamic relationship between the various sources of Indigenous rights law has had a tremendous impact locally, changing how states interact with the Indigenous peoples living within its borders. The first aim of this article will be to explore the above-mentioned topics in detail with a particular eye on the African human rights systems. Secondly, it will examine how they relate to the Endorois case that was recently decided by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. I conclude with an investigation into what this could mean for Indigenous peoples’ rights in the African context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".