Sociology & Political Science
Indigenous Self-Determination in the 21st Century: Land, Sovereignty, and the Limits of Recognition
Indigenous self-determination movements challenge the foundational assumptions of settler-colonial states: that sovereignty is indivisible, that land is property, and that recognition within existing frameworks is sufficient. Four papers examine how Indigenous political thought offers alternative models of governance, land relations, and democracy itself.
By Sean K.S. Shin
This blog summarizes research trends based on published paper abstracts. Specific numbers or findings may contain inaccuracies. For scholarly rigor, always consult the original papers cited in each post.
The recognition and advancement of Indigenous rights is often framed as a threat to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic governance. Politicians warn of "divided sovereignty." Legal scholars question whether self-determination implies secession. And the general public may wonder why communities that are numerically small should have governance authority over geographically large territories.
These frames misunderstand what Indigenous self-determination means—and what it offers. The research reviewed here reveals that Indigenous political thought does not merely demand inclusion within existing governance structures. It proposes alternative models of sovereignty (shared rather than exclusive), land relations (relational rather than proprietary), and democracy (accountable to future generations and non-human beings, not just current voters). Far from threatening democracy, Indigenous self-determination may offer pathways to democratic renewal that settler-colonial governance systems urgently need.
Housing, Land, and Colonial Sovereignty
Anthony and Hohmann (2024) address Indigenous housing rights in Australia's Northern Territory through the lens of Aileen Moreton-Robinson's "white possessive logics." The paper critiques successive government policies in relation to First Nations people since colonization.
The housing case is revealing because it exposes how property law—the foundational institution of settler-colonial governance—constructs Indigenous people as tenants on land that was taken from them. When Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory live in conditions that would trigger public health intervention in any other context, the legal response is constrained by a property regime that treats Indigenous land tenure as derivative of (rather than prior to) Crown sovereignty.
The concept of "white possessive logics" captures how the assumption of settler ownership pervades institutions that present themselves as neutral: courts, planning authorities, housing departments, and land registries all operate within a framework where Indigenous land rights are exceptions to be negotiated rather than pre-existing rights to be recognized.
Democracy and Self-Determination
Kuokkanen and Maddison (2025) argue that expanding Indigenous rights does not undermine democracy—it offers an opportunity to reclaim it. The recognition and advancement of Indigenous rights is often posed as a threat to democracy. The authors counter this by establishing a more expansive vision of what a "functioning country" means.
The paper argues that settler-colonial democracies are, in important respects, democratic failures: they were founded through the dispossession of prior peoples, maintained through the exclusion of Indigenous political systems, and continue to produce outcomes (in health, education, incarceration, and economic wellbeing) that fall far below democratic standards of equality and justice. Indigenous self-determination does not threaten this democracy—it challenges it to live up to its own principles.
Natural Resources and International Law
Carnero Arroyo (2024) examines the tension between state sovereignty over natural resources and Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination under international human rights law. The United Nations Declaration and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize Indigenous self-determination, but these declarations coexist with the principle of state sovereignty over natural resources—a principle that has historically been used to justify resource extraction on Indigenous lands without consent.
The legal tension is not merely abstract. It determines who controls mining permits on Indigenous territory, who benefits from resource revenues, and who bears the environmental consequences of extraction. The paper analyzes how international law navigates this tension—and finds that, in practice, state sovereignty over resources consistently trumps Indigenous self-determination, despite the formal recognition of Indigenous rights in international declarations.
Beyond Rights: Relational Approaches
Barraclough (2025) draws on teachings from critical Indigenous studies to suggest that the developing idea of land access struggles in settler-colonial contexts should move from rights frameworks (which are individualistic and property-based) to relational frameworks (which emphasize reciprocal obligations between humans and land).
This conceptual shift is significant. Rights frameworks treat land as an object over which competing claims are adjudicated. Relational frameworks treat land as a living entity with which humans have reciprocal obligations—obligations of care, stewardship, and intergenerational responsibility. This relational ontology does not merely add Indigenous perspectives to existing property law; it challenges the ontological foundations of property law itself.
Claims and Evidence
<
| Claim | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|
| Indigenous self-determination threatens national sovereignty | Kuokkanen & Maddison (2025): self-determination challenges democratic failures, not democracy itself | ❌ Refuted |
| International law adequately protects Indigenous land rights | Carnero Arroyo (2024): state sovereignty over resources consistently overrides Indigenous rights | ❌ Refuted |
| Property law is a neutral framework for adjudicating land claims | Anthony & Hohmann (2024): property law embeds settler possessive logics | ❌ Refuted |
| Indigenous political thought offers alternative governance models | All papers: relational sovereignty, reciprocal land relations, intergenerational accountability | ✅ Supported |
Implications
Indigenous self-determination is not a sectoral policy issue affecting a small population. It is a test of whether democratic societies can accommodate fundamentally different ways of organizing political authority, relating to land, and conceiving of sovereignty. The research reviewed here suggests that the accommodation requires not merely policy adjustment but conceptual transformation—a willingness to question the foundational assumptions of settler-colonial governance and to learn from political traditions that predate them.
The recognition and advancement of Indigenous rights is often framed as a threat to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic governance. Politicians warn of "divided sovereignty." Legal scholars question whether self-determination implies secession. And the general public may wonder why communities that are numerically small should have governance authority over geographically large territories.
These frames misunderstand what Indigenous self-determination means—and what it offers. The research reviewed here reveals that Indigenous political thought does not merely demand inclusion within existing governance structures. It proposes alternative models of sovereignty (shared rather than exclusive), land relations (relational rather than proprietary), and democracy (accountable to future generations and non-human beings, not just current voters). Far from threatening democracy, Indigenous self-determination may offer pathways to democratic renewal that settler-colonial governance systems urgently need.
Housing, Land, and Colonial Sovereignty
Anthony and Hohmann (2024) address Indigenous housing rights in Australia's Northern Territory through the lens of Aileen Moreton-Robinson's "white possessive logics." The paper critiques successive government policies in relation to First Nations people since colonization.
The housing case is revealing because it exposes how property law—the foundational institution of settler-colonial governance—constructs Indigenous people as tenants on land that was taken from them. When Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory live in conditions that would trigger public health intervention in any other context, the legal response is constrained by a property regime that treats Indigenous land tenure as derivative of (rather than prior to) Crown sovereignty.
The concept of "white possessive logics" captures how the assumption of settler ownership pervades institutions that present themselves as neutral: courts, planning authorities, housing departments, and land registries all operate within a framework where Indigenous land rights are exceptions to be negotiated rather than pre-existing rights to be recognized.
Democracy and Self-Determination
Kuokkanen and Maddison (2025) argue that expanding Indigenous rights does not undermine democracy—it offers an opportunity to reclaim it. The recognition and advancement of Indigenous rights is often posed as a threat to democracy. The authors counter this by establishing a more expansive vision of what a "functioning country" means.
The paper argues that settler-colonial democracies are, in important respects, democratic failures: they were founded through the dispossession of prior peoples, maintained through the exclusion of Indigenous political systems, and continue to produce outcomes (in health, education, incarceration, and economic wellbeing) that fall far below democratic standards of equality and justice. Indigenous self-determination does not threaten this democracy—it challenges it to live up to its own principles.
Natural Resources and International Law
Carnero Arroyo (2024) examines the tension between state sovereignty over natural resources and Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination under international human rights law. The United Nations Declaration and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize Indigenous self-determination, but these declarations coexist with the principle of state sovereignty over natural resources—a principle that has historically been used to justify resource extraction on Indigenous lands without consent.
The legal tension is not merely abstract. It determines who controls mining permits on Indigenous territory, who benefits from resource revenues, and who bears the environmental consequences of extraction. The paper analyzes how international law navigates this tension—and finds that, in practice, state sovereignty over resources consistently trumps Indigenous self-determination, despite the formal recognition of Indigenous rights in international declarations.
Beyond Rights: Relational Approaches
Barraclough (2025) draws on teachings from critical Indigenous studies to suggest that the developing idea of land access struggles in settler-colonial contexts should move from rights frameworks (which are individualistic and property-based) to relational frameworks (which emphasize reciprocal obligations between humans and land).
This conceptual shift is significant. Rights frameworks treat land as an object over which competing claims are adjudicated. Relational frameworks treat land as a living entity with which humans have reciprocal obligations—obligations of care, stewardship, and intergenerational responsibility. This relational ontology does not merely add Indigenous perspectives to existing property law; it challenges the ontological foundations of property law itself.
Claims and Evidence
<
| Claim | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|
| Indigenous self-determination threatens national sovereignty | Kuokkanen & Maddison (2025): self-determination challenges democratic failures, not democracy itself | ❌ Refuted |
| International law adequately protects Indigenous land rights | Carnero Arroyo (2024): state sovereignty over resources consistently overrides Indigenous rights | ❌ Refuted |
| Property law is a neutral framework for adjudicating land claims | Anthony & Hohmann (2024): property law embeds settler possessive logics | ❌ Refuted |
| Indigenous political thought offers alternative governance models | All papers: relational sovereignty, reciprocal land relations, intergenerational accountability | ✅ Supported |
Implications
Indigenous self-determination is not a sectoral policy issue affecting a small population. It is a test of whether democratic societies can accommodate fundamentally different ways of organizing political authority, relating to land, and conceiving of sovereignty. The research reviewed here suggests that the accommodation requires not merely policy adjustment but conceptual transformation—a willingness to question the foundational assumptions of settler-colonial governance and to learn from political traditions that predate them.
References (5)
[1] Anthony, T. & Hohmann, J. (2024). Indigenous Housing Rights and Colonial Sovereignty: Self-Determination and Housing Rights beyond a White Possessive Frame. Social & Legal Studies, 33(5).
[2] Kuokkanen, R. & Maddison, S. (2025). Reclaiming Democracy Through Indigenous Self-Determination. Postcolonial Studies.
[3] Carnero Arroyo, E. (2024). State Sovereignty Over Natural Resources and Indigenous Self-Determination. Revista de Direitos Humanos, 4(1), 007.
[4] Barraclough, L. (2025). From Rights to Relations with the Rural: Lessons from Indigenous Studies. EPE: Nature and Space.
Carnero Arroyo, E. (2024). THE SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES OVER NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW. Latin American Journal of European Studies, 4(1), 184-208.