Suchergebnisse

Do de jure constitutional rights impact de facto protection of those rights? Under immense pressure to democratize as a result of the Arab Spring, several Arab countries including the North African nations of Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia have recently adopted formal constitutions employing a broad spectrum of human rights language. However, it remains a question whether these constitutional reforms actually lead to more protection of human rights or whether they are merely for window dressing.

The central purpose of this research is to investigate the main progresses in promoting European integration strategies, social cohesion and sense of belonging (both global and European citizenship) within and by the European Union, taking into account the new multicultural realities of our globalized world; promoting a new model of integration which does involve neither homogenization nor hegemonization, allowing for both protection of human rights and the preservation of cultural values. Integration is in fact considered as a key element of the European Union's migration policy, as well as a crucial element for the future development of European societies, besides the very identity of Europe itself. To this end a comparison is made between the classic and contemporary cosmopolitan theories and the human rights theory, in order to discover if and in which way they may or should complement each other. The idea of cosmopolitanism is questioned and criticized in parallel with the classical Westphalian sovereignty model, which represented and still represents the dominant governance model of international law and relations, notwithstanding the recent rise and development of international global institutions and non-governmental actors, proposing an alternative and new model of "global governance". I therefore analyze the relationship between two famously conflicting ideologies of human rights: universalism and cultural relativism, in their philosophical and metaethical meaning of the liberal-communitarian debate; in the historical perspective of the post cold-war scenario, which saw the rise and establishment of an international community based on a "common view and scope" and on allegedly "shared values and principles". The main purpose here is the one of investigating whether or not those values and principles, certified and promoted by the UDHR and other important treaties and declarations since 1948, can be really considered universal and universally shared, besides all cultural differences and relativism. I consider these issues as historically and ideologically related to the actual structure of the international and European system of protection of minorities and cultural diversity, which developed on a parallel although different line. The main intention here is the one of investigating merits and faults of this system, analyzing the new concept and definition of minorities in the European Union context, the European Union competences in this field and the possible mutual cooperation between the EU and other international actors acting for the protection of minority rights. Following OHCHR indications, there is still "no internationally agreed definition as to which groups constitute a minority", while it is always stressed the fact that the existence of a minority should be recognized as a matter of fact and that any definition must include both objective and subjective aspects (race, ethnicity, language or religion but also identity and sense of belonging). I eventually evaluate different models of integration and European mechanisms of protection of cultural diversity, suggesting a path for a new model of European integration and human rights protection. The role of both states and supranational institutions like the European Union in protecting those rights is considered as essential in this respect.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute towards heightened awareness about international and comparative systems for protection of minority rights, as a necessary element of integration in a democratic society, and towards avoidance of its shadow - a social fragmentisation. Sublimated best practices are offered not as legal transplants, but as a resource for possible solutions. The methodology encompasses legal analysis of hard and soft law applicable to minority rights, comparative analyses of best practices for integration of minorities from several states (Croatia, Denmark, France, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia and the UK) as well as analyses of responses to questionnaires by state and nonstate actors. The results are scrutinized via multi-disciplinary and human rights approaches; with an emphasis on the civil society's role as a crosscutting issue. The results of the research show that the concept of a multiethnic integrated society needs to be constantly clarified and promoted by the Government institutions, which should underscore it as a strategic priority among majority and minority communities in the Republic of Macedonia; and that a cautious approach needs to be applied to avoid social fragmentisation on ethnic and cultural bases. The results will be disseminated and explained at the September International Conference of the Law Faculty in Stip. Communication of the results includes use of scientific repositories, press releases and use of social media.

Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country, and Muslims in this country live in a pluralistic society harmoniously in their daily life. The absence of any reference to Islam in the Constitution shows that Indonesia is open to all religions besides Islam. The harmony of relationship among religious followers is preserved in the Indonesian constitution that acknowledges all of citizens have the religious freedom, which the state has to respect, protect and fulfill. The general idea of preserving the rights of religious freedom lies in the history of protecting religious minorities, and it is universally acceptable as one of the foundations of a democratic society. Therefore, ideally, a law which limits civil rights should never threaten the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, or impose limitations to those rights solely on the grounds of religious, political or other views. If the notion of protecting rights is as such, then the question arises is what mechanism can protect human rights as constitutional rights of citizens? The best legal mechanism in this context is to challenge the state and constitutional issues through the courts by means of the judicial review. This paper examines whether the judicial review as one of the best mechanisms to protect constitutional rights of citizens can be a concrete way to deal with human rights protection by challenging the state through the court. This paper concludes that the judicial review of executive acts and legislative power is very likely to be able to protect religious minority rights in Indonesia

On the basis of comparative law, this paper analyzes the issues of national minorities in three BRICS member-states (Brazil, India and Russia), and considers the directions and trends of the constitutionalization of national minority rights in these states. The authors argue that the coordination of the interests of industrial companies, regional communities and national minorities, alongside the establishment of common standards between BRICS are vital in order to ensure the sustainable growth of the economies of its member-states. The main comparison criteria are as follows: the understanding of the term "national minority" in different jurisdictions; the delimitation of powers of federative and regional authorities; a list of national minority rights; and instruments of representation and legal protection of national minorities. In regards to Brazil, this article focuses on the impact of the historic concept of racial democracy on contemporary policy on the issues of national minorities. For India the focus is on case law of the Supreme Court on minority issues, and for Russia the focus is on the protection of indigenous "small-numbered" peoples. The authors conclude that the direction of the constitutionalization of national minority rights differs dramatically in Brazil, India and Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a common understanding of the purpose of such constitutionalization, which is namely, to preserve the identity of such minorities in the process of their gradual involvement in modern economic structures and national processes.

The topic for this article is the narrative of discrepancies between the minority rights that the European Union (EU) demands of potential candidate states, itself, and the current member states. Several scholars on the Western Balkans have noted that EU conditionality towards the Balkans; first within the Regional Approach and since the Stability and Association Process (SAP) have demanded the establishment of collective minority rights and active state duty for their protection, while the EUs internal approach to minority rights is based on the principle of non-discrimination. In this article, I will review whether this narrative has root in a real double standard. Second, I will look into why either the narrative or the double standard has been established, and finally whether it is a reasonable policy or narrative to cultivate. The article will start out with an introduction to the differences between individual and collective rights, and positive and negative state duties. Following this, there will be a chapter on the traditional use of collective rights Yugoslavia before the wars. Third will follow an account and analysis of the human rights regimes currently in use within the EU. Fourth will be a section describing the demands concerning minority rights that the EU has for SAP members. Finally, there will be a conclusion comparing the use of individual and collective minority rights historically in Yugoslavia, currently in the EU, and in EU conditionality towards the post-Yugoslavian states. The reason for asking this question is closely linked with EU soft power. The concept of EU conditionality towards third countries and potential future member states was first applied to the Western Balkans. If we consider the EU a force for peace and prosperity, which the EU certainly does itself and which the award of the Nobel Peace prize also suggests, then the preservation of its soft power is important. In Joseph Nye's conceptualisation, soft power is getting others to do what you want by making them want what you want. When UK diplomat Robert Cooper analysed EU soft power specifically, he found it to rest on three things, protection, recipe for success, and participation. If a double standard is present between EU domestic policy and conditionality as the authors displayed above suggest, then the EU is not sharing its recipe for success with candidate states, and is undermining the option of participation for SAP states by making it harder to become member states. Such a situation could dent EU soft power and thereby its potential positive influence on human rights development within and outside the union.

Minority rights conditionality has been seen by scholars as a key part of the EU enlargement process. While the focus on minority rights has largely been discussed in terms of democracy and even human rights, this article argues that conditionality was a result of the securitization of minorities rather than part of an agenda to protect or empower. In this article, we look at the methods of desecuritization as factors of 'narratives, norms and nannies'. In response to Paul Roe's conclusions about the impossibility of desecuritizing societal security, we examine whether the EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe have the ability to change the societal dynamics among ethnic groups in such a way as to make the desecuritization of societal security more likely. Overall, we illustrate how a focus on 'deconstructivist' and 'constructivist' approaches to societal security has failed to make European organizations important transformative actors in interethnic relations.

1\. Introduction 5 2\. The EU and Minority Rights 7 2.1 Any Standards of the EU on Minority Rights? 7 2.2 The Demands of the EU from Turkey in Regard to Minority Rights 8 3\. Minority Rights in Turkey Prior to the Reforms 10 4\. Compliance with Minority Rights in Turkey: Formal Rule Adoption and Behavioral Adoption 12 4.1 1999-2001: Preparation Phase 13 4.2 2002-2004: Progress as the Acceleration of Reforms 14 4.2.1 Formal Rule Adoption 14 4.2.2 Behavioral Adoption 16 4.3 2005-2007: Slow down of the Reform Process 19 4.3.1 Formal Rule Adoption 19 4.3.2 Behavioral Adoption 20 4.4 2008-2010: Revival of the Reform Process 23 4.4.1 Formal Rule Adoption 23 4.4.2 Behavioral Adoption 26 4.5 So What is Left? 29 5\. Is there a Compliance Puzzle with Minority Rights in Turkey? 30 Literature 32 ; The Helsinki Summit in 1999 represents a turning point for EU–Turkey relations. Turkey gained status as a formal candidate country for the EU providing a strong incentive to launch democratic reforms for the ultimate reward of membership. Since 2001, the country has launched a number of reforms in minority rights. Many controversial issues, such as denial of the existence of the Kurds, or the lack of property rights granted to non-Muslim minorities in the country, have made progress. Even though the reforms in minority rights may represent a tremendous step for the Europeanization process of Turkey, the compliance trend in minority rights is neither progressive nor smooth. While there is a consensus within the literature about the acceleration of reforms starting in 2002 and the slow down by 2005 in almost all policy areas, scholars are divided into two camps regarding the continuing slow down of the reform process or the revival of the reforms since 2008. I argue, in the present paper, that the compliance process with minority rights in Turkey is puzzling due to the differentiated outcome and the recent revival of behavioral compliance. I aim to shed light on the empirical facts in the least-likely area for reform in the ...

PUBLISHED ; In 2015, Ireland became the first country in the world to introduce same-sex marriage by popular referendum. In just 22 years, the country had gone from criminalising sexual activity between men to endorsing same-sex marriage. This result was warmly welcomed by gay rights activists around the world, but some raised concerns over the appropriateness of a referendum as a mechanism for protecting minority rights. One commentator referred to itas an ?indignity,? noting that it was unseemly to put the civil rights of a historically oppressed minority to a popular vote. A proper appraisal of the Irish referendum, however, requires an appreciation its legal and social context. The referendum was held because relevant political actors believed that same-sex marriage required a constitutional amendment, which can only be accomplished by a referendum. The Irish referendum, therefore, cannot be understood as narrowly populist or majoritarian but instead should be seen as part of a consensus-building process required for constitutional amendment. While putting minority votes to a referendum came with costs?most significantly, the public dissection of the private lives of those who stood to benefit from the reform?the required consensus-building also had positive implications for members of the gay community. In short, it produced a much greater level of social acceptance than would likely have been achieved through either judicial or legislative recognition of a right to same-sex marriage. These benefits would likely not have arisen, however, if a referendum had been a choice on the part of political actors rather than a legal necessity. It is therefore unlikely that the Irish experience, whatever its merits, can be straightforwardly translated to other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the Irish referendum campaign yields some lessons for other activist campaigns for same-sex marriage.In particular, I suggest that the storytelling of gay people?and the responses of their fellow citizens?may have been more significant than the articulation of more public values, such as equality.I begin with a brief account of how gay rights developed in Ireland prior to the movement for marriage equality. I then consider the legal arguments that bore on the questions of whether the Constitution either protected a right of same-sex couples to marry or precluded parliament from legislatively introducing same-sex marriage. I then explore the political moves that led to the 2015 referendum before assessing the key features of the referendum campaign, in both its public and private dimensions. I conclude by reviewing the appropriateness of putting minority right to a referendum, before identifying some lessons for political campaigners that arise from the Irish referendum campaign.

This paper examines divisions between majority and minority ethnic groups over attitudes towards minority rights in 13 East European societies. Using national sample surveys and multilevel models, we test the effectiveness of competing explanations of ethnic polarization in attitudes towards minority rights, as well as regional and cross-national differences in levels of polarization. We find that, at the individual level, indicators of 'social distance' (inter-marriage and social interaction) account most effectively for the extent of ethnic polarization. However, regional and cross-national variations in polarization between majority and minority groups are explained most effectively by cultural (linguistic and religious) differences. These findings accord with research in the West, indicating the importance of cultural differences as a source of ethnic polarization, while offering little support for theories focusing on economic and structural factors or the size of minority groups. They also suggest the likely sources of difficulties for democratic consolidation in ethnically divided post-communist societies.

The current "minority crisis" in the Middle East can be considered an existential crisis as it tends to exclude hundreds of thousands of members of religious minorities from the public sphere and political life, while multidimensional violence force many of them to take refuge abroad. This chapter adopts a perspective of political sociology in order to shed light on the complex relation between the local political power which claims sovereignty and the exclusive use of "legitimate violence" - "the state" - on the one hand, and victimized and powerless religious communities, on the other hand.

The current "minority crisis" in the Middle East can be considered an existential crisis as it tends to exclude hundreds of thousands of members of religious minorities from the public sphere and political life, while multidimensional violence force many of them to take refuge abroad. This chapter adopts a perspective of political sociology in order to shed light on the complex relation between the local political power which claims sovereignty and the exclusive use of "legitimate violence" - "the state" - on the one hand, and victimized and powerless religious communities, on the other hand.

The current "minority crisis" in the Middle East can be considered an existential crisis as it tends to exclude hundreds of thousands of members of religious minorities from the public sphere and political life, while multidimensional violence force many of them to take refuge abroad. This chapter adopts a perspective of political sociology in order to shed light on the complex relation between the local political power which claims sovereignty and the exclusive use of "legitimate violence" - "the state" - on the one hand, and victimized and powerless religious communities, on the other hand.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 277-288) and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This paper investigates to what extent is consociational power-sharing compatible with and supportive of key principles of minority rights. For this, it analyses the Dayton Agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Ohrid Accord for North Macedonia to understand how minority rights has been shaped by the consociational arrangements in both states. Linked by a common past and interconnected socio-political dynamics, both countries are engaged in a process of stabilization and consolidation of their democratic and institutional structures in the broader context of convergence and respect for fundamental rights. In the body politic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and North Macedonia, consociation in practice means integrating the interests and concerns of various groups in policy formulation and decision-making. The purpose is to minimize the prospects of conflicts and facilitate social, political, and economic improvement in an atmosphere of peace for all citizens. It was a question of reaching a balance between the divergent positions and existential fears to guarantee both immediate and progressive stability, from peacebuilding to peace-enforcing. In addition, the consociational modalities provided the most obvious and acceptable framework for mediating mistrust and enmity between the diverse groups amid structural weaknesses. Hence, examining minority rights in both states is essential regarding the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights. This position gains more eminence due to human dignity, diversity, and a sense of pride in one's own culture and identity. Nevertheless, this paper uncovers that the protection of minority rights in the power-sharing systems is without problems as minorities encounter challenges in projecting their interests.