Reviewed by: Northern Ireland: The Choice William A. Hazleton Northern Ireland: The Choice, by Kevin Boyle and Tom Hadden (London: Penguin Books 1994), 256 pp., $10.95 Among the hundreds of items to appear on Northern Ireland last year, The Choice stands out as one of the most significant. Aimed at a broad readership, it addresses the central question of separation and sharing in a divided society, which makes it both forward-looking and extremely relevant for the on-going search for peace. The authors’ realistic assessment of developments in Northern Ireland confronts the many obstacles to an agreed political settlement between the majority Protestant and minority Catholic communities. Deliberately avoiding the historical and legal claims and counterclaims that often serve to apportion blame rather than improve understanding, the authors devote their attention to identifying and clarifying for the two communities, and by necessity for Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland as well, choices that might decide the constitutional status and institutional structures of Northern Ireland in the future. [End Page 242] Kevin Boyle and Tom Hadden are natives of Northern Ireland, with roots on opposing sides of the communal divide. Each is a highly respected commentator on the region’s political and legal affairs. They first met as students at Cambridge and began collaborating at the start of “the troubles” in 1969. 1 Boyle is currently professor of law at Essex University in England and director of its Human Rights Centre. Hadden is professor of law at Queen’s University in Belfast and currently coordinating a project monitoring states of emergency in divided societies. The question of communal coexistence based upon separation or sharing is put into context with a powerful description of developments in Northern Ireland over the past twenty-five years. Making expert use of recent census data, the authors show a striking trend toward residential segregation, especially in urban areas like Belfast and Derry. Evidence of continued or growing separation is also found in education, housing, employment, voting, and membership in the security forces. Yet, as the authors are careful to note, these trends are neither uniform nor universal. For example, there has been less of a population shift in rural border areas, despite Protestant claims of “ethnic cleansing.” Likewise, segregation in education and on housing estates, with concerns for what is taught and personal security respectively, has proved resistant to change, whereas public pressure, much of it external, and parliamentary legislation have lessened communal separation in the workplace. The broader issue of economic inequality is examined in contrast to other regions of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and while the authors conclude that inequality and discrimination do reflect sectarian divisions, the differences between the two communities are not as clear-cut, or as one-sided, as many suppose. To determine the attitudes and aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland, Boyle and Hadden mined a wealth of public opinion polls, along with the submissions of roughly 3,000 persons to a 1993 inquiry by the Opsahl Commission. 2 Opinions and preferences crisscross the opposites of separation and sharing, indicating some prospect for a middle ground. They also establish some parameters for potentially acceptable alternatives for Northern Ireland’s future. In this regard, some readers might be surprised to find that the reunification of Ireland, at least in the next generation, is not perceived as a realistic option. In reference to human rights, the book’s marco-perspective places these concerns within the broader context of separation and sharing. Many of the specific issues discussed, such as security and policing, have an important human rights component that either contributes to the problem or, in the case of existing human rights law, might provide potential solutions. The authors also explore the dilemmas posed by competing rights (for example, individual and communal), applying certain rights (for example, self-determination), protecting rights (for example, a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland), and balancing rights (for example, minority rights) through power-sharing arrangements. Readers might be troubled by the authors’ reticence [End Page 243] to make definitive interpretations or recommendations where human rights are at issue. Both such judgments are difficult, if not impossible, to make with total certainty...