Revisitar la soberanía indígena: los desafíos de una reivindicación excluida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the 14th of September 2017, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) reached its tenth birthday. Often celebrated as an important victory for indigenous peoples, this paper however addresses a missing issue in UNDRIP which is central in numerous indigenous struggles: the sovereignty question. I begin by exploring the historic evolution of the sovereignty concept in political theory and in international relations, before looking into the indigenous conceptualization of the term. Subsequently, I analyse sovereignty and self-determination claims and practices in three of the four countries that voted against UNDRIP in 2007: New Zealand, Australia and Canada. This analysis enables the examination of different possible sovereign models to recognise indigenous sovereignty and the sketch of their corresponding politico-spatial configurations. Throughout this paper I try to constantly test the classic and allegedly unbreakable relation between sovereignty, absolute authority and indisputable territoriality. Finally, I conclude by highlighting the need for a transdisciplinary approach to understand the indigenous sovereignty claim, and the call for transformation of international relations, domestic politics and international law to move towards its recognition and realization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".