Chapter 6 Self-Determination and Minority Protection after Kosovo

2011 ◽  
pp. 179-212
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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derya Bayir

Within international law, the concept of self-determination has evolved over the years so as to reveal an external dimension, often associated with secession, and an internal dimension, entailing participatory democracy, minority protection in the context of pluralist co-existence within the territories of a state. An examination of the interpretation of self-determination by the Constitutional Court in Turkey shows, however, that the Court has statically endorsed the former, conservative viewpoint, which reinforces Turkey's militantly nationalist, democracy. This article explains the development of the right of self-determination in international law and examines the Turkish Constitutional Court's case law in that light. In a study of the case law on party closures in Turkey, it evaluates the extent to which the Constitutional Court's archaic and anti-democratic interpretation has created a legality undermining the ethno-cultural and political demands for the rights of Kurds in Turkey.Tirkiye, Kurd û derbenda zagonî ya mafê biryardana çarenûsDi nav dorbenda zagona navnetewî da konsepta mafê biryardana çarenûs piştî gelek salan guheriye. Ev guherîn ji aliyekî ve rehendeka derveyî eşkere dike ku bi cudaxwaziyê ve têkildar e; ji aliyê din ve jî rehendeka hindirîn eşkere dike ku vê yekê rê daye demokrasiya beşdar û parastina kêmaniyan di konteksta pevrejiyaneka piranîgir/pluralîst di nav sînorên dewletê da. Lê belê, hûrnêrîneka li şîrovekirina mafê biryardana çarenûs ji layê Dadgeha Qanûna Bingehîn li Tirkiyeyê nîşan dide ku vê dadgehê herdem nêrîna pêşîn ya kevneparêz pesend kiriye ku vê jî rê daye xurtkirina demokrasiyeka neteweperest a mîlîtan. Ev gotar geşebûna mafê biryardana çarenûs di zagona navnetewî da rave dike û bi vê rêkê hewl dide ku dozeka Dadgeha Qanûna Bingehîn a Tirkan vekole. Bi xebateka li ser dozeka zagonî derbareyê girtina partiyan li Tirkiyeyê, ev gotar dinirxîne bê ta çi astî şîroveyên Dadgeha Zagonî yên kevneparêz û dij-demokratîk têgihiştineka qanûnî ava kiriye ku peşkê li daxwazên etno-çandî yên Kurdên li Tirkiyeyê dixe.  تورکیا، کورد، و ڕەهێلە یاساییەکانی ماف و مافی چارەی خۆنووسین لە یاسای نێونەتەوەیی دا، چەمکی مافی چارەی خۆنووسین کە بە درێژایی ساڵان لە گەشەکردن دابووە، لایەنێکی دەرەکی هەیە کە گەلێک جاران لە پەیوەندی لە گەڵ دابڕان و جودایی خۆازی باسی لێکراوە، ولایەنێکی نێوخۆیی کە گوزارە لە دیموکراسی بەشداربووانە و پاراستنی کەمینە لە زەمینەی ژیانی هاوبەشی پلوڕالیستی لە نێو خاکی دەوڵەتێک دا دەکات. پێداچوونەوەیەکی دادگای یاسای بنەڕەتی تورکیا لە سەر خویندنەوەی مافی چارەی خۆنووسین، هەر ڕێگا بە هەمان بۆچوونی کۆنەپارێزانە دەدات کە لە ڕاستی دیموکراسی ناسیۆنالیسمی میلیتان بە هێزدەکات. ئەم نووسراوەیە باس لە گەشەکردنی مافی چارەی خۆنووسین لە یاسای نێونەتەوەیی دا دەکات و هەر لەم پەیوەندییە دا تیشک دەخاتە سەر دادگای یاسای بنەرەتی تورکیا و هەڵس و کەوتی لەم کەیسە یاساییە تایبەتە دا. لیکولینەوەیەک کە لە سەر کەیسی یاسا لە پەیوەندی بە داخستنی پارتە سیاسییەکان لە تورکیا ئەنجام دراوە، نیشانی دەدات کە هەتا چ رادەیەک خویندنەوەی کۆن و دژە دیمۆکراتیکی دادگای یاسای بنەڕەتی تورکیا، بۆتە هۆکاری لەباربردن و بنهڵۆل کردنی زەمینەی یاسایی داواکارییە کولتوری، ئیتنیکی و سیاسییەکانی کورد لە تورکیا. وشە سەرەکییەکان: مافی چارەی خۆنووسین، کورد، دادگای یاسای بنەرەتی تورکیا، ئۆتۆنۆمی، دیمۆکراسی


Author(s):  
Leonard V. Smith

The Paris Peace turned to population policies when and where it could not draw boundaries to suit peoples. Plebiscites, ostensibly the most democratic of population policies, took place in the context of choices already having been made as to the territories in which plebiscites would be held, and who could vote in them. Treaties for minority protection sought to guarantee ethnic or religious difference within the ethno-national state. Successor states bitterly contested them as an infringement of state sovereignty. The racial categorization of the mandates constituted a territorial policy transformed into a population policy. Peoples were classified according to how avidly the mandatory power sought direct annexation of the territory in question. “Population exchanges” simply carried a certain version of “national self-determination” to one logical conclusion. With the tacit approval of the conference, peoples were categorized and forcibly relocated for reasons of state.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document