Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines the relationships between the League of Nations, Indigenous peoples, and international law. The chapter analyses five appeals made by Indigenous people to the League between 1919 and 1938: from the Society of American Indians and Laura Cornelius Kellogg from Turtle Island America (1919); Anthony Martin Fernando from the territory now known as Australia (1921); Deskaheh from Turtle Island Canada (1923); TW Rātana and Pita Moko from Aotearoa New Zealand (1924); and Pearl Gibbs from Australia (1938). The chapter also examines the League’s response to these claims, and to questions of Indigenous peoples more generally, through analysing key concepts of sovereignty and statehood, and self-determination. The chapter argues that these Indigenous appeals represent a practice of Indigenous international law, with Indigenous peoples reiterating their sovereignty and nationhood, entering alliances with others, and appealing to a new internationalism to ground justice and law claims. In response, however, the League of Nations developed an imperial international law: one which denies Indigenous sovereignty and instead views states as sovereign, limits Indigenous self-determination while emphasizing the territorial integrity of states, and frames Indigenous rights through the prism of labour rather than rights to sovereignty and land. While the League offered the possibility of a new form of ‘justice’ for Indigenous peoples worldwide, ultimately the League’s development of imperial international law limited and denied Indigenous international law, and the implications of this continue to this day.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".