Sovereignty and Decolonization: Realizing Indigenous Self-Determination at the United Nations and in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of self-determination in the two international human rights covenants and in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples evidence self-determination's place in the language of international human rights at the United Nations. Though these documents declare that "all peoples have the right of self determination," a closer look at the history of self-determination at the UN and its relationship to decolonization illustrates how member states of the United Nations have carefully excluded indigenous peoples from being counted within the seemingly all embracing language of "all peoples." The study is divided into two parts. Part 1, Chapter I examines United Nations dialogue surrounding self-determination and decolonization and reveals the definitions accepted by that international body. Chapter 2 presents academic understandings of both the subject and content of self-determination and concludes by offering alternatives that make the right of self-determination accessible to all peoples. Chapter 3 highlights the distinguishing historical context of indigenous claims to self-determination and reconceptualizes the frequently misunderstood terms ' nation' and 'state' as required by the status of indigenous peoples as sovereign nations. Part II applies ideas developed in Part I to the Canadian context. Chapter 4 reveals how the tenants underlying Crown policy perpetuate the colonial relationship implemented by the first settlers and how the Canadian legal system helps to legitimize the Crown's assumption of sovereignty and the continuing denial of indigenous nationhood. Chapter 5 describes how federalism can offer a unique opportunity to reconfigure the Canadian state and decolonize the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".