Copy and paste the code below, or use the file export link (if available for that format).

@article{
  author = {Stavenhagen, Rodolfo},
  title = {Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective},
  journal = {UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)},
  year = {2004},
  location = {New York},
  URL = {},
  abstract = {One of the more widely debated topics involving indigenous peoples and state policies is the ambiguity surrounding the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different states adopt –if at all-- definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with others, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some countries no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. In others, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition does not prevent constructive action in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their development. Whereas at the national level, formal definitions have become more common in recent years, the criteria of membership in an indigenous group, nation or community are not always clearly established.}
}

AU - Stavenhagen, Rodolfo
TI - Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective
PT - Journal Article
DP - 2004
TA - UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
AB - One of the more widely debated topics involving indigenous peoples and state policies is the ambiguity surrounding the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different states adopt –if at all-- definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with others, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some countries no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. In others, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition does not prevent constructive action in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their development. Whereas at the national level, formal definitions have become more common in recent years, the criteria of membership in an indigenous group, nation or community are not always clearly established.

%0 Journal Article
%A Stavenhagen, Rodolfo
%T Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective
%D 2004
%J UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
%U ,
%X One of the more widely debated topics involving indigenous peoples and state policies is the ambiguity surrounding the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different states adopt –if at all-- definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with others, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some countries no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. In others, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition does not prevent constructive action in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their development. Whereas at the national level, formal definitions have become more common in recent years, the criteria of membership in an indigenous group, nation or community are not always clearly established.

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Stavenhagen, Rodolfo
TI  - Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective
PY  - 2004
JF  - UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
UR  - ,
AB  - One of the more widely debated topics involving indigenous peoples and state policies is the ambiguity surrounding the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different states adopt –if at all-- definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with others, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some countries no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. In others, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition does not prevent constructive action in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their development. Whereas at the national level, formal definitions have become more common in recent years, the criteria of membership in an indigenous group, nation or community are not always clearly established.

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective
AU  - Stavenhagen, Rodolfo
PY  - 2004
JF  - UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
UR  - ,
AB  - One of the more widely debated topics involving indigenous peoples and state policies is the ambiguity surrounding the term “indigenous”. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Different states adopt –if at all-- definitions in terms of their particular contexts and circumstances. The term indigenous is frequently used interchangeably with others, such as “aboriginal”, “native”, “original”, “first nations” or else “tribal” or other similar concepts. In some countries no formal designation exists even though there might be general agreement that such populations do in fact inhabit certain areas of the country. In others, the existence of indigenous groups is denied altogether and therefore their definition becomes even more problematic. Yet the absence of an international definition does not prevent constructive action in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and the promotion of their development. Whereas at the national level, formal definitions have become more common in recent years, the criteria of membership in an indigenous group, nation or community are not always clearly established.