The author wishes to address the following points in the above article (2021).

On page 16, the paper includes a discussion of the United States that analyzes only the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). The author acknowledges that the IRA, while still good law, does not currently guide policy, nor articulate the current state of the law as it did in 1934. The current state of tribal law can be understood as the “Self-Determination” period, which began in the 1960s, during which the US government has recognized—to some degree—tribal governments' control over certain resources and engaged in contracting and compacting with tribal governments in delineated policy spaces. These actions are generally consistent with the policy recommendations made in the conclusion (p. 18) and may, if followed, lead to more robust and effective self-governance rights in other parts of the Americas.

On page 16, the U.S./Indigenous context is described through the lens of autonomy. The author acknowledges that Indigenous peoples in the U.S. and U.S. law describe that context through the lens of sovereignty. Autonomy, according to Michael Hechter (Reference Hechter2000) and others, provides a less comprehensive sphere of governance than sovereignty. The two concepts are not interchangeable.