Postupak izbora nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina u Srbiji

This paper deals with the role of national minority councils through the prism of the concept of non-territorial autonomy. These councils were established as institutes for minority representation, aiming to strengthen the influence of national minorities on local and regional politics in the part related to their position. Similar forms of minority representation are established in most European countries and are often analysed within the concepts and distinction of non-territorial autonomy and territorial autonomy. As will be shown in the paper, territorial autonomy presupposes a much higher degree of autonomy for minority institutions in deciding on issues important for national minorities. It is more suitable for countries where these minorities reside in certain parts of the national territory. In practice, we often encounter minority political institutions that have features of non-territorial autonomy. These institutions can assume various forms and achieve different degrees of autonomy in deciding on local policies and affairs of interest to minority groups. Although councils of national minorities possess substantial democratisation potential and can significantly contribute to the position of national minorities, previous research does not support this claim. The purpose of this paper is twofold: (i) to determine whether national minority councils constitute an institutional form of non-territorial autonomy and (ii) to assess their actual role in promoting and protecting the interests of national minorities within local political processes. In order to examine this, the paper employs legal analysis, a review of secondary data available in scientific and professional literature, and a direct analysis of available data on the financing of national minority councils and voter participation in elections for these councils. The role of national minority councils is analysed in four aspects: the legal basis of non-territorial autonomy, the right to self-regulation, the right to establish own decision-making bodies and their scope of work, and their financing. In addition, the voter response to council elections is analysed as a possible indicator of the legitimacy of directly elected bodies. With regard to the legal basis of their establishment, it can be concluded that they enjoy the highest level of protection, having been established by constitutional law, which, due to the adoption procedure, holds a position between the Constitution and other organic laws. Furthermore, the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia guarantees members of national minorities the right to cultural autonomy, and the councils are an expression of the explicitly recognised collective rights of national minorities. They were established as a collective entity with legal personality. The legislator intended to establish councils as “minority self-government” institutions in local and regional self-government units. However, many authors state that, for a number of reasons, councils cannot be characterised as such. This brings us to their real role, manifested in the right of councils to self-regulation, self-organisation and the establishment of their own decision-making bodies as essential determinants of non-territorial autonomy. The councils adopt various acts, including a statute regulating important aspects of their operation, a work programme, a financial plan, a final account, and other internal acts governing matters crucial to their functioning. They also have their own decision-making bodies, primarily the president and deputy president of the council, and have the authority to establish other working bodies. However, the council’s powers are regulated by constitutional law and are reduced to a solely consultative role. Therefore, the question arises as to their actual influence in shaping political decisions related to the interests of national minorities, as they depend on the cooperation and will of local political actors in this regard. Another problem is the limited financial and administrative resources available for their functioning. The political legitimacy of the council, gained through minority electorate participation in elections, is also questionable, given the extremely low voter turnout across all election cycles. This is also an indicator of the council’s non-recognition as a relevant entity in protecting the rights of national minorities at the local level. To conduct a deeper analysis of the actual role of national minority councils and verify their influence in individual local communities, empirical research is necessary. The paper concludes that, although councils have a high level of legal protection, political legitimacy, internal bodies, and institutional experience, they are confined to a consultative role and lack significant influence over local political processes important for national minorities.

The basic law governing minority rights in the Republic of Croatia was adopted by The Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities (CARNM) in 2002. Among other things, it provides for the election of representatives of members of national minorities in accordance with a special election act. The unified election act – Act on the Election of Councils and Representatives of National Minorities (AECRNM), which regulates the election of members of national minority councils and representatives of national minorities in local and regional self-government units, entered into force on 14 March 2019, 17 years after the adoption of the CARNM. The first elections held under the provisions of that act were the elections of representatives and members of Councils of National Minorities, held in 2019, on 5 May (first round) and 19 May (second round). The 2019 elections went unnoticed by the Croatian press, with the exception of the involvement of some local media in areas with a larger population of members of national minorities. Apart from invisibility, another problem of the 2019 elections was the low voter turnout, from 10 to 24 percent, depending on the level of the self-government unit at which the elections were held. The empirical analysis of election results and Government Reports on the implementation of the CARNM seeks to answer the questions of the extent to which national minorities were politically active in the previous election cycle (2015–2019) and whether more generous funding of political activities affects voter turnout. The evaluation of the results is also an answer to the question of whether the adoption of the new act is a step forward in promoting the political rights of national minorities in Croatia and a guide for election participants to prepare activities for the new election cycle.

Zastupljenost nacionalnih manjina u hrvatskoj javnoj upravi: ocjena uspješnosti posebnih mjera zapošljavanja

The development and improvement of Ukrainian legislation on the protection of the rights of national minorities is an integral part of Ukraine’s state-building as a European, democratic state. Thus the article analyzes the new version of the Law of Ukraine “On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine”, which was adopted to meet the requirements of European integration, with a view to improving and enhancing the protection of national minority rights. Comparative and legal analysis has revealed a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed as soon as possible in order for the new law to have a positive impact on the protection of the rights of national minorities in Ukraine. The biggest drawback of the Law of Ukraine “On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine” amended in 2022 is that it does not systematically address the full range of problems in ensuring effective protection of the rights of national minorities. In addition to preserving the old problems and challenges related to the status of a national minority (community), the Law of Ukraine “On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine” creates a number of new ones. The new version of the law also creates grounds for destructive processes, including the politicization of ethnicity among certain national minorities. These include: narrowing the scope of rights, in particular, the elimination of the right to national and cultural autonomy; declarative and uncertain basic provisions, which creates a field for political speculation and manipulation and makes it impossible to effectively protect national minorities (communities) by exercising the rights enshrined in it; and, as a result, politicization of ethnicity and accumulation of discontent among national minorities (communities). As predicted, the Law of Ukraine “On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine” currently looks more like a formal response to the requirements of European integration, which needs to be amended in terms of specification and content, rather than an improvement of Ukraine’s legislation on national minorities. Improving the protection of national minority rights in the course of Ukraine’s European integration should not be limited to the adoption of a new version of the law on national minorities, but should also include the means and procedures for implementing a number of political and legal mechanisms for protecting the rights of national minorities, reforming the institutional structure of ethnic policy, etc. Key words: national minorities, European integration, ethnic group, ethnic policy

The research aims at presenting and exploring the mechanisms for protection of the rights of national minorities (based on the example of Ukrainian minority) in the Warmia and Mazury Region of the Republic of Poland. The research hypothesis is based on the statement that in fact the protection of rights of national minorities at the level of the Warmia and Mazury Region could be treated as a model, and thus implemented in other regions in Poland, or even in other countries facing the problems related to the protection of national and ethnic minorities. The main research problems are addressed within the questions: how is Ukrainian minority distributed in the studied region?; What are the state and local government institutions working for national minorities in the studied region of Poland?; What activities do these institutions undertake to ensure equal treatment of national minorities and provision for their rights?; How are these activities assessed by organizations/representatives of the Ukrainian national minority? The leading research method was the institutional and legal one. The research also contained the interviewing method as well as the focus group interview. Obtained results of the study confirmed the research hypothesis. It turned out that the Warmia and Mazury Region has created an effective institutional environment for the development of national minorities, including the Ukrainian one. It was possible thanks to the activity of the only Polish Plenipotentiary of the Marshal for national minorities and also the only National and Ethnic Minorities Committee of the Regional Council in Poland.

After 1945, national minority rights lost their hitherto independent standing in international relations and were subsumed within the newly created universal human rights regime. The failure of the League of Nations discredited national minority rights and the minorities themselves tended to be viewed with suspicion owing to the wartime complicity of certain national minority leaders with Nazi aims in Central and Eastern Europe — though it should also be pointed out that these aims cleverly exploited national minority fears and aspirations within the region. Consequently, unlike in previous eras, national minority rights were considered contrary to international peace and security. The inter-war system of national minority guarantees was not resurrected and no new national minority rights provisions were included in the various agreements of the 1940s and 1950s which laid the foundations of the Cold War human rights regime. This chapter examines the various political calculations and normative assumptions which underlay the Cold War universal human rights regime that gave such short shrift to the particular problems of national minorities.

This paper examines the concept and the meanings of crisis, with a particular focus on social and state crises. It also explores manifestations of culture during periods of crisis. The aim of the paper is to highlight the realization of cultural rights of national minorities during a cultural crisis in Serbia. The analysis encompasses cultural rights within the broader framework of human rights, as well as international standards and practices concerning the cultural rights of national minorities. The protection of these rights in international declarations and conventions is also discussed. Special attention is given to the cultural rights of national minorities codified in the Serbian Constitution, the Law on the Protection of Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, and the Law on Culture. The role and the competencies of national minority councils in the cultural domain are emphasized. Furthermore, the paper addresses the cultural crisis and its impact on the cultural rights of national minorities in Serbia. It presents findings from research on the implementation of cultural rights of national minorities in Serbia, focusing on the cases of the Hungarian and Croatian national minorities.

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.

The article is devoted to the analysis of public administration in the field of national minorities rights protection. The author analyzes the system of authorities aimed at protecting the national minorities interests and nationalities in Ukraine. The Committee on Nationalities under the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine was the first ukrainian central state body of the executive power, entrusted with the functions of ensuring ethno-national policy and protecting the national minorities interests. It is emphasized that the structure of public authorities protecting the rights of national minorities was not limited exclusively to the activities of the specialized central executive body. The positions of Advisor to President on ethno-national problems of Crimea and Advisor to President on the affairs of the Ukrainian diaspora were introduced. At the regional (oblast) level, the Republican Committee for Nationalities and Deported Citizens of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea operates, as well as the relevant subdivisions at the local level – nationalities and migration departments of regional state administrations. The situation changed with the switch of the state policy vector from pro-Russian to pro-European. This was not least due to the recommendations of the OSCE and the need to converge with the acquis communautaire of the European Union. National minorities rights protection has been in focus since the independence of Ukraine. Establishing and functioning of the relevant Ministry (Committee) on National Minorities is a direct confirmation of this thesis. This issue was always in focus of the Ukrainian governments besides the period of the rule of the pro-Russian government (2010-2014), when most of the state institutions for the protection of national minorities were liquidated. This fact determined the revolutionary events of the Euromaidan (2014) to some extent. As of today, Ukraine fulfills its obligations regarding the protection of the national minorities rights. The current central authority (State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience, DESS) was formed in accordance with the recommendations of the OSCE and taking into account the experience of the EU member-states. Its status is lower in the executive power hierarchy. However, its scope of competence and its actual activity best serves the interests of the national minorities.

On the basis of comparative law, this paper analyzes the issues of national minorities in three BRICS member-states (Brazil, India and Russia), and considers the directions and trends of the constitutionalization of national minority rights in these states. The authors argue that the coordination of the interests of industrial companies, regional communities and national minorities, alongside the establishment of common standards between BRICS are vital in order to ensure the sustainable growth of the economies of its member-states. The main comparison criteria are as follows: the understanding of the term “national minority” in different jurisdictions; the delimitation of powers of federative and regional authorities; a list of national minority rights; and instruments of representation and legal protection of national minorities. In regards to Brazil, this article focuses on the impact of the historic concept of racial democracy on contemporary policy on the issues of national minorities. For India the focus is on case law of the Supreme Court on minority issues, and for Russia the focus is on the protection of indigenous “small-numbered” peoples. The authors conclude that the direction of the constitutionalization of national minority rights differs dramatically in Brazil, India and Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a common understanding of the purpose of such constitutionalization, which is namely, to preserve the identity of such minorities in the process of their gradual involvement in modern economic structures and national processes.

Rights of national minorities are not yet explicitly included in the Norwegian Constitution. However, since 1994, the Constitution of 1814 has included a general reference to human rights treaties. The Framework Convention on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities is among the treaties Norway has ratified, and could as such be seen as being referred to in the Constitution. One of the suggested changes in the Constitution for its 200th Anniversary in 20141 paradoxically implied removing the 1994 constitutional reference to international human rights treaties (§ 110c until 13 May 2014), and by the same token, the sole reference to the rights of national minorities. Norwegian history reveals that – until recent times – groups who currently enjoy recognition as national minorities have previously experienced harsh assimilation policies, not least in the case of the Tater/Romani people. The persecution and exclusion of Jews, especially in the years after the inclusion of a prohibition against Jews in the Constitution of 1814, provides another example of repressive policies against national minorities. The constitutional reference to international human rights alone cannot protect against the persecution or discrimination of minorities, but it can remind us of the state's duty to respect and ensure human rights as defined by international treaties. Experiences from other countries also reveal that there is a general need for the democratically elected majority to limit its power in order to refrain from temptations to violate the rights of minorities or other inhabitants. The Constitution provides an opportunity for dealing with this fundamental democratic dilemma. The authors therefore welcome that on 13 May 2014, after considerable debate both between and within political parties, the parliament decided by a qualified majority to include the reference to human rights treaties in the opening paragraph of the new chapter on human rights of the Constitution (§ 92 which replaces §110c): “The State shall respect and secure human rights as enshrined in this Constitution and in human rights treaties which Norway is part of.”

The article outlines the main tendencies towards development of modern ethno-national policy in the Czech Republic, which was being formed gradually under the influence of both internal and external factors. The urgency of the research is important due to the constant increase in the number of Ukrainians in the Czech Republic, who first appear as migrants, and then in the second generation may become the members of a national minority. Based on the data of the official census and the current state of ensuring the rights of national minorities, there were made the conclusions about favorable factors for the development of ethnic and cultural identity of different peoples, and the main activities of organizations representing them, etc. Significant attention is paid to the legal protection of the rights of national minorities in the country and the peculiarities of the legal status of these minorities in the Czech Republic. There was made an attempt to provide insight into the scientific and journalistic literature on ethnic policy in the Czech Republic. The article also examines in detail the activities of the Government Council for National Minorities, as a coordinating and initiating institutional body between the state and national communities in the country. Its quantitative and qualitative composition, as well as the main powers are considered. It was found out under which circumstances each ethnic community received the status of a national minority in the Czech Republic . Today, the representatives of fourteen nationalities have this status: Bulgarian, Croatian, Hungarian, German, Polish, Roma, Ruthenian, Russian, Greek, Slovak, Ukrainian, Serbian, Belarusian, and Vietnamese. There was also made a comparative analysis of state expenditures to support the activities of public organizations of national minorities in terms of age and minorities. The activities and significance of the Council for Roma Minorities are also described. The article outlines the conditions for the establishment of National Minority Committees in municipalities. As a result, there was established the essence of the ethno-national policy of the Czech state, which creates conditions for the residence of a significant number of national minorities and the titular nation, that in turn leads to an increase in the number of the first and a decrease in the number of the latters.

The peculiarities of implementing the policy of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative in regards to protecting the rights of national minorities have been studied. The issue of national minorities in the EU is considered from the perspectives of security, democracy, and regional integration. Despite contemporary criticism of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative, many initiatives aimed at protecting the rights of national minorities in the region have been implemented, thereby fostering intergovernmental cooperation. It is evident that Ukraine and Moldova are the most proactive in protecting the rights of national minorities amongst the Eastern Partnership countries. These countries have been granted the status of candidate for EU accession. Despite the Russian-Ukrainian war, Ukraine actively works on improving legislation in the field of ethno-policy. Particular emphasis is placed on analysis of the institutional structure of national minorities, communication pathways, and non-discriminatory policies in Eastern Partnership countries. Member states of the Eastern Partnership actively utilize “soft power” techniques through a network of minority organizations. It has been suggested that European integration of Ukraine and Moldova has generated considerable opportunities for the development of national minorities. Loosening of state borders has enabled national minorities to connect more deeply with their ethnic homelands, thereby transforming them into engaged participants of transborder cooperation and significant figures of regional policy. The Eastern Partnership furnishes a platform for minorities to assert themselves in decisions which pertain to their lives, execute grant initiatives, and take part in regional associations of minorities. Nevertheless, certain risks are highlighted, such as particular nations exploiting EU enlargement to tackle minority matters or manipulate minority rights. The EU has analyzed programs supporting national minorities, especially those implemented in the Eastern Partnership countries. While Eastern Partnership countries have developed their policies regarding national minorities, there are common problems faced by minorities in the region. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are involved in conflicts, being former Soviet Union countries, and face numerous challenges concerning the functioning of the Russian minority, which is numerically significant in this region. It is stated that the EU cooperates with the Eastern Partnership countries on matters regarding national minorities, and it is crucial to develop innovative models for managing ethnic diversity, promoting the involvement of national minorities in making socio-political decisions and integrating them into society.

Проблема захисту прав національних меншин з плином часу не втрачає своєї актуальності. Для європейського континенту ця проблема актуалізується потужними міграційними процесами, у тому числі й напливом значної кількості нелегальних мігрантів, які з часом отримують у країні перебування визначений правовий статус та апелюють до захисту своїх національних прав. Для України ця проблема актуалізується агресивними діями Російської Федерації, яка анексію частини суверенної території України намагається видати за захист прав російськомовної національної меншини. Характерно, що подібна ситуація мала місце і сто років тому, коли на руїнах Російської й Австро-Угорської імперій утворювалися нові держави, зокрема й Українська. Тому тогочасний досвід пошуку правових моделей забезпечення міжнаціональної злагоди і захисту прав громадян різних національностей на території багатонаціональної держави є цікавим і в нинішніх політико-правових реаліях.
 Метою статті є аналіз норм щодо захисту прав національних меншин у конституційних актах ЗУНР.
 Наукова новизна полягає в аналізі проектів конституційних актів ЗУНР, як багатонаціональної держави, з точки зору забезпечення прав національних менших та налагодження мирного співіснування представників різних національностей в одній державі.Висновки. Державне будівництво на західноукраїнських землях під час Української революції 1917–1921 років супроводжувалося розробленням конституційних актів та інших базових законів, які мали урегулювати як основні засади державного ладу, так і права та свободи громадян. Конституційні акти та проекти Основного Закону ЗУНР, розроблені С. Дністрянським, надавали широкі права національним меншинам. Вони включали не лише право послуговуватися рідною мовою в побуті та навчати нею дітей, а й право користуватися рідною мовою в державних установах, зокрема судах, у зв’язку з чим державні службовці були зобов’язані володіти трьома мовами – українською, німецькою та польською, а також право на національну автономію та власне національне представництво в парламенті.Показовим є те, що ряд норм, запропонованих С. Дністрянським, уже після Другої світової війни були включені до Загальної декларації прав людини, проголошеної Генеральною Асамблеєю Організації Об’єднаних Націй 10 грудня 1948 року, та інших міжнародних актів ООН щодо захисту прав людини і національних меншин. Відповідні положення щодо захисту прав національних менших сьогодні гарантуються чинною Конституцією України та розвинуті в інших національних законах.

We are currently witnessing the global diffusion of multiculturalism, both as a political discourse and as a set of international legal norms. States today are under increasing international scrutiny regarding their treatment of ethnocultural groups, and are expected to meet evolving international standards regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, national minorities, and immigrants. This phenomenon represents a veritable revolution in international relations, yet has received little public or scholarly attention. In this book, Kymlicka examines the factors underlying this change, and the challenges it raises. Against those critics who argue that multiculturalism is a threat to universal human rights, Kymlicka shows that the sort of multiculturalism that is being globalized is inspired and constrained by the human rights revolution, and embedded in a framework of liberal-democratic values. However, the formulation and implementation of these international norms has generated a number of dilemmas. The policies adopted by international organizations to deal with ethnic diversity are driven by conflicting impulses. Pessimism about the destabilizing consequences of ethnic politics alternates with optimism about the prospects for a peaceful and democratic form of multicultural politics. The result is often an unstable mix of paralyzing fear and naive hope, rooted in conflicting imperatives of security and justice. Moreover, given the enormous differences in the characteristics of minorities (eg., their size, territorial concentration, cultural markers, historic relationship to the state), it is difficult to formulate standards that apply to all groups. Yet attempts to formulate more targeted norms that apply only to specific categories of minorities (eg., “indigenous peoples” or “national minorities”) have proven controversial and unstable. Kymlicka examines these dilemmas as they have played out in both the theory and practice of international minority rights protection, including recent developments regarding the rights of national minorities in Europe, the rights of indigenous peoples in the Americas, as well as emerging debates on multiculturalism in Asia and Africa.