Search

In this dissertation, I interpret the right to self-determination from the vantage point of political peoples entangled with states they are not part of—namely, colonized, indigenous, and exiled peoples. These peoples, given their commitment to maintaining a political community of their own while traversing the boundaries of existing states, encounter normative and political challenges yet to be captured by political theorists. In response to this absence, I foreground the conceptual and normative discussions of self-determination with the political realities confronting entangled peoples across the Americas and Asia-Pacific, with a focus on Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Puerto Ricans, and Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Taiwan. Analyzing their situational similarities and geopolitical differences, I develop a taxonomy of institutional and associative entanglements that captures the varied relations within and across self-determining peoples. At its core, entanglement stems from the power of one people to determine the institutions that govern another people, and in so doing re-constitute the relationships within and between the two peoples. Entanglement renders the constitution of a people ontologically indeterminate, engendering differentiated relations within each people and transnational relations that cut across the boundaries of peoples. Entanglement is not necessarily problematic. However, when this constitutive power is disproportionately distributed such that one people has an uncontrolled capacity to re-constitute another people against the latter’s will, entanglement takes on a dominating form. Grounded by this understanding of entanglement, I advocate a relational approach to self-determination as non-domination. A plausible framework of self-determination must attend not only to the relationships between people as collectives but also to the relationships of individuals that are internally differentiated and transnationally extended. I conclude that while this framework does not necessitate us to abandon statist forms of organization, it should compel us to rethink concepts such as territorial sovereignty on entangled terms.

The right to self-determination of peoples lies at the core of much global disquiet.Disputes over the practical meaning of the right for all peoples to “pursue theireconomic, social, and cultural development without outside interference” can lead todomestic conflicts that harden over decades and others capable of enflaming geopoliticalcrises.I address these disputes by returning to the conceptual history of collective self-determinationcentering on two sources of contestation: first, who or what authorizesthe political existence of a “people” to whom self-determination can apply; and second,the physical and discursive spaces that shape and limit the realization of selfdetermination. I refer to these considerations as the “authorship of collectivepersonhood.”My analysis identifies four interpretations of self-determination that differentlyunderstand the authorship of collective personhood: national, international, global, andintrastate. The national understanding, emerging from 19th-century Europeannationalist revolutions, sees political legitimacy as stemming from a nation’s attainmentof statehood through liberation from external domination, as exemplified in the thoughtof Giuseppe Mazzini. International self-determination, which arose in the early 20thcentury, involved the creation of peoples in line with the ideological and geopoliticalinterests of external actors, as epitomized by the policies of Vladimir Lenin andWoodrow Wilson. The mid-20th-century global conception of the “right” to self-determinationaimed to achieve decolonization through independent statehood, viewingthe world as a site of war and peace, universal racial dynamics, and shared colonial“dependency.” Lastly, the intrastate transformation of self-determination ischaracterized by minority and indigenous peoples establishing their political identitywithin existing states through negotiations over self-governance over issues central tomaintaining their collective cultural identity.These interpretations demonstrate how self-determination has accumulateddiverse meanings, fueling contemporary conflicts as stakeholders invoke coherent,historically grounded understandings to assert their perceived entitlements. However,despite the challenges posed by this plurality of meanings, I defend an indeterminateunderstanding of self-determination. Embracing the malleability of self-determinationis essential to ensure the enduring relevance of the notion to proffer a resilientframework for asserting autonomy amidst future, unforeseen challenges to collectiveidentity and ways of life.

In Poland and Turkey, restrictions placed on abortion is just one of the many examples of democratic hollowing and attacks on the rights of women and marginalised genders in recent years. Civil society organisations (CSOs) in both countries advocate for access to safe and legal pregnancy terminations but face numerous restrictions in doing so. This paper explores these challenges, drawing on material collected from expert interviews, CSO publications and other media.

The article examines the role of the Cyprus issue in the bilateral relations between Greece and the USSR in 1956-1960. It is based on primal archival research realised at the Constantine Karamanlis Archive (AKK) and at the Diplomatic and Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Ministry (DIAYE) in Athens. The analysis of the recently declassified documents relate to the events which took place in 1954, when the Soviet Union supported the Greek claims for self-determination of the Cypriot people in the United Nations on the basis of the anti-colonial principles. This contributed to the impressive increase in trade between Greece and the USSR, especially after the unofficial visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister D.T. Shepilov to Athens in 1956. Against the backdrop of the deterioration of the international situation in 1957, Kremlin heavily criticized NATOs decision to deploy the US Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Europe and applied diplomatic pressures to NATO member-states including Greece. The shift from tensions to a peaceful offensive strategy, characteristic of the Soviet diplomacy towards Greece, proved to be a double-edged sword for Moscow in the long term. The author concludes that both countries exploited the Cyprus issue for their benefit. Thus, Moscow managed to take advantage of the Greek discontent with the NATO allies as a means of increasing its own prestige in the region, while the Greek governments capitalized on the Soviet tactics in order to increase its political leverage in confronting NATO on Cyprus.

Catalonia is in a situation of political conflict with the Spanish State regarding its right to self-determination, a conflict that has been exacerbated in recent years by the growing demand from a part of Catalan society for an independent state. Throughout this situation rumours have appeared in relation to events as they unfold. One of the key moments in the conflict was the referendum on self-determination, which was approved, prepared, and held on 1 October 2017, in the face of continuous opposition from the Spanish State. The tensions, uncertainties, and fears experienced by those in favour of the referendum were fuelled by rumours that in many cases were ultimately proven to be false. The present paper will analyse the rumours that emerged in relation to the referendum and the political atmosphere at that time. The study will analyse the rumours relating to aspects such as the logistics required to hold the referendum, the key figures in the process, the organizations that support it and the actions of the media, among others.

Since the collapse of the peace process in 2015, the Turkish Government has sought to turn every move towards Kurdish rights into an existential threat – a process led to the re-securitization of the Kurdish question. Ever since the descent of Turkey into an authoritarian polity has begun in the aftermath of the June 2015 elections, the Kurdish minority has suffered a brutal crackdown marked by high of political imprisonment and greater restrictions on freedom of assembly and association and on electoral aspects of self-determination. This commentary will take a closer look at the dire consequences of the collateral impact of Turkey’s authoritarian turn on the Kurdish political movement from the perspectives of minority rights and self-determination.

This article analyses domestic violence fatality reviews/coronial files for a whole-of-population study of First Nations women killed by male partners across several Australian jurisdictions between 2006 and 2016, alongside yarning/interviews with First Nations domestic violence workers, violence survivors and Elders. Findings show that most women had domestic violence-related police contact before their deaths, and these interactions were frequently harmful. Harms resulted from police inaction, including failures to respond or enforce the law. Harms also resulted from police action, with policing enhancing state surveillance of victims’ families, eroding victims’ autonomy and criminalizing victims. Findings are located in neo-colonial context, emphasizing a policy need for meaningful Indigenous self-determination and reinforcing the importance of inclusive disciplinary and epistemological practices in gender-based violence criminology.

This timely collation of case studies, written by and with Traditional Owners of diverse Australian offshore islands, offers direct insights into benefits arising from strategic and participatory action planning for biocultural island conservation and monitoring. We pay respect to the Old People and Elders whose dedicated care of their island homelands means we today can still experience their cultural and natural diversity. We extend greetings to our Pacifika neighbours, and to carers of islands around Earth. Our paper scopes socio-economic benefits arising from planning for islands, for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and more generally. Global, national, state and local co-investments support place-specific planning for some islands by Traditional Owners as a starting point toward shared governance and caring for Country. Case studies describe Country planning for Mayala Country in Australia’s northwest, Woppaburra experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and integrated biocultural health monitoring arising from remote island Indigenous Protected Area planning in Torres Strait. New institutional initiatives are also seeking to create solid foundations for more substantive island research collaborations. Across Australia, novel relationships grounded in culturally assured, holistically integrated approaches to island governance and caring for Country involving Traditional Owners and island resource users/managers are creating equity in livelihoods and stronger wellbeing. Australia’s innovative Sea Country collaborations, with priorities initiated and led by island Traditional Owners, carry real value for sustained island conservation and provide positive inspirations for global humanity in the accelerating Anthropocene.

The period of the struggle of South (Iraqi) Kurdistan for self-determination, namely such events as its transformation into the center of the Kurdish national movement in the Middle East and the proclamation of the Kurdish Autonomous Region (KAR) in 1974 is considered. The creation of a legal precedent, which has acquired an international character, is commented on. The recognition by the Iraqi government of the right of the Kurds to territorial autonomy is assessed as an undoubted success of the national movement of the Kurdish minority. It is noted that the development of the draft of Interim Constitution was preceded by a long discussion between Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds on the future administrative structure of the country. It is shown that the Baathist regime was not going to solve the Kurdish problem in the country on a truly democratic basis, but only created the appearance of a solution to the issue in order to remove internal and international tensions. The author dwells on the repressive measures of the government of Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. The mass character of repressive measures during the Iranian-Iraqi war of 1980—1988 is emphasized.

Two moments proved decisive for the development of the right of peoples to self determination in Russia, related to the Soviet approach in the de-colonisation era, as manifested in the 1966 United Nations Covenants, and Russia’s approach to this right after the 2014 annexation of Crimea: with its annexation of Crimea, Russia, just as the Soviet Union had in 1966, challenged the universality of the right to self-determination. The paper examines theory and practice of the right of peoples to self-determination in Russian context from a historical-legal perspective, to trace the roots of the contradictions found in Russia’s current approach to that right. Aimed at understanding the specifics of the Soviet approach to self-determination and considering the case of Crimea in light of analogies between the past and present approaches to the right, the discussion posits the existence of a link between the Soviet and the Russian approach to self-determination, on the basis of legal ties between post-1991 Russia and the Soviet Union established under the doctrine of state succession or continuity. The article offers support for the hypothesis that the current Russian approach to self-determination resembles the Soviet one in demonstrating legal flexibility characterised by self-interest, hypocrisy, and double standards. This calls for renewed discussion of the influence of Soviet international legal thinking on that of contemporary Russia.

The subject of this research is the process of establishment and development of the right of nations to self-determination as the fundamental principle of Soviet federalism. The author carefully examines the origin and evolution of the idea of the right of nations to self-determination within the environment of the revolutionary social democracy; the concept, characteristics and principles of the right of nations to self-determination; the normative unification of the right of nations to self-determination with the federal principle of government system in the Soviet constitutions; variations of exercising this right within the framework of socialist federal state. Special attention is given to the evolution of the right of nations to self-determination and the transformation of its goals at different stages of the development of Soviet State. The novelty of this research consists in formulation of the original definition of the right of nations to self-determination in the context of phenomenology of the Soviet federalism. The key characteristics of this right are outlined: 1) suggests multivariance of implementation; 2) drags on time depending on the socioeconomic and political-legal development of the nation; 3) implies adequacy of implementation to the level of collective national sociocultural and political self-identity, etc. The principles of the right in question are determined : 1) priority of actual self-determination in relation to legal formalization if the latter is mandatory; 2) definiteness of the right of nations to self-determination via national declaration of will with regards to legitimation by the positivistic attitudes of the state; 3) evolution in chronological perspective from the national legal nature towards international legal level, etc. The author derives the criteria and classifies the right of nations to self-determination based on them. Description is given to the peculiarities of regulation and implementation of the right of nations to self-determination in accordance with the development stages of the Soviet Federation The author's special contribution lies in the establishment of dialectical link between the formational and civilizational approaches towards comprehension of the essence of the right of nations to self-determination through the prism of the European and Russian social democracy.

The article analyzes the prerequisites of self-determination and sovereignty of Tuva in 1921. Briefly, the general context of events is revealed, the main episodes and key personalities are listed. Using historical-genetic, comparative-historical and problem-chronological methods, the positions of Mongolia and Soviet Russia and their relationship on the status of Tuva, the organization and convocation of the All-Tuva Constituent Khural, which proclaimed the independence of Tuva, as well as the consequences of the declaration of independence of Tuva, were reconstructed. The role of the authorized representative of the Sibrevkom in Uryanhai I.G. Safyanov in this process is shown. In conclusion, the authors conclude that the emergence of a sovereign Tuva state was made possible both due to the contradictory political situation in Asia and due to the role of I.G. Safyanov in history. Since 1921, Tuva began to live and develop in the political and economic conditions created by the Constituent Khural.

Cette étude évalue une approche particulière de la cartographie numérique, la cybercartographie, en tant qu’outil d’autodétermination autochtone. L’étude, réalisée auprès des Premières Nations du Canada, s’appuie sur les principes autochtones de propriété, de contrôle, d’accès et de possession pour reconnaitre les moyens précis par lesquels la cybercartographie peut aborder certains aspects de l’autodétermination. Les résultats montrent que les exigences en matière d’applications cybercartographiques sont propres à chaque communauté, et que ces applications peuvent faciliter l’autodétermination quand les communautés participent activement à la sélection de la technologie pendant le processus de recherche. L’étude de cas présentée ici révèle que la cybercartographie, et la cartographie numérique en général, peuvent véhiculer d’importants éléments culturels autochtones et servir à rehausser les épisodes éducatifs pendant lesquels se transmettent les connaissances entre les générations.

Hungary has, during the past three decades, developed what could arguably be described as one of the most advanced institutional systems of non-territorial autonomy in the world. Being so advanced does not of course mean the system is perfect or beyond criticism. But it does provide potentially useful insights into how non-territorial autonomy can or cannot work in practice. This article reflects on the institutional design of Hungary and asks whether principles can be identified that may be employed by indigenous groups in Australia and beyond in their search for a form of self-government. The theory and practice of non-territorial autonomy has so far been the focus of experts predominately from Central and Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation. This article considers whether any insight can be gained to apply the principles of non-territorial autonomy to other jurisdictions. The institutional design in place in Hungary may offer useful insight into how indigenous communities, particular some Aboriginal communities in Australia, may be bestowed with legal powers as a community to make decisions of a cultural and linguistic nature and to cooperate via the legal entity with local and state authorities. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples refers to selfdetermination and autonomy without placing those terms into a specific set of institutional arrangements. Whereas non-territorial autonomy may not be suitable for all communities, this article contends that non-territorial arrangements may offer an opportunity for self-government to indigenous (and other) communities that share a strong sense of identity; that do not have a geographical base where they constitute the majority; and where a communal desire for a form of self-government in public law exists.

The obligations set by the individual right to health are likely to conflict, at least if states are its addressee, with the obligations set by the collective rights to self-determination that certain sub-state communities have (or should be recognized). In this paper, I argue that conceiving of the right to health and of collective rights to self-determination as both aiming at the promotion of individual agency might help us alleviate this particular problem. To do so, I first explain how we can conceive of the right to health and of collective rights to self-determination as protecting crucial aspects of individuals' agency. It is because both health and the capacity to participate in particular collectives are important ways in which our agency is enabled. I then argue that this conception of the purpose of those rights offers a principle to guide our practical deliberation when the protection of health and the protection of collective self-determination seem to conflict. Finally, I specify how I think this principle might guide us when it comes to understanding the obligations that the right to health sets for the state towards members of self-determining sub-state communities, both in terms of the provision of healthcare goods and services and the provision of the underlying determinants of health.

This paper explores the dynamics of presidential attention and rhetoric on Native issues and peoples during the self-determination era. Using data from all public statements and papers of the presidents from 1969 to 2016, the work analyzes the level of attention and rhetorical frames of each president from Nixon to Obama, with additional comments on Trump. The analysis reveals that most presidents have given relatively little attention to Native issues compared to their overall volume of public statements, with Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama offering the most attention. In addition, presidents have used very different rhetorical frames to address Native issues and peoples in their public statements. Presidential rhetoric has been characterized by fluctuating attention and frames, and presidents have not consistently supported Nixon's “new and coherent strategy” throughout the self-determination era.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognises both Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and simultaneously offers protections in regard to states’ right to sovereignty and territorial integrity vis-à-vis Indigenous peoples’ claims. Often, this is considered an internal inconsistency of the UNDRIP, and another common critique is that Indigenous peoples were only recognised as having a diminished right to self-determination, which is less than what everyone else enjoys. This article stands in contrast to these two lines of critique, arguing that the UNDRIP’s articulation of self-determination is potentially ushering in a broadening, and possible reshaping, of self-determination, which has been increasingly decoupled from singular Westphalian notions of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘territoriality’ in ways that require ongoing negotiation between peoples and states. This case study of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s issuance and use of their passports, based on original fieldwork including a set of qualitative interviews with key informants, demonstrates how the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is pushing the practice and understanding of self-determination in multiple, new directions to include plural sovereignties in deeply significant ways concerning International Relations in both theory and in practice.

Interest in Indigenous planning has blossomed in recent years, particularly as it relates to the Indigenous response to settler colonialism. Driven by land and resource hunger, settler states strove to extinguish Indigenous land rights and ultimately to destroy Indigenous cultures. However, Indigenous peoples have persisted. This article draws on the literature to examine the resistance of Indigenous peoples to settler colonialism, their resilience, and the resurgence of Indigenous planning as a vehicle for Indigenous peoples to determine their own fate and to enact their own conceptions of self-determination and self-governance.

In the last decade, and especially after the 2013 Virginia court case of Ross and Ross v. Hatch, there has been a dramatic increase in knowledge, use, and legal recognition of supported decision-making (SDM) in the United States. SDM is a methodology in which people work with trusted friends, family members, and professionals who help them understand their situations and choices so they may make their own decisions and direct their lives. After the Hatch case, in which a young woman with Down syndrome defeated a petition for permanent guardianship by demonstrating that she uses SDM, this methodology has increasingly been considered and used as an alternative to guardianship to enable people to retain their legal rights and make life choices to the maximum extent possible. This article reviews the guardianship laws of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Using criteria we developed, in light of the findings and values expressed in Hatch, we assessed the extent to which those laws recognize or encourage the use of SDM as an alternative to guardianship and as a means to enhance self-determination for people in guardianship. We then offer recommendations for future SDM research, policy, education, and advocacy efforts.

Funding for urban, not-for-profit Indigenous early learning and childcare (ELCC) programs has not kept pace with a rapidly growing urban Indigenous population, increasing operational costs, and the rights of Indigenous children. In British Columbia (BC), closure of a prominent Indigenous ELCC program prompted a study of some of the key factors influencing the operation of Indigenous ELCC programs in BC. This qualitative research highlights the priorities, concerns, and recommendations for supporting the operational success of urban, not-for-profit Indigenous ELCC programs and upholding the rights of Indigenous children. These findings have relevance for Indigenous ELCC programs that are facing operational challenges in BC and other jurisdictions in Canada.

В статье рассматриваются агитационные и пропагандистские мероприятия, осуществляемые партийными органами и их роль в организации и проведении военно-оборонительных мероприятии в Ульяновской области в 1941-1945 гг. Эти мероприятия считались эффективным методом профилактики преступности. Автор утверждает, что в годы Отечественной войны происходит увеличение роли агитации и пропаганды, как ключевого средства, способствующего улучшению морального состояния населения и поддержанию отлаженной работы тыла. В статье проведен анализ основных видов агитационно-пропагандисткой деятельности, таких как собрания домовладельцев, партийный суд. Средства массовой информации, в основном в форме газет и журналов, были наиболее массовыми источником информации, помогали поддерживать патриотический дух и беззаветную преданность Родине. В рассматриваемый период главным их содержанием стало освещение в печати боевых действий на фронтах и настойчивый, самоотверженный труд в тылу. Военно-технические и агитационные мероприятия успешно проводились и транслировались благодаря местной печати. Печать выступала не только как коллективный пропагандист и агитатор. Успешному проведению политической агитации содействовала мощная организационно-методическая работа. Эффективная организация политической работы была обусловлена постоянным и эффективным контролем за работой, проводимой агитаторами.

West Papua as one of the regions in Indonesia that integrates with the New York Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands carries the right of self-determination in an effort to separate from Indonesia. This research discusses how the regulation of the right to self-determination as part of Human Rights and examines the basis of West Papua in carrying out the right to self-determination and declaring itself as a state. This type of research is normative, with statutory (statue) and historical approaches. This research concludes that the right to self-determination is part of human rights, while West Papua’s claim as part of the Indonesian State in demanding the right to self-determination is clashed with the Uti Possidetis Juris and Territorial Integrity.&nbsp, Papua Barat sebagai salah satu wilayah di Indonesia yang berintegrasi dengan Persetujuan New York antara Indonesia dan Belanda mengusung hak menentukan nasib sendiri dalam upaya memisahkan diri dari Indonesia. Penelitian ini membahas bagaimana pengaturan hak menentukan nasib sendiri sebagai bagian dari Hak Asasi Manusia dan mengkaji dasar Papua Barat dalam mengusung hak menentukan nasib sendiri dan mendeklarasikan diri sebagai negara. Jenis Penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statue approach) dan pendekatan sejarah (historical approach). Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hak menentukan nasib sendiri merupakan bagian dari hak asasi manusia dan klaim Papua Barat sebagai bagian dari Negara Indonesia dalam menuntut hak menentukan nasib sendiri terbentur dengan Uti Possidetis Juris dan Territorial Integrity

In the literature on morality issues, the most famous typology distinguishes countries from the “religious” and “secular” worlds, based on the presence or absence of partisan religious cleavages. Portugal belongs to the former world, yet in 2018, the Portuguese Parliament passed a law on the self-determination of gender identity. This article asks how such an outcome was possible, focusing on the role of political parties and civil society actors within advocacy coalitions. Our analysis reveals that, in addition to the role played by civil society actors, the “change coalition” won the dispute because it assembled a majority of votes in the parliament from left-wing progressive political parties. Moreover, actors from the “change coalition” developed a clear strategy of articulation before and during the debate. In contrast, the “blocking coalition,” composed of right-wing political parties and a few health-related actors, failed to define a coherent advocacy strategy.

Albeit in 1918 the Slovak nation voluntarily became a “branch” of the single Czechoslovak nation and of the unitary Czechoslovak state, the connection with the Czechs was rather perceived as a strategic move until the Slovak nation develops its capacity for the execution of its own right to self-determination. In the context of Czechoslovakia being under pressure of Hitler’s Germany in 1938, Slovak autonomists managed to exploit the situation and Slovakia was granted autonomy within Czechoslovakia. Soon thereafter, in March 1939, an “independent” Slovak State was created, in fact being under direct control of Nazi Germany. The authoritarian political regime of the War-Time Slovakia was soon rejected by Slovaks themselves and the Slovak nation was rather willing to sacrifice its independence in order to return to the democratic regime of Czechoslovakia in 1945. Still, there were attempts to change the position of Slovaks and Slovakia within Czechoslovakia, which eventually materialized in the form of the federalization of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1968/69, giving Slovaks for the first time (apart from the Hitler-sponsored statehood in 1939–1945) their formal republican statehood, albeit only within a system of limited socialist federalism. Still, this allowed for a relatively simple change of this formal statehood into an internationally recognized independent Slovak Republic in 1993. The socialist constitutional recognition of self-determination of the Slovak nation in the form of a Socialist Republic thus paved the way to the currently existing Slovakia, hence making it the most important legacy of the (Czecho-)Slovak socialist history.

This contribution addresses key issues around the application of Indigenous knowledge in contexts where such knowledge is neither generated nor held (academy, industry, governments, etc.). Effective models for the ethical incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into environmental governance in Canada have remained elusive despite decades of attempts. The predominant research paradigm of “incorporating” Indigenous knowledge into environmental governance is one of extraction by the external interests who seek to include specific aspects of such knowledge in their undertakings. This approach continues to fail because Indigenous knowledge exists as an integral component of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). It is often hollow and potentially damaging to consider any knowledge without understanding the societal systems and peoples that produced it. Indigenous knowledge is not just “knowledge” (a noun) but a way of life, something that must be lived (a verb) in order to be understood. Indigenous knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge. Although government policy and legislation have evolved in attempts to treat Indigenous knowledge more holistically, the overriding paradigm of extraction remains essentially unchanged. Even the most recent frameworks will meet with limited success as a result. Appropriate and effective inclusion of Indigenous knowledge requires recognition of the systems that support it, which in turn necessitates support for Indigenous self-determination.