Search results

The "sexiest acronym in international diplomacy." Such was a Washington pandit's roguish, if appropriate, characterization of the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) just a few of years ago in 1990 after it critically helped ignite the revolutions in Eastern Europe and torpedo the Berlin Wall. Other, more serious, foreign affairs analysts were equally enthusiastic about CSCE. A prominent commentator called it the "premier post-Cold War political forum."

The article discusses Paul Roe's argument that minority rights are always problems of (societal) security. According to Roe, a Huysmanstype deconstructivist strategy, which can be used in desecuritization of migration, is not possible in minority situations, because maintenance of a collective identity is central for minorities; therefore, the desecuritization of minority rights may be 'logically impossible' in certain cases. The present article focuses on Roe's arguments and attempts to find ways to avoid his determinism. It introduces a reconstructivist strategy for the desecuritization of minority rights, based on the process and discursive aspects of identity. It is possible for the stories of ethnically defined collective identities to be told in such a way that they do not exclude other such identities from the territory of a state. With this strategy, the author tries to show that desecuritization of minority rights is always logically possible, though in some cases it might be practically impossible in the foreseeable future.

The twentieth century began, well after the First World War, to focus on the rights of minorities and their linkages with general peace and welfare. The record of the League of Nations, however, was not very encouraging. This is perhaps why, in the post-Second World War period, the international community adopted a more cautious approach to minority rights than before. This is manifested in the reluctance to agree on a definition of minorities, and also a clear preference for perceiving minority rights as being inseparable from human rights. The growing body of international legal instruments for the protection of human rights has, nevertheless, a discernible bearing on minority rights. The international covenants on human rights best exemplify this. Further, the monitoring mechanisms of the UN have also contributed to minority rights through progressive interpretations and rulings. Alongside, regional initiatives, as in Europe, have also helped the cause of minority rights after the end of the Cold War. Shortcomings in the international protection of minority rights are due to the apprehensions of state actors. They fear the abuse of the right to self-determination and the rights of indigenous peoples—as part of minority/human rights—will endanger the existing socio-political order.

AbstractThis article argues that minority rights developed as an indemnity offered to defeated parties. As a grudging and begrudged calculus of compensation, considered inadequate by the vanquished and offensive by the victors, minority rights have been unable to compete in terms of legitimacy with either an increasingly robust international human rights regime or with the right of national self-determination. After reviewing some explanations for the weakness of the existing minority rights regime, this article traces the rationale of what may be described anachronistically as minority rights provisions in international treaties from the Peace of Westphalia to the Versailles settlement, concluding with a consideration of present-day implications of the argument elaborated here.

This paper explores the role of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic citizenship and Human Rights Education as a tool for the promotion and protection of minority rights in Europe and as a mechanism for fostering the implementation of the provisions of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (ECMI)