Territorial rights, domination, and Indigenous-state treaty negotiations
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
Theories of territorial rights centering the self-determination of peoples argue that negotiated agreements are necessary to construct legitimate political institutions in cases marred by settler-colonial wrongdoing. Considering the Canadian treaty process, this paper argues that relations of power in political negotiations between Indigenous and settler peoples are often objectionably asymmetrical, providing for outsized settler political power over the terms of inter-group agreements. By avoiding consideration of the political and legal institutions giving rise to inter-group domination, contemporary theories of territorial rights have not yet provided an adequate account of the conditions necessary for the construction of a legitimate political order. Theorists must do more work to illuminate the root causes of asymmetrical power, and to specify the relevant standards for ‘sufficient symmetry’ of power and resources for treaty negotiations to result in legitimate institutions. Without doing so, our theories of territory are neither complete nor action-guiding, and risk being incoherent, implausible, or self-defeating.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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