Legal pluralism? Indigenous rights as legal constructs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sets out a sociological critique of the theories of legal pluralism that underpin contemporary constructions of Indigenous rights. It argues that pluralistic theories of Indigenous rights, which see Indigenous rights as challenging the legal orders of nation-states, are based in simplified analyses of the construction of such rights, and they fail to account for the subjects that lay claim to indigeneity and the relation between such subjects and national legal systems. To explain this, the article reconstructs primary patterns of Indigenous rights law in global international law, regional international law, and municipal law in Latin America and Africa. Against standard pluralistic approaches, this article argues that we need to adopt a sociological model based in world citizenship, which depends on relatively autonomous legal functions, to understand the growth of Indigenous rights. Central to this model is the claim that the imputation of Indigenous rights extends the reach of domestic legal systems and that it is closely linked to a process in which the national legal system, supported by global legal norms, penetrates more deeply and more inclusively into national society.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".