Abstract
The relationship between legal pluralism and the notion of subjective rights is tense and deeply conflictive. Legal pluralism is based on the recognition of the coexistence of different regulatory systems within the same sociopolitical space, with the legal systems of indigenous peoples being one of its most visible expressions. These peoples have been recognized as having the right to self-determination, although this recognition is conditioned by a material limit: their legal institutions must not contradict the state legal system or internationally recognized human rights. This limit is not neutral, as it is defined by the modern notion of subjective rights. Historically, this notion has evolved from a political conquest to the affirmation of powers considered inherent to human nature. This discursive shift allowed for the consolidation of the centrality of the state, rendering interpersonal power relations invisible and subordinating the recognition and protection of rights to state authority. From this perspective, it becomes necessary to question the place of subjective rights within indigenous legal systems. The idea of rights, as configured in modernity, operates as a performative discourse that imposes itself as a material limit on other normative systems in contexts of legal pluralism. In this way, indigenous peoples are integrated into a conception of modernity designed by the state, ensuring that the state retains the final say on the validity and applicability of norms produced by legal systems other than the state.
References
1. Ardila Amaya E. Pluralismo jurídico: apuntes para el debate. Rev El Otro Derecho. 2002;(26):49-61.
2. Bidart Campos GJ. Teoría general de los derechos humanos. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 1989.
3. Correas Ó. Acerca de los derechos humanos: apuntes para un ensayo. 2a ed. México: Ediciones Coyoacán; 2015.
4. Correas Ó. Los derechos humanos: entre la historia y el mito. II. Crítica Jurídica. Rev Latinoam Polit Filos Derecho. 2010;(26). doi:10.22201/ceiich.01883968p.2007.26.16768.
5. Cribb M, Macpherson E, Borchgrevink A. Beyond legal personhood for the Whanganui River: collaboration and pluralism in implementing the Te Awa Tupua Act. International Journal of Human Rights 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2314532.
6. David P. Sociología jurídica. Buenos Aires: Astrea; 1980.
7. Díaz-León K, Palacios-Serna LI, Borrego-Rosas CE. Inclusive Education: From Theoretical Considerations to Social Praxis. Clio Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Critico 2024;4:152–68. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12598876.
8. Djawas M, Nurdin A, Zainuddin M, Idham I, Idami Z. Harmonization of State, Custom, and Islamic Law in Aceh: Perspective of Legal Pluralism. Hasanuddin Law Review 2024;10:64–82. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i1.4824.
9. Dupret B. Pluralismo jurídico, pluralidad de leyes y prácticas jurídicas: las teorías críticas y praxiológica re-especificación. Rev Electrónica. 2007;4:1-34.
10. Federico CA, Trotsyuk AA. Biomedical Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Ethics: Navigating Challenges in the Face of Explosive Growth. Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science 2024;7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-102623-104553.
11. Feldis JP. Sociología jurídica. Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Ediciones Guía; 2005.
12. Hacker P. SUSTAINABLE AI REGULATION. Common Market Law Review 2024;61:345–86. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2024025.
13. Hobbes T. Leviatán. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1940.
14. Hoekema A. Hacia un pluralismo jurídico formal de tipo igualitario. El Otro Derecho. 2002;(26-27):63-98.
15. Jedličková A. Ethical approaches in designing autonomous and intelligent systems: a comprehensive survey towards responsible development. AI and Society 2025;40:2703–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02040-9.
16. Jellinek G. La declaración de los derechos del hombre y del ciudadano. 2a ed. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2003.
17. Locke J. Segundo tratado de gobierno civil. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 2004.
18. Mahadik SS, Pawar PM, Raja R, Prasad NR, Hawkins S-K, Stripelis D, et al. Digital Privacy in Healthcare: State-of-the-Art and Future Vision. IEEE Access 2024;12:84273–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3410035.
19. Mattioli M, Cabitza F. Not in My Face: Challenges and Ethical Considerations in Automatic Face Emotion Recognition Technology. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 2024;6:2201–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/make6040109.
20. Murphy TF, Lappé MA. Justice and the Human Genome Project. 2024.
21. Pina E, Ramos J, Jorge H, Váz P, Silva J, Wanzeller C, et al. Data Privacy and Ethical Considerations in Database Management. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy 2024;4:494–517. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp4030024.
22. Qian W, Parker L, Zhu J. Corporate environmental reporting in the China context: The interplay of stakeholder salience, socialist ideology and state power. British Accounting Review 2024;56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101198.
23. Qureshi NI, Choudhuri SS, Nagamani Y, Varma RA, Shah R. Ethical Considerations of AI in Financial Services: Privacy, Bias, and Algorithmic Transparency, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICKECS61492.2024.10616483.
24. Rothman BK. THE MEANINGS OF CHOICE IN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY. vol. 1, 2024, p. 23–33. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003516316-5.
25. Saeidnia HR, Hashemi Fotami SG, Lund B, Ghiasi N. Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence Interventions for Mental Health and Well-Being: Ensuring Responsible Implementation and Impact. Social Sciences 2024;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070381.
26. Shafik W. Toward a more ethical future of artificial intelligence and data science, 2024, p. 362–88. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2964-1.ch022.
27. Shukla RP, Taneja S. Ethical considerations and data privacy in artificial intelligence, 2024, p. 86–97. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2440-0.ch005.
28. Silva N, Fuinhas JA, Koengkan M, Kazemzadeh E. What are the causal conditions that lead to high or low environmental performance? A worldwide assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2024;104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107342.
29. Singh B. Cherish data privacy and human rights in the digital age: Harmonizing innovation and individual autonomy, 2024, p. 199–226. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3334-1.ch007.
30. Sousa Santos B. La reinvención del Estado y el Estado plurinacional. Cochabamba: Kipus; 2007.
31. Squella A. ¿Qué puesto ocupan los derechos humanos en el derecho? En: Derechos humanos: ¿invento o descubrimiento? México: Fontamara; 2013.
32. Tamanaha B, Griffiths J, Engle Merry S. Pluralismo jurídico. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores; 2007.
33. Wang X, Wu YC, Zhou M, Fu H. Beyond surveillance: privacy, ethics, and regulations in face recognition technology. Frontiers in Big Data 2024;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2024.1337465.
34. Wang X, Wu YC. BALANCING INNOVATION AND REGULATION IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Journal of Information Policy 2024;14:385–416. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.14.2024.0012.
35. Wolkmer AC. Pluralismo jurídico: nuevo marco emancipatorio en América Latina. En: Derecho y sociedad en América Latina: un debate sobre estudios jurídicos críticos. Colombia: Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales Alternativos / Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2003. p. 247-259.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Pol W. Roman Andrade (Author)