Minority Protection Within the Concept of Self-Determination

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-80
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Schreuder

Astract:Does contemporary international law offer sufficient and effective means to prevent any future secession by national minorities? In order to answer this question, general international instruments concerning minority-protection, as well as more recent international instruments designed specifically for the protection of minorities, will be investigated. The role that a guaranteeing of collective and, in particular, political rights to national minorities have or can have in order to prevent future secession by national minorities, will be given special consideration. It will be concluded that, in the author's view, the above-mentioned question must be answered negatively, and that an extension of political and collective rights for national minorities is needed, in order to enable a prevention of future secessionist claims by national minorities.

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-192
Author(s):  
Roberta Medda-Windischer

In international law, minority rights instruments have been traditionally conceived for, and applied to, old minority groups with the exclusion of new minority groups originating from migration. Yet, minority groups, irrespective of their being old or new minorities, can be subsumed under a common definition and have some basic common claims. This allows devising a common but differentiated set of rights and obligations for old and new minority groups alike. This paper argues that the extension of the scope of application of legal instruments of minority protection, such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), is conceptually meaningful and beneficial to the integration of new minorities stemming from migration. 


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-272
Author(s):  
Parvathi Menon

The legitimacy of secessionist movements has emerged as an important debate, while the protection of minorities within a democracy has become merely of peripheral interest to international law. My project suggests that the advent of universalized (minority) rights re-conceptualized the majority-minority relationship and its balance, reducing the possibilities of political processes to balance the relationship. What was construed as a redress for dichotomous relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed through (the right to) self-determination, became a discourse between minority (identity) rights and a democratic entitlement, post-colonially. These norms universalized a demand to rethink minority protection, no longer from the perspective of advantaged and disadvantaged; rather, to introduce perspectives of individuals polarized around a personal characteristic in their identity thus establishing/reinforcing the inferiority of their identity within the hierarchy.


1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-130 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractEthnic Germans have traditionally been living in a number of other European states as national minorities. These minorities can in accordance with international law count on the support of their mother country as a protective power. During the Cold War, such German initiatives were often seen in Eastern Europe as interference into internal affairs and accordingly rejected. After the end of the block confrontation a significant number of bilateral agreements have been concluded in which the rights of German minorities are addressed. In these treaties the CSCE/OSCE documents play an important role. Doubtless these documents have no legal force. In the light of the theory of law it seems of great interest that clauses concerning minority protection have been integrated into binding international treaties. The treaties between Germany and Central and Eastern European states are examples for the ongoing process of “legalising” politically binding norms. All include, in one way or another, a reference to the political CSCE/OSCE-agreements relevant for minority protection. The relevant regulations are not only confirmed as binding for the signatory states, but rather that they are, although to varying degrees, being declared as legally effective instruments in bilateral relations. This “upgrade”raises these political norms to norms of international law.


Author(s):  
Mitul Dutta ◽  
◽  
Navin Sinha ◽  

Under the international human rights regime, the right to self-determination is a right guaranteed to the groups of “people”. This right is one of the most controversial issues of international law as it comes into conflict with the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states. There are various uncertainties associated with this right regarding the scope of the right and mode of implementation etc. The present article seeks to make an in-depth analysis of the claimants of the right and the uncertainties associated with the meaning of the term “people” in the context of the right to self-determination. The article encompasses, among other things, the right of indigenous people under various international instruments and how they interrelate to the right of self-determination.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova

AbstractThe article examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with the concept of peoples and peoples' rights in its jurisprudence. Most prominent has been the Court's role with respect to the right of self-determination and it is this issue that forms the core of the article. A second important question dealt with is the role of indigenous peoples in ICJ case practice, as the struggle by those peoples to gain collective rights is a recent development in international law. Drawing on this analysis, the discussion proceeds to consider the role that the ICJ has played in the development of the rights of peoples in general and what its future role might be in this sphere of international law. The article also examines the way in which the Court has allowed peoples to participate in its proceedings and whether and how its treatment of peoples' rights has strengthened the general foundations of international law.


1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-416 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractThe Versailles Treaty sought to protect minorities by giving them their own state. This practice, labelled 'self-determination' has changed guise considerably post World War II. Paramount to the emancipation of colonies, it came to be the concept that legitimated the 'rule of the people' over that of their colonial masters. However post-colonial 'self-determined' states are often manufactured entities forced into the strait-jacket of Westphalian statehood; and unlike the states that emanated from the Westphalian Treaty, were given no time to evolve by themselves. As a result these states often house disparate sets of minorities that go unrepresented within the Statist discourse. Further, these states have attempted to suppress their minorities through the various policies associated with nation-building. Today, with secession an increasingly attainable form of self-determination, the question arises as to whether these minorities have a right to form a separate state. The international law of self-determination suggests that this is a right of all peoples. It however leaves the parameters of this 'peoplehood' undefined. This paper seeks to examine the discourse of minority rights within that of the international right to self determination. It seeks to trace the history of minority rights protection, and to examine the way in which minority rights are protected within current international law. In addition, it examines the parameters of peoplehood and concludes by looking at two cases where disaffected minorities in a post-colonial state sought to form their own state.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taryn Lee

Indigenous peoples in Australia have been adversely affected by the process of colonisation by the British Crown. Despite Australia’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘Declaration’), there is little evidence that it is an effective means of redressing the historical wrongs suffered by Indigenous communities in Australia. This essay outlines the experience of Indigenous peoples in Australia and examines the utility of the Declaration in international law. While observing that Indigenous peoples have had limited engagement with the Declaration, there is still potential for the Declaration to affect change through its underpinning principles of the right to self-determination and the status of Indigenous peoples as distinct political groups.


2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova

AbstractThis article will examine three international processes wherein the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples has been taken up: the process whereby the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration), the intention to negotiate a Nordic Saami Convention (Draft Convention) and the practice of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in monitoring the observance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant). All of these processes have enunciated indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, but any claim to such a right has met with resistance from the states, with the reasons for such resistance examined here. The aim is to study why it is so difficult to insert indigenous peoples into international law as category and, in particular, to have states accept their right to self-determination. In the conclusions, it is useful to ask whether the problems experienced in promoting the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples are mere setbacks or whether they contain elements that might inform the international movement of indigenous peoples more generally.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document