Te ao tūroa and Aotearoa’s adherence to the indigenous self-determination norm : past, present and future.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), self-determination has emerged as a norm applying to indigenous peoples globally. This is a positive step forward for some of the world’s most marginalised peoples and a potential means to achieve their decolonisation aspirations through economic, social and cultural development. However, many uncertainties remain as to what self-determination will provide indigenous peoples beyond the conceptual realm and in the ‘black letter’ laws that they are subject to. This thesis attempts to fill the void by considering how the norm can, and should, be operationalised in future. The framework for self-determination developed by James Anaya is adopted as the key analytical frame of reference. Given the importance of lands, waters and resources to indigenous peoples and their cultures, the narrative centres on self-determination through environment and resource management law. First, a stocktake of selfdetermination compliance is carried out by applying Anaya’s framework to various Aotearoa and foreign (Scandinavian Sami and Aboriginal Canadian) legal frameworks. These analyses reveal that there is currently widespread non-compliance with the norm in the examples studied. In spite of that, the analysis also demonstrates that there are certain legal mechanisms that go some way towards the expression of Anaya’s selfdetermination principles. These are: the operational expression of the legal personality concept in the Te Urewera and Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River) settlements, and the balancing of interests embodied in the draft Nordic Sami convention, the Canadian duty to consult and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ko Aotearoa Tenei report on the Wai 262 inquiry. This thesis concludes that while there is a long road head for the reclamation of indigenous self-determination, these matters potentially provide an insightful platform to begin this conversation in Aotearoa.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".