MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411354997 · doi:10.1017/plc.2025.10003.pr1

Author comment: How to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the Global Plastics Treaty — R0/PR1

2025· peer-review· en· W4411354997 on OpenAlexaff
Max Liboiron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationIndigenousTreatyPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1980s, international governance documents have acknowledged the importance of recognizing, incorporating, and protecting Indigenous Peoples' rights and knowledge related to environmental governance.This trend continues, albeit unevenly, in the draft Global Plastics Treaty (UNEP, 2024).The primary issue with the current draft is that while Indigenous knowledge is referenced, Indigenous Peoples are absent.Indigenous Peoples are rightsholders, not stakeholders (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)).Indigenous Peoples and Nations possess sovereignty, legal rights and intergenerational responsibilities for their ancestral lands and waters that are distinct from and beyond the interests of stakeholders.The International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Plastics (IIPFP) has emphasized that the Treaty must "recognize that Indigenous Peoples have distinct status and inherent collective rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)" (UN, 2007; 2024a).The Declaration and the Treatyboth authored by United Nations bodieshave the potential to reinforce one another (IIPFP, 2024a(IIPFP, , 2024b)), but this alignment has not yet materialized, even in the most robust Treaty drafts.The draft Treaty offers three sets of "Principles and Approaches" (Article 1).Only one includes "The use of relevant traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems" (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f).Even within that version, the emphasis is on Indigenous knowledge rather than on Indigenous Peoples themselves (UNEP, 2024,1.2.f, 3.5, 3.6.e,5.1.b,9.2.b, 17.1.cand 18.3.b).This reflects a common pattern of extracting value from Indigenous communities for non-Indigenous goals without upholding Indigenous rights: to self-determination, to governance of Indigenous lands and waters and to free, prior and informed consent.The IIPFP makes clear that "the knowledge and science of Indigenous Peoples [must] only [be] considered in conjunction with protections and safeguards that guarantee the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples holding that knowledge" (UN, 2007; IIPFP, 2024a).There remains a significant opportunity to integrate Indigenous rights into the Treaty, especially when such inclusion is guided by UNDRIP (see Table 1 andIIPFP, 2024a).Central to these rights is the participation of Indigenous representatives in decision-making bodies (Table 1, Row 1; Ecojustice, 2024).This argument stems from an approach that begins with Indigenous rights and then turns to the Global Plastics Treaty, rather than framing Indigenous Peoples as resources that can enrich the Treaty.Several imperatives support this approach.First, Indigenous Peoples are not value-added assets to be leveraged by Parties or Committees outlined in the Treaty (Liboiron, 2021).Second, under international human rights law, all rights are inalienable and immutablethey cannot be subordinated to the desires of other stakeholders (Liljeblad, 2023).Third, while the Treaty references Indigenous knowledge, without the broader socio-epistemological frameworks from which that knowledge arises, it will often be misinterpreted or misapplied, weakening the reason for its inclusion in the first place (UNEP, 2024; IIPFP, 2024a, Principle 6; Liboiron and Cotter, 2023).For example, when a state Ministry for the Environment compared its 8 indicators of freshwater health with the 29 developed by Mori, only 4 overlapped.The Mori indicators included "fitness for cultural usage" and "the number of species of traditional significance that are still present" (Tipa and Teirney, 2006, p. 2).Indigenous knowledge is not simply a datasetit is a system of understanding that is intergenerational, place-based, relational and grounded in responsibilities to land and water.It cannot be separated from the Peoples who hold and maintain it.A core barrier to aligning the Treaty and the Declaration remains that "this treaty is being negotiated in rooms where Indigenous Peoples have been excluded" (Elliott, 2024;Jacobs, 2024; IIPFP, 2024b IIPFP, , 2025)).Even if the Treaty begins to integrate UNDRIP (see Table 1), two critical issues persist.First, the Treaty assigns authority to "The Parties"the state actors bound by the convention (UNEP 2024, Article 2.a).These states often fail to recognize the legal personality and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples (Brown, 2024).This structural exclusion underscores the need to incorporate Indigenous Peoples into the Treaty's Committees and Secretariat (Table 1, Row 1; IIPFP, Point 12).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207