International Order, Diversity Regimes and Minority Rights

Abstract

In this chapter we employ the “diversity regime” theory recently developed by Reus-Smit to investigate how international minority rights norms that have evolved since the League of Nations period have structured, legitimised and stabilised the international order via diversity regimes. We also show how minorities, the subjects of these norms, have contributed to this norm evolution. Our analysis shows that, rather than “clear break” theories, changes in diversity regimes are better understood through a focus on continuities and potentials for recalibration along with emerging political opportunities. We argue that diversity regimes are not binary along collective or individual rights but instead are characterised by hybridity. While minority rights norms have become more universal since the League of Nations period, groups that do not fit easily into the national, ethnic, religious or linguistic categories are not well protected. The use of these recognised categories also denotes that the “authorised forms of cultural difference” are strictly controlled and limited. The right to self-determination of peoples has been used conversely to create formal equality between recognised units of political authority (e.g., empires, states) and to create hierarchy within territorial borders. While the creation of minority rights protection in international law has forged a recognition contract with ethno-cultural minorities that helps to legitimise political authority, the same law has also served to control the aspirations of these groups.