Suchergebnisse

Questions concerning minority rights has long been of international consequence and is at the center of many academic, legal and political debates. Identity claims of minority groups have been recognized and deemed worthy of protection. It is significant to note that nonetheless even today minority issues tend to occasion anxiety amongst people and States. It is therefore necessary to have jurisprudential understanding of minority rights. This will enable us to gain clarity on questions of the nature of minority rights and the various challenges revolving around them. The paper has viewed claims and rights of minorities from the stand-point of international law and human rights and in doing so has charted out the historic progression of minority rights. It further studies the present day issues of the inter-relationship between minority rights and refugees and migrants. It also examines the ever increasing demands for the inclusion of various categories like gender and children under the minority rights regime. KEYWORDS: Minority Rights, History of Minority Rights, International Law, Human Rights

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?

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?

Is it "un-American" to grant self-government rights1 to national minorities living within the United States? Can such rights destabilize the shared comprehension of American citizenship or create a 'ripple effect' and thus weaken the social union? According to some political theorists such as Michael Walzer, the ideal of American citizenship is inconsistent with the granting of self-government rights to American national minorities. Far from being chauvinists, these theorists fear that the acceptance of such rights would lead to political instability. Even though they acknowledge that some groups' demands for self-government rights have "a good deal of weight," they think that we should refuse to grant such privileges so as to preserve political unity (Glazer 1983: 119). According to them, only such unity can sustain political stability. I will argue that this position is based on an ambiguous distinction between the diverse minority groups living in the United States and on a narrow comprehension of what they call the national consensus about American citizenship. Refusing to admit the possibility of a shared comprehension of citizenship consistent with self-government rights, these theorists simply reject the latter option. This paper aims to expose some arguments supporting a theoretical approach which does not refuse, before consideration, American national minorities' access to self-government rights.

Is it "un-American" to grant self-government rights1 to national minorities living within the United States? Can such rights destabilize the shared comprehension of American citizenship or create a 'ripple effect' and thus weaken the social union? According to some political theorists such as Michael Walzer, the ideal of American citizenship is inconsistent with the granting of self-government rights to American national minorities. Far from being chauvinists, these theorists fear that the acceptance of such rights would lead to political instability. Even though they acknowledge that some groups' demands for self-government rights have "a good deal of weight," they think that we should refuse to grant such privileges so as to preserve political unity (Glazer 1983: 119). According to them, only such unity can sustain political stability. I will argue that this position is based on an ambiguous distinction between the diverse minority groups living in the United States and on a narrow comprehension of what they call the national consensus about American citizenship. Refusing to admit the possibility of a shared comprehension of citizenship consistent with self-government rights, these theorists simply reject the latter option. This paper aims to expose some arguments supporting a theoretical approach which does not refuse, before consideration, American national minorities' access to self-government rights.

In 2003, Indonesian government issued a new education law in which one of the articles (Article 12) states that student has the right to access religion class in school in accordance with his or her religion by teachers who share the faith. This particular article has a legal ramification that school --state and private-- by law must provide corresponding Religion Classes (RC) for each religious group of students in order to fulfill their very human basic right to access to and observe their religious and cultural teaching and practices. This paper presents findings of four different school case studies on the problem of access to RC by religious minority in schools in Indonesia. Minority in this paper refers to religious groups that are either numeric minority or subordinate majority at the micro school level, not in the macro national population. This paper argues that numeric minority in any context (micro or macro) is vulnerable to discrimination by the dominating majority when the law of social relations is not fairly implemented. The findings suggest that the right of religious minority groups in three of the four schools to access proper RC is stifled, particularly to access equal learning facilities. Numeric religious minority groups in these schools suffer from powerlessness. One case, however, demonstrates that the positional power of minority group reverses this logic of minority-powerlessness and puts the religious majority students in a subordinate position.[Tahun 2003, pemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkan Undang-Undang Pendidikan yang pada pasal 12 menyatakan bahwa siswa mempunyai hak terhadap pelajaran agama di sekolah dengan guru yang mengajar sesuai dengan agamanya. Pasal ini mempunyai konsekuensi bahwa sekolah, baik swasta atau pun negeri, harus menyediakan kelas agama untuk setiap kelompok siswa untuk mendapatkan hak dasarnya guna melaksanakan agama dan ajarannya. Artikel ini menampilkan hasil penelitian dari empat sekolah dengan studi kasus pada persoalan kelas agama bagi kelompok minoritas. Istilah minoritas di sini merujuk pada kelompok agama yang sedikit jumlahnya atau kelompok kecil pada sekolah, bukan pada level nasional. Tulisan ini menegaskan bahwa minoritas pada konteks mikro atau makro sangat rentan terhadap perlakuan diskriminasi oleh kelompok mayoritas ketika hukum social tidak sepenuhnya dijalankan. Penemuan ini menegaskan bahwa hak keagamaan minoritas dalam tiga dari empat sekolah terganggu, terutama yang terkait dengan hak fasilitas belajar. Beberapa kelompok minoritas pada sekolah tersebut tak berdaya. Namun, satu kasus menunjukkan bahwa kondisi minoritas berbalik, justru kelompok mayoritas yang menjadi subordinasi.]

Ethiopia can be considered as a land of minorities by any objective and subjective criteria used in defining minorities. This working paper examines especially how the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia treats the issue of minority rights, as well as the current trends in the implementation of minority rights in that country. The international human rights instruments to which Ethiopia is a party are also documented here. (ECMI) ; Haileyesus Taye Chekole

Why do democracies encounter more violent secessionist movements in comparison to non-democracies? While there is evidence that democratic states contribute to international peace, the converse, that democracies enjoy internal peace, seems problematic. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that authoritarian states face fewer separatist challenges of a violent nature than do democratic ones. Democracy, which introduces competitive elections, is commonly offered as a solution to political problems. However, in ethnically divided societies, competitive democracy may exacerbate political tension and polarize groups. Are systems of democratic governance incompatible with durable peace in such societies? This work examines how respect for minority rights can contribute to conflict prevention in multi-cultural democracies in Asia. ; Democracy, Peace and Conflict Democracy and People Democracy and Minority Challenges Democracies and Separatist Violence in Asia Indian Experience Concluding Remarks Bibliography

In 2003, Indonesian government issued a new education law in which one of the articles (Article 12) states that student has the right to access religion class in school in accordance with his or her religion by teachers who share the faith. This particular article has a legal ramification that school --state and private-- by law must provide corresponding Religion Classes (RC) for each religious group of students in order to fulfil their very human basic right to access to and observe their religious and cultural teaching and practices. This paper presents findings of four different school case studies on the problem of access to RC by religious minority in schools in Indonesia. Minority in this paper refers to religious groups that are either numeric minority or subordinate majority at the micro school level, not in the macro national population. This paper argues that numeric minority in any context (micro or macro) is vulnerable to discrimination by the dominating majority when the law of social relations is not fairly implemented. The findings suggest that the right of religious minority groups in three of the four schools to access proper RC is stifled, particularly to access equal learning facilities. Numeric religious minority groups in these schools suffer from powerlessness. One case, however, demonstrates that the positional power of minority group reverses this logic of minority-powerlessness and puts the religious majority students in a subordinate position. [Tahun 2003, pemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkan Undang-Undang Pendidikan yang pada pasal 12 menyatakan bahwa siswa mempunyai hak terhadap pelajaran agama di sekolah dengan guru yang mengajar sesuai dengan agamanya. Pasal ini mempunyai konsekuensi bahwa sekolah, baik swasta atau pun negeri, harus menyediakan kelas agama untuk setiap kelompok siswa untuk mendapatkan hak dasarnya guna melaksanakan agama dan ajarannya. Artikel ini menampilkan hasil penelitian dari empat sekolah dengan studi kasus pada persoalan kelas agama bagi kelompok minoritas. Istilah minoritas di sini merujuk pada kelompok agama yang sedikit jumlahnya atau kelompok kecil pada sekolah, bukan pada level nasional. Tulisan ini menegaskan bahwa minoritas pada konteks mikro atau makro sangat rentan terhadap perlakuan diskriminasi oleh kelompok mayoritas ketika hukum social tidak sepenuhnya dijalankan. Penemuan ini menegaskan bahwa hak keagamaan minoritas dalam tiga dari empat sekolah terganggu, terutama yang terkait dengan hak fasilitas belajar. Beberapa kelompok minoritas pada sekolah tersebut tak berdaya. Namun, satu kasus menunjukkan bahwa kondisi minoritas berbalik, justru kelompok mayoritas yang menjadi subordinasi

In the last few years, issues related to human rights, including encouraging the democratization of Muslim societies from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, have acquired great importance in shaping the character of U.S.-Muslim relations and U.S. policy toward Muslim countries. An important impetus behind this development were the tragic events of 9/11, which demonstrated the destructive potential of militant groups that use a distorted interpretation of Islam as justification for their actions. These events also led to a greater realization by the United States--and the West--that a lack of democracy and lack of respect for human rights have been contributory factors to the rise of militant Islam. Consequently, in its approach toward the Muslim world, the United States has emphasized the themes of human rights and democracy. Within the Islamic world, too, both secular and moderate Islamists have begun focusing on issues related to human rights. Although many conservative Muslims believe that Islam is incompatible with Western notions of democracy and human rights, reformist Muslim thinkers and activists maintain that a proper reading of Islamic injunctions and the ethical values underpinning those injunctions shows there is no such incompatibility. Complicating the debate is the fact that many Muslims--secular as well as conservative and reformist--doubt the seriousness of the U.S. commitment to the cause of human rights and democracy in the Muslim world, believing that the United States applies human rights' standards selectively to suit its strategic and economic interests. Irrespective of the validity of these charges, they are part of the context of the U.S.-Muslim dialogue on human rights. And it is this complex dialogue that this volume seeks to advance.

This study investigates how personality relates to citizens' willingness to extend political, social, and cultural rights for minorities, including voting rights for immigrants, religious rights for Muslims, and affirmative action measures. Moving beyond explanations centred on intergroup relations, we argue that political efficacy (i.e. beliefs about personal political competences and the responsiveness of political elites) operates as a mechanism linking personality and policy preferences on minority rights. We test these arguments using mediation models on data from a large-N survey conducted in Germany in 2016. Results show that high openness, high agreeableness, and low conscientiousness predict permissive views on minority rights. In addition to indirect effects via group-specific attitudes, we find empirical support for substantial links via political efficacy. In particular, people high in conscientiousness or high in neuroticism have lower faith in government responsiveness, which in turn is related to less willingness to approve minority rights.

Minorities' claims for rights increasingly clash with majorities who wish to retain and defend "national" cultural and religious traditions. Debates around minarets in Switzerland, burqas in France, Saint Nicolas' companion "Black Pete" in the Netherlands, and about freedom of speech versus respect for minorities in several countries are cases in point. Such issues are highly salient and offer a major mobilization potential for populist parties. However, while publications about minority rights abound, the normative literature is remarkably silent on the issue of the normative legitimacy of rights claims by autochthonous cultural majorities. The reason for this negligence is the assumption that majorities can, by definition, impose their will by electoral force. But in the postwar rights regime in which protection for minority rights has proliferated, there are many situations in which parliamentary majorities have been trumped by court decisions or obligations derived from international treaties. Moreover, even if electoral majorities prevail, this does not solve the normative problem and leads to situations in which claims of minorities, legitimated by national and supranational minority protection norms, stand against majorities backed by the electoral power of numbers but lacking normative legitimacy. The paper argues that it is this dynamic of "right" versus "might" that is an important structural factor behind the rise of nationalist populism across Western countries. This confrontation has a tendency to polarize and to escalate, because there is no common normative ground on which the legitimacy and limits of majority rights claims can be negotiated. For one side in such debates, majorities have no legitimate right whatsoever to claim privileges for their language or culture over others, for the other side, this right is absolute because in the populist view democratic legitimacy is reduced to whatever the majority decides. A normative elaboration of the legitimacy and limits of cultural majority claims is necessary to escape from this confrontation that increasingly poisons the political debate in Western democracies. An additional reason to take cultural majority rights more strongly into consideration is that the idea that majority cultures are not in need of any special protection is less and less tenable. In a more and more globalized world where Anglo-Saxon culture has become the norm in many domains, the distinction between "dominant" and "minority cultures" can no longer be exclusively seen as applying to relationships within nation-states, but increasingly also applies to the unequal balance of power between the cultures of nation-states.

2010/2011 ; Sin dagli inizi del liberalismo i gruppi hanno ricoperto un ruolo molto importante. (Eisenberg .& Spinner-Hallev, 2005). I gruppi sono un elemento importante nel mantenimento della libertà democratica. L'esistenza di gruppi, insieme con la tutela della libertà di associazione, ha assicurato la tutela delle minoranze dalla supremazia di una maggioranza, al fine di promuovere i loro interessi. Come Robert Dahl (1956) dichiara, la governance democratica si sostanzia nel potere di governo effettivamente ripartito tra maggioranza e minoranze. I teorici politici si sono progressivamente sempre più interessati ai gruppi, alla loro natura e allo stato dei diritti loro concessi. Tema centrale di questa tesi sono proprio le questioni teoriche legate alla definizione di 'gruppi di minoranza' e dei loro diritti, le diverse soluzioni trovate per la loro tutela all'interno della società e la loro effettiva modalità di attuazione. La tesi considera due modelli di tutela dei gruppi di minoranza, come due realtà diverse caratterizzate in diversi contesti storici. Il primo modello considerato e riconosciuto a livello internazionale come un 'modello virtuoso' è la Regione Autonoma del Trentino-Alto Adige. Il secondo, visto come un modello di sviluppo'in divenire', è il sistema di protezione dei gruppi di minoranza nella Repubblica di Macedonia. L'obiettivo finale non è quello di creare un modello standard e 'ideale' di protezione dei diritti delle minoranze, ma è piuttosto quello di effettuare un'analisi comparativa estrapolando i punti di collegamento tra i due sistemi/modelli. Per ciascun caso studio verranno analizzati a) il quadro normativo esistente; b) gli strumenti per la protezione dei diritti delle minoranze; c) il sistema politico, in pratica; d) la collocazione del gruppo di minoranza in esso; e e) il tipo di tutela conferito ai diritti specifici del gruppo (group-differentiated rights), le loro particolarità e caratteristiche distintive. La tesi presenta uno studio multi-disciplinare, tenendo conto delle caratteristiche multinazionali, multietniche e multiculturali di uno Stato moderno, in cui il rapporto con le minoranze è un argomento centrale. Analizzando le teorie giuridiche e politiche dei diritti umani con particolare attenzione ai diritti delle minoranze, la tesi cerca di individuare elementi caratterizzanti e definizioni dei diritti delle minoranze e non solo; cerca di produrre un'analisi comparative per identificare le soluzioni ed i problemi presenti in una societá multiculturale. In seguito analizza gli strumenti di protezione di tali diritti e la loro attuazione attraverso modelli di governance autonoma. I diritti delle minoranze etniche hanno una certa complessità: ci sono diritti collettivi che appartengono a minoranze etniche come comunità distinte e diritti individuali che appartengono ad ogni membro di una certa minoranza etnica. Ci sono Costituzioni che definiscono esplicitamente i diritti delle minoranze anche come diritti collettivi di queste distinte comunità etniche. Nel presente lavoro la teoria della cittadinanza multiculturale è considerata come la teoria principale su cui è sviluppata l'argomentazione. Diritti specifici per le minoranze rispecchiano al meglio la natura della tutela dei gruppi minoritari. Una particolare attenzione è stata dedicata al diritto di auto-governo delle minoranze, ai diritti di rappresentanza delle minoranze e al concetto di autonomia. Dal concetto di democrazia consociativa si vede come la democrazia è legata ai diritti delle minoranze, e come i consociazioni regionali in alcuni casi sono considerati come uno strumento per la risoluzione di conflitti etnici all'interno di uno stato. Richiamando i fondamenti teorici, nello studio comparativo l'attenzione si indirizza su alcune teorie e concetti chiave. Al primo posto è la questione della collocazione (accommodation) delle differenze culturali (linguistica, etnica, religiosa) in una società. Da una prospettiva individuale ad una comunitaria, il focus è stato portato verso una soluzione intermedia, cioè il concetto chiave che descrive sia il diritto individuale e il diritto collettivo come diritti diferenziati (group-differentiated rights), costituzionalmente garantiti da leggi speciali (Kymlicka, Young, Levy). Questi diritti differenziati includono i diritti di autogoverno (attraverso diversi tipi di modelli che vanno dalla piena autonomia alla non-autonomia territoriale), i diritti polietnici (polyethnic rights) (cultura, lingua, educazione, religione, etc) e dei diritti speciali di rappresentanza (rappresentanza negli organi governativi). La questione della loro giustificazione porta alla luce l'esistenza di alcuni sviluppi storici e documenti, che secondo Kymlicka (1995), possono giustificare pienamente le argomentazioni sull'esistenza dei diritti differenziati. Per implementare le misure che riguardano la protezione dei diritti delle minoranze in un ordinamento giuridico costituzionale ci sono diverse modalità di rendere effettivi i diritti. Le misure costituzionali e le politiche degli Stati offrono molte soluzioni, e ogni paese è diverso a questo proposito. Tuttavia in generale esiste una tendenza a seguire alcuni modelli specifici. Il concetto di 'power-sharing' e le varie modalità di collocazione dei suoi elementi principali può influenzare notevolmente la situazione delle minoranze in un paese; pertanto tali ordinamenti sono considerati importanti e necessari per l'analisi comparativa. La tesi conclude proprio con questa analisi, mettendo in evidenza le soluzioni offerte dai casi studio, le loro somiglianze e differenze, punti di forza e di debolezza, i problemi riscontrati, le soluzioni offerte per risolverli e le opportunità per lo sviluppo di tali modelli in futuro. ; XXIV Ciclo

Multiculturalism's entry into the theoretical realm has helped many societies to solve the problems and conflicts on the basis of religion, language, and ethnicity. Many countries are making an effort to protect the rights of minorities on multicultural lines. India, being one of the plural countries, has several provisions in its Constitution to protect the rights of the minorities. Certain similarities between prescriptions of multiculturalism and provisions on rights of minorities in the Indian Constitution have led to consider Indian Constitution as multicultural document. Such considerations can be assessed by looking at the interface between ideas on protection of minority rights and practice of the same in country's more than six decades of democratic life

Tagungsbericht: Mahler, Claudia ; Weiß, Norman: Konferenz "Consolidating Antracism and Minority Rights: CriticalApproaches" / veranstaltet von der Forschergruppe Restra, dem Institut für Menschenrechte, der Abo Akademi University und dem Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, der University of Lappland sowie dem Deutschen Institut für Menschenrechte und dem Finnland-Institut in Deutschland am 12., 13. Juni