Suchergebnisse

Introduction --The contemporary Middle East --Minority identities in the Middle East : religious minorities --Minority identities in the Middle East : ethno-national and other minorities --Minority rights in Iraq --Minority rights in Syria --Minority rights in Lebanon --Conclusion.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- Series Introduction -- Chapter One: Religion -- Chapter Two: Religious Rights -- Chapter Three: Human Culture -- Chapter Four: Cultural and Human Rights -- Chapter Five: Minority Rights -- Further Reading -- Series Glossary -- Index -- About the Author -- About the Advisor -- Photo Credits.

Alan Patten's Equal Recognition offers a new and powerful argument to support the 'strong cultural rights thesis'. Unlike other culturalist arguments, his argument is not based on a problematic and essentialist conception of culture but on a particular understanding of liberal neutrality as fair treatment and equal recognition. What justifies the existence of such rights is not culture itself but what culture means for people and the negative consequences it can have for them when they form a cultural minority. Patten's argument, however, faces another challenge: I argue that culture and neutrality cannot be fully reconciled, and that, ultimately, the concept of culture might not be playing any significant role in his argument for minority rights.

This article explores the difficulties inherent in the conceptualization, legal definition, and use of the term "minorities," framing these issues in the context of global efforts toward human rights realization. It argues that the critical concern is not majority or minority status as such, but rather the construction of dominant positions based upon collectively exclusive elements and the actual abuse of such positions. After delineating the limited role that law can and does play in the actual protection of non-dominant collectivities on the global and national planes, this article urges laying aside the term "minority" as both a label and a concept and reconceptualizing the mission in terms of collective human dignity protection, with this concept's deep roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This might well be linked to the urgently needed operationalization of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Adapted from the source document.

This article explores the difficulties inherent in the conceptualization, legal definition, and use of the term "minorities," framing these issues in the context of global efforts toward human rights realization. It argues that the critical concern is not majority or minority status as such, but rather the construction of dominant positions based upon collectively exclusive elements and the actual abuse of such positions. After delineating the limited role that law can and does play in the actual protection of non-dominant collectivities on the global and national planes, this article urges laying aside the term "minority" as both a label and a concept and reconceptualizing the mission in terms of collective human dignity protection, with this concept's deep roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This might well be linked to the urgently needed operationalization of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

India is a multicultural liberal democratic state. It is also a poor, overpopulated Third World country. Many modernization theorists have assumed that these two descriptors were at odds, or at least sequentially determined with economic development a necessary pre-condition for democracy, and hence predicted the failure of the Indian experiment because of its "fissiparous tendencies." More contemporary comparative political scientists have attempted more sophisticated and nuanced explanations of the Indian experiment than what modernization theorists offered. Also recently political theorists have increasingly turned their attention to multiculturalism. In this paper, I use a particular type of accommodation made by the Indian state to cultural diversity, constitutionally prescribed in the Sixth Schedule for parts of Assam but increasingly applied elsewhere in the northern stretches of Indian territory, to investigate contributions of recent liberal theory to understanding India's multiculturalism. One of the most prominent political theorists in recent times in the West is Will Kymlicka, who weds multiculturalism to liberalism in his liberal theory of minority rights. The mainstay of his theory is his distinction between national minorities and immigrant ethnic groups. Through this distinction he describes and prescribes accommodations made by the liberal state to cultural diversity. Although he admits that there are gray areas or "hard cases" that challenge his categorization, his "approach" has been "to draw clear lines in muddy waters." Can Kymlickian lines be drawn in the sediment-filled streams flowing down from the Himalayas? Do Kymlicka's categories, and, more generally, his theory help us understand India's liberal multiculturalism as practiced in the Himalayan foothills of north India?