Self-determination as resistance to legal violence: Jurisdiction, property, and the geographies of conflict in Unistoten and Xolobeni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples struggles of the right to self-determination are often framed as claims against a unified state. However, explanation of the forces inhibiting the expression of Indigenous self-determination should not settle with an understanding of the imposing power of the state. As I show, the realization of self-determination is undermined by the cumulative effects of legal practices and knowledges that contribute to the division of collective autonomies and disruption of their governance practices. In this transnational and comparative work on the emerging right to consent to resource extraction in South Africa and Canada, I argue that we might understand these dynamics by examining self-determination as a response to legal violence. I explain that legal violence in contemporary post-colonial conditions is expressed spatially through the categories of property and jurisdiction. One of the effects of conditions of legal violence is not only dispossession, but that Indigenous peoples assertions of self-determination and autonomy face settler counter-claims decrying internal conflict as evidence of subaltern political instability and inferiority. The analysis covers local contexts, national jurisprudence, and transnational norms related to the right to consent in both countries.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".