Westphalian Vs. Indigenous Sovereignty: Challenging Colonial Territorial Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Westphalian concept of sovereignty frames international relations and law. Since the 2007 UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the notion of Indigenous sovereignty has also entered international political debate. In this article, we examine the underlying premise of Westphalian and Indigenous sovereignties. A scoping review of the literature reveals that Westphalian sovereignty is a Eurocentric concept implicated in the colonialisation of Indigenous peoples in settler societies. Conversely, Indigenous sovereignty is a broader idea that involves social and cultural aspects, recognises the interdependencies between political actors and relationships to the land, and acknowledges the contextualised nature of sovereignty. We suggest that the two conceptions of sovereignty cannot be reconciled with each other. However, in a shifting political terrain, Indigenous sovereignty poses a critical challenge to the Eurocentric definition of sovereignty.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.006 | 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 it