Group-differentiated Rights Research Articles

Development and Institutionalisation of Romani Representation and Administration. Part 1

The post-1989 rise of ethnic conflicts in the former Eastern Bloc have led to the renewed salience of minority rights and their prominence in international relations. The 1990s witnessed a proliferation of legal instruments and offices dedicated to minority rights at the intergovernmental level (mainly within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe, but also the United Nations). After decades of arguing that rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic or religious minorities can be sufficiently ensured within the framework of universal human rights, attributed to individuals regardless of group membership, liberal political theorists (most notably Will Kymlicka) have started to advocate the need to supplement these traditional human rights with minority rights (meaning certain group-differentiated rights or “special status” for minority cultures) in order to ensure justice in multicultural states.

Group-Differentiated Rights and the Liberal Democratic State: Rethinking the Headscarf Controversy in Turkey

The development of liberalism with both the courage and the capacity to engage itself with a different world, one in which its principles are neither well understood nor widely held, in which indeed it is, in most places, a minority creed, alien and suspect, is not only possible, it is necessary.-Clifford Geertz. 2000.Available Light.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, p. 258.Over the past two decades, the debate over multiculturalism challenged the justice of neutral, “difference blind” rules in liberal democracies. Allegedly neutral institutions were shown to be implicitly biased toward the priorities, experiences, or interests of the dominant groups in the society. Criticism of difference-blind rules and claims for justice to minority groups defined the relationship between government and opposition in many contexts. Arguments for special rights to protect minorities, women, or ethnocultural groups gained legitimacy (Young 1990, Jones 1990, Phillips 1991, Taylor 1994, Kymlicka 1995, Kymlicka and Norman 2000).

Multinational and polyethnic politics entwined: Minority representation in the region of Brussels-Capital

During the 1990s, issues of immigrant entry and equity have increasingly become intertwined with the dominant political cleavage that exists between Dutch- and French-speaking Belgians and with related claims for group-differentiated rights. This is particularly the case in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital where both the Flemish and the Francophone community have jurisdiction and where 30 per cent of the inhabitants are non-nationals. Political incorporation of the foreign population into the polity could tip the power balance between the national communities. The issue of minority representation has thus become a rather contentious issue. This article examines how these multinational and polyethnic politics are increasingly interlocked.

Philosophical Methodology in Will Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship

Will Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship, from 1995, represents the opening salvo in an extensive debate regarding the legitimacy of collective rights for minority cultures. Against liberals who maintain that such rights run counter to liberalism, Kymlicka argues that groupdifferentiated rights are a valid extension of basic liberal values. The bulk of his book, then, is taken up with the task of demonstrating that liberalism is already heavily invested in the group; that despite its exaggerated fidelity to the autonomous individual, liberalism recognizes the centrality of group identification in social and political life. Insofar as he can make this recognition explicit, Kymlicka can clear away whatever obstacles prevent us from affirming the legitimacy, and indeed the necessity, of group-differentiated rights for minority cultures.