Rights Beautiful Collection of Professor Saneh Chamarik (v) Environment integrity; (vi) Intellectual property rights; (vii) Recognition of customary law and practice; (viii) Farmers’ Rights. The two, (i) and (ii), in particular are technically ambivalent regarding the question of jurisdiction. While the CBD confirms the sovereign rights of States over indigenous peoples’ lands, territories, and natural resources, both the ICESCR and ICCPR stress the rights of all “peoples” in plural number to self-determination and to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. So under the circumstances, indigenous peoples are concerned, quite justifiably, that such sovereign rights might just as well be extended and encroaching upon their traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices. On the other hand, the view in favour of minorities is opposed by national governments for fear of the national integrity and their own sovereign rights being eroded thereby. All in all, then, as far as the international agreements with legal binding are concerned and under the existing structure of power relationships, there is bound to be a gap and insoluble contradictions. In this perspective, it makes sense for a new initiative being taken from within the United Nations in a long process of consultation with indigenous leaders, and that resulted in the DDRIP with a fairly comprehensive framework to work with. Though not legally binding, it is meant to serve as the standard international document and thus the basis for any further discussions and negotiations concerning indigenous peoples that are to follow suit. Its principal features of indigenous peoples’ rights are well summarized in the above-mentioned IUCN study, and therefore to be cited in full here for the benefit of fellow participants as well as community leaders in general:7 7 Ibid. p. 28. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF THAILAND 31