The Experts below are selected from a list of 34854 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Julie Ringelheim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Minority Rights in a time of multiculturalism the evolving scope of the framework convention on the protection of national minorities
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Julie RingelheimAbstract:This article examines the revival and transformation of Minority protection in Europe in the post-1989 era. Based on an exploration of the 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and related activities of the Advisory Committee to this Convention, it attempts in particular to discern how the new discourse on diversity that developed around the ideas of multiculturalism and pluralism contributes to re-shape the legal understanding of Minority Rights after 1989, compared to the traditional conception of Minority protection in international law. Two main issues are considered. First, discussions surrounding the legal definition of a Minority, with particular attention to the issue whether persons with an immigrant background can be included in this concept, are looked at. Second, with regard to the content of the protection, the emphasis is put on two aspects of the Convention which appear particularly significant, namely inter-cultural dialogue and democratic participation.
Patrick Macklem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Minority Rights in international law
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Patrick MacklemAbstract:Why should international human Rights law vest members of a Minority community - either individually or collectively - with Rights that secure a measure of autonomy from the state in which they are located? To the extent that the field offers answers to this question, it does so from its deep commitment to the protection of certain universal attributes of human identity from the exercise of sovereign power. It protects Minority Rights on the assumption that religious, cultural and linguistic affiliations are essential features of what it means to be human. There exists an alternative account of why Minority Rights possess international significance, one that trades less on the currency of religion, culture and language and more on the value of international distributive justice. On this account, international Minority Rights speak to wrongs that that international law itself produces by organizing international political reality into a legal order. This account avoids the normative instabilities of attaching universal value to religious, cultural and linguistic affiliation and instead challenges the international legal order to remedy pathologies of its own making.
-
Minority Rights in international law
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2008Co-Authors: Patrick MacklemAbstract:Why should international human Rights law vest members of a Minority community with Rights that secure a measure of autonomy from the state in which they are located? Answers to this question typically rest on a commitment to the protection of certain universal attributes of human identity from the exercise of sovereign power. Minority protection thus operates on the assumption that religious, cultural, and linguistic affi liations are essential features of what it means to be human. This essay offers an alternative account of why Minority Rights possess international signifi cance, one that trades less on the currency of religion, culture, and language and more on the value of international distributive justice. On this approach, international Minority Rights speak to wrongs that international law itself produces by organizing international political reality into a legal order. This account avoids the normative instabilities of attaching universal value to religious, cultural, and linguistic affi liation and, instead, challenges the international legal order to remedy pathologies of its own making. 1. In a kaleidoscopic redistribution of sovereign power after the First World War, the once-great Ottoman Empire ceased to exist, its territory divided, partitioned, and reallocated to friends and enemies alike. France received mandates from the League of Nations to govern Syria and Lebanon. The United Kingdom received mandates to govern Iraq, Palestine, and what eventually became Israel and Jordan. Turkish nationals repelled Allied forces occupying their country and established the Republic of Turkey, while huge swaths of the Arabian Peninsula became parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The instruments that invested these political developments with international legal validity dramatically reshaped the structure of the international legal order. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, for example, delineated the territorial sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey, replacing the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, which had been negotiated but not ratifi ed by the Ottoman Parliament. In doing so, the Treaty of Lausanne restored Turkey’s previous boundary with Bulgaria and Western Thrace, annulled the transfer of Smyrna to Greece, and relieved Turkey of postwar obligations to compensate Allied civilian nationals for wartime losses. The treaty also provided for extensive population exchanges between Turkey and Greece and repudiated Turkey’s
Maykel Verkuyten - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Support for Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: The Role of National Identification and Out-group Threat
Social Justice Research, 2009Co-Authors: Maykel VerkuytenAbstract:Support for multiculturalism and Minority Rights is examined in three studies among ethnic Dutch participants. Three models are tested for how national identification is related to perceived realistic and symbolic threats and to levels of support. Findings in all three studies are most in agreement with a ‘group identity lens’ model in which the relationship between national identification and support for multiculturalism is mediated by perceived threat. In addition, in Study 3, authoritarianism was independently related to threat and support for immigrant and Minority Rights and not indirectly through national identification. Findings across the three studies confirm the stability of the results and the usefulness of the group identity lens model for understanding reactions toward multiculturalism and Minority Rights.
-
muslim and non muslim adolescents reasoning about freedom of speech and Minority Rights
Child Development, 2008Co-Authors: Maykel Verkuyten, Luuk SlooterAbstract:An experimental questionnaire study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined adolescents’ reasoning about freedom of speech and Minority Rights. Muslim Minority and non-Muslim majority adolescents (12–18 years) made judgments of different types of behaviors and different contexts. The group membership of participants had a clear effect. Muslim participants were less in favor of freedom of speech if it involved the offending of religious beliefs and were more in favor of Muslim Minority Rights. There were also cross-group gender differences whereby parental practices that negatively affect females were more strongly rejected by Muslim females than by Muslim males and non-Muslim females and males. The findings are discussed with reference to social-cognitive domain theory and intergroup theories.
-
the endorsement of Minority Rights the role of group position national context and ideological beliefs
Political Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Maykel Verkuyten, Ali Aslan YildizAbstract:The present research was conducted in the Netherlands and used an experimental design to examine the endorsement of Minority Rights among Turkish and Kurdish participants in two framed, national contexts: the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch context, each group is a Minority, whereas in the Turkish context the Kurds are an oppressed national Minority and the Turks are the national majority. The results showed that the Turks were less in favor of Minority Rights in the Turkish context than in the Dutch context, whereas the Kurds were more in favor of Minority Rights in the Turkish than in the Dutch context. In addition, the endorsement of Minority Rights was related to beliefs about majority rule, state unity, and ingroup identification, as well as to cultural diversity and perceived pervasive discrimination. The associations with the former three measures differed between the two groups and the two national contexts, whereas the latter two measures had main effects on the endorsement of Minority Rights.
-
multicultural recognition and ethnic Minority Rights a social identity perspective
European Review of Social Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Maykel VerkuytenAbstract:Questions of multiculturalism give rise to lively and important debates in many countries and in many spheres of life. Diversity is considered desirable and necessary for the development of secure ethnic identities and positive self-feelings, but is also challenged for being inequitable and a threat to social cohesion. It is argued that the social identity perspective offers a useful framework for examining some of the key social psychological correlates and consequences of multicultural recognition. This perspective draws attention to status positions, ingroup identification, beliefs about the nature of ethnic groups, and perceptions of the social system. The first empirical section deals with the endorsement of multiculturalism in relation to majority – Minority group status and the perceived nature of Minority groups. Subsequently, the endorsement of multiculturalism is examined in relation to perceived structural discrimination, and the importance of social cohesion and stability. In the third empiric...
Will Kymlicka - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multiculturalism and Minority Rights in the arab world
2014Co-Authors: Will Kymlicka, Eva PfostlAbstract:1. Introduction PART I: THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 2. Minority Rights and Multiculturalism in the Arab World: A View from History and the Kurdish Periphery 3. Transformations in the Middle East: The Importance of the Minority Question 4. Minorities in the Arab World: Faults, Fault-lines and Co-existence 5. Arab Minorities, Liberalism, and Multiculturalism PART II: CASE STUDIES 6. Bringing the tribe back in? The Western Sahara dispute, ethno-history, and the imagineering of Minority conflicts in the Arab world 7. The Role of the Amazigh Movement in the Processes of Political Reform in Postcolonial Algerian Society 8. The Gulf's Servant Class 9. Hobbesian Citizenship: How the Palestinians Became a Minority in Israel 10. The Federalization of Iraq and the Break-Up of Sudan 11. How does the Arab World Perceive Multiculturalism and Treat its Minorities? The Assyro-Chaldeans of Iraq as a Case Study
-
the internationalization of Minority Rights
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2007Co-Authors: Will KymlickaAbstract:Debates concerning integration and accommodation are a familiar feature of the domestic political life of many countries. But these debates increasingly have an international dimension as well. International organizations can strongly influence the way state-Minority relations are framed and resolved, endorsing some models of accommodation while discouraging others. This paper attempts to explore which models of state-Minority relations and, hence, which types of Minority Rights, have been endorsed by international organizations, for which types of groups, and in which contexts. These are not simple questions to answer. Many international organizations have struggled with this issue for the past fifteen years without any clear resolution, and their current policies and practices are full of ambiguities and inconsistencies. The goal of this paper is to bring out some of these complexities, focusing particularly on how the Rights of indigenous peoples have been elaborated at the United Nations, and the way in which the Rights of national minorities have been discussed within European organizations. Very different assumptions and principles underlie the two cases, and each raises its own moral and political dilemmas.
-
national cultural autonomy and international Minority Rights norms
Ethnopolitics, 2007Co-Authors: Will KymlickaAbstract:Abstract Debates about the treatment of ethnocultural minorities are a familiar feature of the domestic political life of many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. But these debates are not solely domestic. The international community plays an increasingly important role in shaping these debates, endorsing some models of the accommodation of ethnocultural diversity while discouraging others. The long-term prospects for national-cultural autonomy (NCA), therefore, may depend on whether it is endorsed by influential international organizations, either as a “best practice” or “minimum standard”. This article examines the attitudes of European organizations towards NCA. While NCA has not played an important role to date in the thinking of these organizations, some important actors have called for more systematic study of its potential benefits and risks. Whether European organizations adopt norms and standards promoting NCA will depend on the prior question of which minorities are seen as the intended ben...
-
politics in the vernacular nationalism multiculturalism and citizenship
Canadian Journal of Sociology-cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, 2004Co-Authors: Will KymlickaAbstract:PART L. THE EVOLUTION OF Minority Rights DEBATE 1. The New Debate over Minority Rights 2. Liberal Culturalism: An Emerging Consensus? 3. Do We Need a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights? REPLY TO CARENS, YOUNG, PAREKH, AND FROST PART LL. ETHNOCULTURAL JUSTICE 4. Human Rights and Ethnocultural Justice 5. Minority Nationalism and Multination Federalism 6. Theorizing Indigenous Rights 7. Indigenous Rights and Environmental Justice 8. The Theory and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism 9. A Crossroad in Race Relations PART LLL. MISUNDERSTANDING NATIONALISM 10. From Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism to Liberal NATIONALISM 11. Cosmopolitanism, Nation-States, and Minority Nationalism 12. Misunderstanding Nationalism 13. The Paradox of Nationalism 14. American Multiculturalism in the International Arena 15. Minority Nationalism and Immigrant Integration PART LV: DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN MULTIETHNIC STATES 16. Education for Citizenship 17. Citizenship in an Era of Globalization: Commentary on Held 18. Liberal Egalitarianism and Civic Republicanism: Friends or Enemies?
-
multiculturalism and Minority Rights west and east
Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe : JEMIE, 2002Co-Authors: Will KymlickaAbstract:IntroductionCountries in post-communist Europe have been pressured to adopt Western standards or models of multiculturalism and Minority Rights. Indeed, respect for Minority Rights is one of the accession criteria that candidate countries must meet to enter the European Union (EU) and NATO. Candidate countries are evaluated and ranked in terms of how well they are living up to these standards (see EU Accession Monitoring Program OSI 2001).There are two interlinked processes at work here. First, we see the 'internationalizing' of Minority Rights issues. How states treat their minorities is now seen as a matter of legitimate international concern, monitoring and intervention. Second, this international framework is deployed to export Western models to newly-democratizing countries in Eastern Europe.This trend implicitly rests on four premises: (i) that there are certain common standards or models in the Western democracies; (ii) that they are working well in the West; (iii) that they are applicable to Eastern and Central Europe (hereafter ECE), and would work well there if adopted; (iv) that there is a legitimate role for the international community to play in promoting or imposing these standards.All four of these assumptions are controversial. Western countries differ amongst themselves in their approach to ethnic relations, and attempts to codify a common set of minimum standards or best practices have proven difficult. Moreover, the success of these approaches is often deeply contested within Western countries. Many citizens of Western democracies view their domestic policies towards ethnic relations as ineffective, if not actually harmful. The wisdom of 'exporting' these policies to ECE countries is even more controversial, both in the West and the East. Countries in post-Communist Europe differ significantly from Western countries (and from each other) in terms of history, demography, geopolitical stability, economic development and democratic consolidation. Given these differences, Western approaches may simply not be relevant or helpful, and attempts to impose them against the wishes or traditions of the local population can be counterproductive in terms of ethnic relations. So the decision to make Minority Rights one of the criteria for 'rejoining Europe' rests on a number of controversial assumptions. This decision was taken by Western leaders in the early 1990s, almost in panic, as a response to fears that ethnic conflict would spiral out of control across the post-Communist world. There was relatively little public debate or scholarly analysis about the wisdom of this decision, and it seems clear in retrospect that it was taken without a full consideration of its implications, or of the difficulties it raised.In my view, the time has come to have a vigorous and public debate about these four assumptions. Now that the initial panic about ethnic violence has subsided, and with relative peace throughout the region, we can afford to sit back and think more carefully about the potential and pitfalls of 'exporting' and 'internationalizing' Minority Rights.In a recent volume (Kymlicka and Opalski 2001), I attempted to explore these four basic assumptions in some depth. In this short article, I can only give a brief sketch of my conclusions.I. Western Trends Regarding Ethnocultural DiversityFirst, then, what do we mean by Western standards or models of multiculturalism and Minority Rights? Efforts have been made by various international organizations to formally codify a set of Minority Rights or multicultural practices, including the 1992 Declaration of the United Nations, the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Charter and the 1995 Framework Convention of the Council of Europe, and various Recommendations of the OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities (1996, 1998, 1999). In theory, theseembodythestandardsthat ECEcountriesareexpectedtomeet. …
Guido Schwellnus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reasons for constitutionalization non discrimination Minority Rights and social Rights in the convention on the eu charter of fundamental Rights
Journal of European Public Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Guido SchwellnusAbstract:ABSTRACT This article analyses proposals regarding non-discrimination, Minority Rights and social Rights as discussed in the Convention on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The article first develops a typology of arguments supporting the institutionalization of human Rights on the EU level: the salience of institutionalizing a specific norm on the EU level, because the integration process undermines domestic human Rights provisions unless they are also secured by the EU; the internal coherence of the norm with existing EU rules; and the external coherence of the norm with international human Rights instruments. The empirical sections establish to what extent these types of arguments play an important role in the argumentation process within the Charter Convention, and whether propositions justified on the basis of these arguments are successful, i.e. find their reflection in successive drafts and the final Charter text.