An Effective International Regime?

In the present scholarly paper, the author presents an overview of the current status of the rights of minorities in Europe. The analysis includes the historic perspective regarding human rights in general and the emergence of the concept of minority rights, as well as the mechanisms put in place at the European level for the protection of these rights. The main promoters of ethnic minority policies are the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. The importance given to the subject of minority rights is highlighted through the very existence of the High Commissioner on National Minorities whose purpose is to identify and seek early resolution of ethnic tensions that might endanger peace, stability or friendly relations between OSCE participating States or within the OSCE region. In the last part, the author analyzes a specific European country – Romania, in terms of its efforts to protect the rights of minorities and the measures that should be implemented to continue to enhance protection of these rights, as suggested by the latest report of the High Commissioner on National Minorities from 2019.

Enjoying control over knowledge production, epistemic communities are central to international politics in guiding decision-maker learning. Yet, we do not understand fully the extent of epistemic community influence on diverse issue areas and the ways in which they drive international regimes. To illustrate an epistemic community's impact, we investigate the role of experts in the EU, the OSCE and the Council of Europe within the European minority rights regime. Conceptually, we argue that a hierarchy among experts matters for the epistemic community's influence via policy innovation, diffusion and persistence. Empirically, we track the operation of these mechanisms in the context of EU enlargement as experts on minority rights influence standard-setting, monitoring and standard expansion.

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.

This study examines the history of minority rights in international law. It begins with the early recognition of minority rights, including the Treaty of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna, and the emergence of the concept of national minorities in Europe. The article examines minority rights in Europe during the Congress of Berlin and the interwar activities of the League of Nations. Post-World War II developments are explored, with a focus on UN minority recognition. The article also emphasises the role of international human rights legislation in protecting minority rights through treaties like the ICCPR and CRC. It also examines the regional human rights protection mechanisms in Europe, America, Africa, and the Arab region. The paper sheds light on modern minority rights issues like self-determination, cultural rights, political representation, equality, non-discrimination, etc. At the same time, the article also identifies sovereignty, globalisation, terrorism, and nationalist and populist movements as barriers to the process of recognising and protecting minority rights. The conclusion summarises the findings and guides future studies, highlighting the need to maintain and enhance minority rights globally while balancing complex and competing interests.

Europe's political history is the history of minorities, whether they are ethnic, linguistic, religious, or otherwise. Even before the Great Awakening in the nineteenth century, the place of minorities within nation-building projects has been questioned. However, as Europe has evolved towards more liberal, democratic systems of government, there have been attempts to answer the “minority question” with an answer of everything from social integration to political empowerment. The role of minorities in Central and Eastern Europe was raised to the fore when the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union broke out at the end of the Cold War and in turn the European Union's (EU) inclusion of the “protection of national minorities” in the Copenhagen Criteria (1993). The distance to this point in Europe and the EU is the subject of Kirsten Shoraka's book. The author begins with the premise that the rise of human rights in the political acquis of the EU is a natural evolution towards a greater governance of minority rights in Europe. The books takes a two-level approach in looking first at the institutions of the EU, the Council of Europe (CoE), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Shoraka offers a thorough account of direct and potential institutions of minority rights protection and governance. Beginning with the EU, the author focuses on the development of human right institutions and legislation within the EU. In particular, the book discusses the introduction fundamental rightsintotheEU'sacquisfollowingtheTreatyoftheEuropeanUnion(1993).Later,the EUwouldgosofar astoestablishtheFundamental RightsAgency.Whilethebookdoes discuss the role of the CoE as a democracy and human rights promoter itself, the question of overlap and competition are completely left unaddressed throughout the analysis. Thisomissionis problematic because ofthe roles,remits,and memberships of the two organizations. The discussion also takes into account the OSCE and its early focus on minority rights as a form of regional conflict. The author looks at the origin of minority rights

International regimes continue to develop in international politics across different issue areas ranging from trade to the environment, human rights and security. In IR scholarship international regimes have been described as a ‘hot topic’ (Donnelly 1986) and a ‘growth industry’ (Levy et al. 1995). Recent work identifies the ‘emerging density and complexity’ of international regimes (Alter and Meunier 2009, p.13). In this chapter we situate our case study within the rich and fairly complex international regimes literature and the extensive European integration literature. First, we discuss the debates in the scholarly literature to clarify what we mean by an international regime. Second, we turn to explore the genesis of our case which is arguably found in the human rights regime established in post-war Europe. Third, we discuss the shift from human rights to minority rights following the end of the Cold War. This shift heralded the formation of the European minority rights regime. Fourth, in order to help explain the formation of the regime we return to the theoretical literature to consider the main causal factors set out in regime analysis: interests, power and knowledge. We suggest that while these three perspectives provide some insights for the formation of our case, they go only so far. In particular, we argue that these three causal factors have limited utility in explaining the operation of the European minority rights regime.

Separatism is a highly topical and controversial legal and political issue. This book reviews the European inter-governmental approach in international law and politics through analysis of issues related to the moral recognition and ethical acceptance of national minorities. Examining issues of sub-state nationalisms, group recognition, identity, and political participation, it reveals assumptions in international law and politics about state sovereignty, collective rights, loyalty, and political inclusion. Employing both theoretical analysis and practical examples, the book provides a new framework for the accommodation of national minorities in Europe that aims to address the problems which have emerged from both international law and European relations since 1989. Part I examines the emerging national minority rights scheme since 1989, and explores concepts of the nature and scope of national minority rights. The book suggests that these rights have perhaps been mis-categorised and under-explored. Part II examines the discourse in the light of contemporary political theory on nationalism and multiculturalism, and the politics of identity, difference, and recognition, as well as discursive approaches to democracy. Based upon these analyses, the book develops an alternative framework for national minority accommodation based upon multiple loyalties, critical citizenship, and discursive justice. This alternative model overcomes the dichotomies of individualism-collectivism and universalism-particularism, contending that minority rights should be seen as collective political autonomy rights rather than as individual cultural human rights. Using this model, Part III examines the assumptions underlying the politics of democratisation, taking as examples the work of the Council of Europe and the politics of European Union integration. The book questions the ability of the national minority rights discourse to inform international law in its efforts to protect national minorities in an ethical manner. Instead, it contends that the complex processes of constitutionalism in the realm of European integration might provide a better way to accommodate national minorities.

Conceptually, group rights are problematic in a number of ways. Which groups should get these extra rights? What if the groups overlap? Which rights should be granted to the group not already given to the individuals? What if the group rights clash with the individual’s rights? Cultural rights are the only type of rights referring to individuals as members of a community. Language is a key factor in discussions about cultural communities, in particular national or ethnic minorities. Politically, minority rights became the focus of debate in the early 1990s, primarily as a result of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. This debate has been more intense than in other parts of the world, although the decade for indigenous peoples in the UN has given indigenous rights—mostly a particular form of minority rights—more worldwide prominence. Institutionally, this political attention for minorities in Europe has been translated into political and/or legal instruments in different organizations that all play their part in the European political architecture: the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the EU. The case of the Netherlands ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities can be used to illustrate the conceptual, political and institutional complexities. Promoting minority rights in Europe is primarily a matter of implementing and using the different tools available.

The European Union, the OSCE and the Council of Europe have all been engaged in promoting minority rights protection in CEE. As the three European organizations have all had some responsibility for minority rights, it is important to consider whether overlap has existed in terms of their functional scope and whether this overlap has had an impact on the effectiveness of the European minority rights regime. In Chapter 3 we posited that overlap has existed among the three organizations in their shared promotion of minority rights. Thus, IO overlap is our third potential explanatory variable for regime effectiveness. We need to uncover whether interorganizational overlap has led to a positive or negative impact on the regime. Has this overlap meant consensus on minority rights among the European organizations or has it led to competition over the organizations' respective remits?

This article provides an overview of the implementation of the rights of European national, ethnic or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples in 2022, in the fields of administration of justice, public administration and public services. Relevant legal developments are presented in the activities of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe. These legal developments include not only resolutions and decisions of the relevant monitoring bodies, but also jurisprudence when applicable. Special attention is paid to the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which are the most important international treaties on the rights of minorities in Europe.

This article provides an overview of the implementation of the rights of European national, ethnic or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples in 2020, in the fields of administration of justice, public administration, participation, citizenship and tranfrontier exchanges. Relevant legal developments are presented in the activities of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe. Special attention is paid to the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which are the most important international treaties on the rights of minorities in Europe.

This article provides an overview of the implementation of the rights of European national, ethnic or linguistic minorities, and indigenous peoples in 2021, in the fields of the administration of justice, public administration, participation, transfrontier exchanges and citizenship. Relevant legal developments in the activities of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe are presented. Special attention is paid to the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which are the most important international treaties on the rights of minorities in Europe.

This article provides an overview of European minorities’ language rights in the administration of justice, public administration, and public services in 2019. Relevant legal developments are presented in the activities of the major international organizations, i.e. the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe. Since the most relevant treaties on the language rights of minorities in Europe are the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, special attention is paid to the implementation thereof. Whereas international monitoring mechanisms devoted to the effective protection of minorities are abundant, language rights of national minorities receive less attention, especially in the fields of official language use, that is, in public administration and justice. The regulation of these areas has been traditionally considered as almost exclusively belonging to the states’ competence, and international organizations are consequently reluctant to interfere. As a result, the official use of minority languages differs in the various countries of Europe, with both good practices (e.g. the Netherlands, Spain, Finland) and unbalanced situations (e.g. Estonia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan).

The aim of this article is to reassess the development and consolidation of minority rights in Europe with reference to Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights and to his own critique of the European minority rights framework. The article begins by revisiting the development of new minority rights norms within the security-focused agenda of the early 1990s. It then considers the role of the first OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities in promoting a more justice-oriented approach before considering the significance of the coming into force of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the development of the work of its Advisory Committee. The article argues that there is evidence that a more justice-oriented approach to the realisation of European minority rights standards is emerging, particularly under the Framework Convention.

The aim of this article is to reassess the development and consolidation of minority rights in Europe with reference to Kymlicka's liberal theory of minority rights and to his own critique of the European minority rights framework. The article begins by revisiting the development of new minority rights norms within the security-focused agenda of the early 1990s. It then considers the role of the first OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities in promoting a more justice-oriented approach before considering the significance of the coming into force of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the development of the work of its Advisory Committee. The article argues that there is evidence that a more justice-oriented approach to the realisation of European minority rights standards is emerging, particularly under the Framework Convention.