E/CN.4/2002/97 page 26 90. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action does not spell out any specific rights of indigenous people, but declares: “Considering the importance of the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people, and the contribution of such promotion and protection to the political and social stability of the States in which such people live, States should, in accordance with international law, take concerted positive steps to ensure respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, and recognize the value and diversity of their distinct identities, cultures and social organization” (part I, para. 20). 91. At the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance there were difficult discussions over this concept between indigenous representatives and government delegations, and the wording of the final declaration did not satisfy everyone (see Introduction). The Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples adopted by the WGIP establishes in article 3 that “Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”32 The Special Rapporteur believes that it would be useful to review current debates on this topic and suggest constructive ways to solve a conceptual issue that is of primordial importance to both States and indigenous peoples. III. THE QUESTION OF DEFINITIONS 92. One of the more widely debated topics concerning the character and scope of the human rights of indigenous peoples as well as the specific areas in which their protection may be ensured by State action is the ambiguity surrounding the definition of the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different States adopt different definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with other terms, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some States local terms might commonly be used that are not easily translatable. In still other countries, no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. And in still other countries, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition should not prevent constructive action in the promotion and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples. 93. In recent decades, formal definitions have become more common in national legislation concerning rights and issues of indigenous peoples, whereas in other cases such legislation exists without a formal definition. Above and beyond a legal or formal definition, another problem concerns the criteria for membership in an indigenous group, nation or community. 94. While indigenous peoples the world over share many commonalities, it is also necessary to recognize the different situations that prevail. In North America, for example, indigenous nations were considered as sovereign and distinct by the Governments of the United States and Canada well into the nineteenth century. Relations between these peoples and the State were based on treaty arrangements which, as time went by, were abrogated unilaterally by the States concerned, a process which has been labelled “retrogression” by Miguel Alfonso Martínez,