Suchergebnisse

Minority Rights, Jennifer Jackson Preece, Cambridge (UK) and
Malden MA: Polity Press, 2005, pp. ix, 213.This book is not, as its title might be thought to suggest, an
abstract conceptual analysis of a particular sub-set of rights. Although
it builds on, and acknowledges, the work of Kymlicka, Raz, Taylor and
Shklar (160), the narrative thread that gives it unity is historical. It
deepens our understanding of the nature of the discourse of minority
rights by contextualizing that discourse both temporally (through
historical examples) and spatially (through adroitly selected comparative
examples). With extraordinary succinctness and clarity the author guides
us through a succession of political epochs: the time of the Christian and
Islamic medieval universitae, the period of the dynastic re-organization
of Europe, the modern era of popular sovereignty with its attendant
notions of civic and ethnic nationalism, and especially the
contradiction-laden time of European imperialism and its post-imperial and
post-colonial reverberations. As this narrative unfolds we follow the
vicissitudes of religious, racial, linguistic and ethnic minorities and
observe the successive forms taken by the "problem of
minorities."

'Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie Menschen, die in Minderheitenbewegungen aktiv sind, Kultur und andere Quellen von Identität definieren müssen, um diese als politische Ressource nutzen zu können. Sie fordern Gleichberechtigung für Gruppen, die in einer Gesellschaft kulturelle, soziale und wirtschaftliche Nachteile erleben. Es wird dargestellt, dass jene Minderheiten, die sich selbst als homogene Einheiten mit eigener Sprache und Kultur und mit eigenständigen, über Generationen erhaltenen Traditionen beschreiben, die besten Chancen haben, von Staaten und internationalen Organisationen als echte Minderheiten anerkannt zu werden. Das Paradox der Minderheitenrechte soll genau dieses Phänomen beleuchten: Um als echte Minderheit anerkannt zu werden, ahmen die MinderheitenaktivistInnen die in internationalen Minderheitenrechtsinstrumenten festgelegten Normen und Kriterien für Minderheitenrechte nach. Eine Minderheit, die Kultur gemäß einem modernen Verständnis als etwas begreift, das ständigem Wandel unterliegt und auch Unterschiede unter den Mitgliedern der Gruppe betont, hat keine oder geringe Chancen auf Minderheitenschutz und Förderung. Das Rechtsparadox resultiert daraus, dass die Minderheitenschutzinstrumente nicht nur die Kultur und Identität von Minderheiten schützen, sondern auch mit definieren, was schutzwürdig ist.' (Autorenreferat)

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.

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.