Abstract
The protection of minorities by way of non-territorial arrangements, also called cultural autonomy, is receiving increased attention in theory and practice. While federalism and decentralisation often afford indirect protection of minorities on a territorial basis—be it by way of autonomy to state or local governments—Dispersed minorities often fall through the territorial “cracks”. Cultural autonomy can potentially play a vital role to grant protection to minorities that do not have a territorial base of their own. This article, which reflects on recent international developments to protect minorities by way of non-territorial arrangements, shows how the theory and practice of cultural autonomy have gained legitimacy in countries such as Estonia, Slovenia, Kosovo and Finland. Finally, potential lessons are identified for potential application in other emerging democracies.
Highlights
One of the greatest challenges for modern democratic theory and practice is to provide adequate protection to language, religious and cultural minorities—Especially minorities that do not have a local or regional territorial area where they constitute the majority [1].1 Federal and decentralisation mechanisms are often used to provide indirect protection to minorities that live concentrated in geographical areas
While federalism and decentralisation often afford indirect protection of minorities on a territorial basis—be it by way of autonomy to state or local governments—Dispersed minorities often fall through the territorial “cracks”
This article, which reflects on recent international developments to protect minorities by way of non-territorial arrangements, shows how the theory and practice of cultural autonomy have gained legitimacy in countries such as Estonia, Slovenia, Kosovo and Finland
Summary
One of the greatest challenges for modern democratic theory and practice is to provide adequate protection to language, religious and cultural minorities—Especially minorities that do not have a local or regional territorial area where they constitute the majority [1].1 Federal and decentralisation mechanisms are often used to provide indirect protection to minorities that live concentrated in geographical areas. Federal and decentralisation mechanisms are often used to provide indirect protection to minorities that live concentrated in geographical areas. 2. Decentralisation is recognised as a potential effective mechanism to provide indirect protection of ethnic minorities so as to enable groups to make or administer decisions on a regional or local level where their members reside. Belgium and the Russian Federation are arguably the only federations that have formal, albeit limited, legal arrangements to provide for territorial and non-territorial autonomy of cultural groups. Ments in young democracies of Europe to protect dispersed minorities on a non-territorial basis Countries such as Estonia, Slovenia and Kosovo have displayed remarkable creativity and ingenuity to develop constitutional mechanisms to grant autonomous decisionmaking by way of decentralisation to minority groups on a non-territorial basis. The article gives an overview of some of those arrangements and identify what, if any, lessons can be drawn for other emerging democracies that are still searching for way to protect the rights of dispersed minority groups
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
