In this chapter, I demonstrate that Hegel removes three Kantian obstacles that stand in the way of an elaboration of autonomy as a form of life. Hegel rearticulates the form of autonomy in such a way that we can recognize living beings as a basic case of autonomy. Secondly, Hegel shows that internal purposiveness is not a derivative concept, making positive knowledge of natural purposiveness intelligible. Thirdly, Hegel provides a positive account of the lived reality of freedom. Taken together, these shifts open up the possibility of understanding practical autonomy not just as analogous to living self-organization but as an actual form of living self-organization. The second half of the chapter shows how this account is underwritten by Hegel’s new understanding of the distinction between the realm of nature and of freedom. By reference to Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature, the chapter shows how he modifies Kant’s distinction in crucial ways. Firstly, he gives a new substantive account of the realm of nature, revealing how it includes a form of natural freedom. Secondly, Hegel clarifies that the realms of freedom and nature are not externally juxtaposed and argues that the differentiation of these two realms is internal to spirit. Thirdly, Hegel considers the ways in which spirit reproduces the forms of a realm of nature within itself in the shape of a second nature.

World War I revealed a German imperialist project of eastern expansion, whose dizzying success and equally sudden failure lastingly destabilized international politics. Resulting patterns of nationalist grievance and assertiveness, matching greater-national revanchism to national-minority predicaments, proved impossible to manage or contain. In registering the collapse of the prewar multinational empires (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Turkey), the Treaty of Versailles and its supplements redistributed territorial-political sovereignty among freshly constituted republican nation-states (“successor states”), in an international system to be guaranteed by the League of Nations. Launched by Lenin and coopted by Woodrow Wilson, the discourse of “national self-determination” only imperfectly described this European state-making conjuncture. At the same time, it inspired newly emergent anti-colonial nationalisms in the extra-European imperial world. Each effect seeded problems for the future.

The introduction outlines the arguments of the book and places it in context of existing studies of the plebiscite and Sarah Wambaugh. The latter has only recently become a subject of inquiry, with only a handful of articles examining her career. Examining Wambaugh illuminates overlooked aspects of contemporary history and the new field of women’s international thought. The plebiscite, meanwhile, is normally studied from political science or legal perspectives. Although historical studies of individual plebiscites exist, the technique as a whole has not been studied historically. The history of the plebiscite complements studies of self-determination, with both having been constrained and ‘domesticated’ over time.

This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of the international legal framework governing Indigenous peoples’ rights, focusing on the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 No. 169 (ILO 169) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP). It explores the fundamental principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) within these instruments and its crucial role in sustainable development. Examining ILO 169, the chapter discusses guidelines related to self-determination, land rights, cultural preservation, and state obligations to cooperate with Indigenous peoples, specifically in the context of Canada’s Indigenous communities. Analysing the UNDRIP, it explores guidelines concerning self-determination, land rights, and states’ duty to obtain FPIC. Emphasizing the significance of consent as a cornerstone of Indigenous rights and sustainable development, the chapter concludes by acknowledging the complexities involved in its practical application. By delving into substantive and procedural aspects of international law, this chapter establishes an understanding of international legal norms in promoting Indigenous rights and facilitating sustainable development.

This chapter explores the complex relationship between extractive industries, sustainable development, and Indigenous treaty law. It begins by examining the international law guidance available for extractive industries, analysing frameworks and principles that promote responsible and sustainable practices in resource extraction while considering the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This chapter then focuses on the specific challenges of oil and gas exploration, highlighting the impacts on Indigenous communities and emphasizing the importance of meaningful consultation, consent, and fair benefit-sharing in alignment with Indigenous treaty rights. Furthermore, it explores the mining sector’s implications for sustainable development, considering the social, economic, and environmental aspects and emphasizing the role of Indigenous treaty law in ensuring responsible practices, equitable resource distribution, and the protection of Indigenous rights and lands. Thus, the chapter emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that respects Indigenous rights, integrates Indigenous perspectives and consent, and promotes sustainable practices.

This chapter closes off the volume by exploring the innovative approaches to incorporating the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and sustainable development in newly negotiated Indigenous trade agreements. The introduction highlights the significance of UNDRIP in promoting the rights and aspirations of Indigenous peoples. The chapter details the origins of the Indigenous Peoples Economic Trade and Cultural Agreement (IPETCA), focusing on its innovations that enabled trade negotiations that amplified Indigenous views and values while enabled by the nation-states of New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, and Canada. The chapter then delves into the sustainable development aspects of IPETCA, showcasing how it aligns with the principles of UNDRIP and fosters economic growth while respecting Indigenous rights. It then discusses IPETCA’s working mechanism and implementation. Thus, the chapter underscores the importance of innovative approaches like IPETCA in advancing Indigenous trade agreements that prioritize sustainable development and uphold the principles of UNDRIP.

This chapter presents agreements between Indigenous peoples and governments, specifically those in Bangladesh and Mexico that focus on their roles in promoting sustainable development. The introduction sets the stage for subsequent discussions by emphasizing the importance of global legal and policy frameworks in shaping these agreements, with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The two case studies from Bangladesh and Mexico are then analysed, shedding light on the unique characteristics, provisions, and outcomes of agreements between Indigenous peoples and governments in these contexts. A comparative analysis is conducted to identify commonalities, differences, and lessons learned from these case studies. Ultimately, the chapter concludes by highlighting the significance of ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and respect for Indigenous rights in achieving sustainable development goals globally. It underscores the importance of incorporating Indigenous perspectives and aspirations into the design and implementation of such agreements.

The conclusion summarises the interconnected histories of the plebiscite and its foremost scholar and places them in historical perspective. Both were shaped by Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to reorder the world. Over one hundred years on from that attempt, with major political changes having taken place, and liberal internationalism of the kind advocated by Wilson and followers seemingly having lost its appeal to the United States, the history of Sarah Wambaugh and the plebiscite seems relevant once more.

This chapter presents case studies of Indigenous peace agreements in the Andes region. It begins with an introduction that highlights the significance of understanding legal geography and its relevance to Indigenous peoples. It then explores the legal frameworks that protect Indigenous rights, focusing on international instruments such as declarations and conventions. It then examines specific agreements in the Andes that enact these legal frameworks, with a spotlight on the National Agreement for Development and Peace in La Araucanía, 2018, in Chile, and the Agreement Between the Bolivian Government and the Confederation of Indigenous peoples from the East, Chaco, and Amazonia in 2010. These case studies showcase the intersection of legal, social, and political dynamics in promoting Indigenous rights and fostering peace. By analysing the legal geographies of these agreements, the chapter contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex challenges and opportunities Indigenous communities face in achieving sustainable development and peace in the Andes region.

An ethics consultation case is presented in which a hospice patient wished to deactivate his Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED), specifically an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, at the end of life to prevent the prolongation of the dying. The consultants developed an ethical analysis supporting the deactivation of the pacemaker based on authoritative literature and moral reasoning. The consultants’ recommendations to deactivate the pacemaker were ultimately rejected by the medical team based on an alternative assessment which concluded the patient is suicidal, doubts based on the consultants not being physicians, and the healthcare professionals’ sense that deactivating a pacemaker is different from withdrawing other forms of life-sustaining treatment at the end of life. Professional reflections by the consultants and lessons learned are discussed.

The Declaration of Independence, usually regarded principally or even exclusively as a manifesto about certain “inalienable rights,” is better understood, especially historically, as a complex argument about popular sovereignty. Who exactly were “the people” who were entitled, as in the America of 1776, to secede from the British Empire and then claim their own rights of “self-determination”? The Declaration begins with the assertion that Americans were “one people.” But that was demonstrably false, even in 1776, and has become even more so since then. After all, James Madison, in Federalist 10, emphasizes the plurality of interests, including, religion and property, that generate “faction” and the possibility of tyranny of governing elites. Does the Declaration, even if complemented by the Constitution, supply enough of an “American creed” to supply the basis for genuine unity and political amity or does it instead plant the seeds for further division and even secession in the name of self-determination and government by consent of the governed?

We tend to think that we are prima facie morally entitled to determine the course of our own lives to some degree, and to make our own decisions about matters that are personal to us. Dworkin speaks of our “right to make decisions about the character of [our] lives”. Feinberg suggests that we plausibly have a personal domain over which we are “sovereign” and hence where we “alone” have the final say about “what is to happen”. And Akhlaghi defends the idea that we have a pro tanto or defeasible moral right to “autonomous self-making” – viz. a pro tanto moral right to autonomously decide to make certain “transformative choices” that will influence how our lives will go and who we will become.

This chapter lays out the book’s argument in two parts. First, it first develops the concept of self-determination as understood by state and non-state actors in the Global South to apply to the legitimate exercise of power in the international system. Rather than requiring strict sovereignty and exclusion of outside actors, self-determination is about the nature of cooperation and international involvement. It requires that people, through their governments, be able to domestically affirm international rules and to meaningfully participate in their enforcement. The second part of this chapter explains how establishing regional organizations as an authority over issue areas can be a strategy for realizing self-determination and why, in the case of human rights, it necessitated compromising on the norm of non-interference. This strategy is effective at deterring pressure from Western governments because it combines and appeals to widely held beliefs about the legitimacy of self-rule with beliefs about the importance of exercising power through international organizations.

Why have regional organizations become authorities over human rights and international intervention, and what explains the differences in regional authority across different regions? Why did leaders in some parts of the Global South go from rejecting any interference to arguing for the central role of regional organizations in international interference? This chapter introduces the central questions addressed by this book and provides an overview of its core argument, focusing on the creation of new regional authority at one important moment: the emergence of regional organizations as authorities over human rights. This was the first time when leaders in the Global South changed from arguing for complete non-interference to arguing that legitimate interference should be carried out by or with the involvement of regional organizations. They did so as a strategy of subtle resistance to new challenges to self-determination, in the form of economic enforcement of human rights by Western governments. In regions targeted by this enforcement, leaders responded by establishing their regional organizations as authorities over human rights, accepting regional interference for the first time.