Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:07:43.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing a ‘Peace and Security’ Approach Towards Minorities' Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Li-ann Thio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The centuries old problem of protecting minorities with in multicultural states through international law is a recognised contemporary global issue.2 Minority protection schemes constitute an important facet in the arsenal of techniques available to states and international policy-makers in managing the potentially destabilising effects of nationalist aspirations, where manifested in ethnic conflict.3 These aspirations range from minimalist claims for personal autonomy to maximalist claims for spatial autonomy, even independent statehood.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 115 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sovereignty, responsibility and national minorities, Press Statement, 26 Oct 2001: <http://www.osce.org/news> (visited 31 Oct 2001).

2 JA Laponce, The Protection of Minorities (1960). Working Group on Minorities (WGM) Chairman Eide, recognised non-European minority issues existed: UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/22, paras 14, 28.

3 Berman, N, ‘The International Law of Nationalism: Group Identity and Legal History’, in Wippman, D (ed), International Law and Ethnic Conflict (Cornell University Press, 1998) 25.Google Scholar

4 UN Doc E/CN 4/1995/SR 21, para 12.

5 Section 3, COE Statute, ETS No 1.

6 Estabanez, MAM, ‘The Protection of National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities’, in Neuwahl, and Rosas, (eds), The European Union and Human Rights (The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) 133.Google Scholar

7 Espersen, O, ‘The Functions of the CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’, (1995) 64 Nordic J of Int L 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 The CIS 1995 Human Rights Convention (text: (1996) 17 HRLJ 159) contains a direct minorities clause (Art 21); Breaches may be submitted to the CIS Human Rights Commission through interstate and non-state procedures.

9 (1975) 14 ILM 1292.

10 See Brett, R, ‘Human Rights and the OSCE’ (1996) 18 HRQ 668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Establishing the WGM in 1995, which oversees the 1992 UN Minorities Declaration, paralleled these developments: see Thio, LA, ‘Resurgent Nationalism and the Minorities Problem: The UN and Post Cold War Developments’ (2000) 4 Sing JICL 300.Google Scholar

12 CSCE Helsinki Document 1992 (1992) 13 HRLJ 284.Google Scholar [‘Helsinki Document’].

13 Mainly, the Balkans and Baltic States: Section I, Report, CSCE Experts Geneva Meeting on National Minorities (1991) 12 HRLJ 332Google Scholar [‘Geneva Document’].

14 Thornberry, P, International Law and the Rights of Minorities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

15 Peace and Stability through Human and Minority Rights: Speeches by the OSCE HCNM, W Zellner and F Lange (eds), (1999), at 133. [‘HCNM Speeches’].

16 See Wright, J, ‘The OSCE and the Protection of Minority Rights’ (1996) 18 HRQ 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 An embryonic ‘peace and security’ approach is discernible from the Committee overseeing the ‘Racial Discrimination’ Convention (CERD)'s work. A 1993 working paper considered various early warning measures (A/48/18, annex III) and one was established in 1995 to respond to potential CERD violations. A Human Rights Committee 1991 practice requests the presentation of special reports where ICCPR rights are ‘seriously affected’ in an ‘emergency situation’: UN Doc HRI/MC/1996/2, para 111. Special reports should ‘fit into the framework of preventive measures’: UN Doc CCPR/C/133, (1997), Annex, para 16(c).

18 Koskenniemi, M, ‘National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice’ (1994) 43 ICLQ 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990) 11 HRLJ 379Google Scholar [‘Paris Charter’].

20 Vienna Declaration, Council of Europe (COE) Heads of State and Government (1993) 14 HRLJ 373.Google Scholar

21 The European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), 213 UNTS 221, contains no minorities clause though Commission and Court's jurisprudence indicates that minority group members receive some indirect protection, eg, clauses protecting traditional lifestyles: Hillgruber, C, The ECHR and the Protection of National Minorities (Germany: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1994).Google Scholar

22 ETS No 148. In protecting European culture and safeguarding languages, minority linguistic communities are indirectly benefited.

23 ETS No 157.

24 Art 27, FCNM allows COE states to become Convention parties: Explanatory Report (COE Doc H (95) 10), para 99. The COE Parliamentary Assembly (PA) criticised the FCNM's weaknesses, proposing a stronger regime: Recommendation 1201(1993), see Gilbert, G, ‘The COE and Minority Rights’ (1996) 18 HRQ 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 FCNM and OSCE Copenhagen Document standards were applied by an ad hoc group of three in July 2000, appointed by the ECHR President, in evaluating whether EU Member, Austria, sufficiently protected its national minorities. This flowed from concerns when Jorg Haider's right-wing Freedom Party joined the coalition government. Report on the Commitment of the Austrian Government to the common European values (2000): <http://www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/de/Bericht-EU/report.pdf> (visited 15 Sept 2000).

26 Principle VII, para 4, HFA, addressed national minorities in individualist terms, with a bolder minorities approach first emerging in ss 18–19, Vienna Concluding Document, (1989) 10 HRLJ 270Google Scholar [‘Vienna Document’].

27 Paris Charter, above n 19.

28 Copenhagen Meeting, CSCE Human Dimension Conference (1990) 11 HRLJ 232Google Scholar [‘Copenhagen Document’].

29 Moscow Meeting, CSCE Human Dimension Conference (1991) 12 HRLJ 471Google Scholar [‘Moscow Document’].

30 Geneva Document, above n 13. The experts were state representatives; hence, the Document contains CSCE commitments.

31 999 UNTS 171.

32 GA Res 135, A/47/678(1992).

33 The far-reaching Copenhagen Document would not have been adopted after 1991, as prolonged violence in Yugoslavia drained post-Cold War optimism. HCNM Interview (May 1999), HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 14.

34 Section IV, Geneva Document, above n 13.

35 Para 32.4, Copenhagen Document, which inspired Art 17(1) FCNM, Explanatory Report, above n 24, paras 83–4.

36 Para 35, Copenhagen Document suggested ‘appropriate local or autonomous administrations’ while Art 11, PA Recommendation 1201 (1993) proposed a more extensive right to ethnic-based territorial autonomy.

37 Art 15, FCNM does not recognise collective rights: Explanatory Report, para 13; above n 24. See Lund Recommendations: Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life, HCNM.GAL/4/99.

38 Part IV, Geneva Document contains a ‘shopping list’ of autonomy arrangements, above n 13.

39 The HCNM in discussing Greece's national minorities' issues declared the Copenhagen Document did not support secessionist claims: HCNM GAL/6/99.

40 Paras 36, 37, Copenhagen Document, above n 28.

41 UN Doc A/50/97, 14 Mar 1995.

42 Charter for European Security (Istanbul, 1999) [Istanbul Charter].

43 Para 33, Copenhagen Document, above n 28.

44 Countries with large national groups beyond their frontiers support collective minority rights, as Hungary did at the 1990 Copenhagen Conference: Mastny, V, The Helsinki Process and the Re-integration of Europe, 1986–1991 (London: Pinter, 1992), 233–6Google Scholar. States hosting large national minorities prefer an individual rights, egalitarian minority protection approach.

45 Para 32.6, Copenhagen Document, above n 28. This follows the UN's individualist minorities principles, in Art 27 ICCPR and the 1992 Minorities Declaration.

46 Para 40, Copenhagen Document, Ibid.

47 Para 32 Copenhagen Document. Paras 40.1–40.7 condemned ethnic intolerance. Ibid.

48 Cracow Cultural Heritage Symposium (1991) 12 HRLJ 279. Special measures are contemplated in requiring states to, eg, create ‘adequate opportunities’ for mother tongue instruction. Paras 31, 33–4, Copenhagen Document, Ibid.

49 An Office for Free Elections, later renamed the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) was established: Section III, para 9, Prague Document on Further Development of CSCE Institutions and Structures (Jan 1992) [Prague Document].

50 Contemporary human rights documents, such as the EU Fundamental Rights Charter (2000/C 364/01), are decidedly individualist in nature: see Art 21(1) [non-discrimination]; 22 [respect for cultural, religious, linguistic diversity].

51 The Concluding Documents bolster the growing body of OSCE commitments through modifying the HFA: Buergenthal, , ‘The Copenhagen CSCE Meeting: A New Public Order for Europe’ (1990) 11 HRLJ 217 at 220.Google Scholar

52 OSCE Parliamentary Assembly St. Petersburg Declaration (1999), Ch III, paras 69, 89.

53 Chinkin, C, ‘The Challenge of Soft Law’ (1989) 38 ICLQ 850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Art 15(4)(b), Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-Operation (Hungary & Slovak Republic). Germany concluded minorities agreements giving CSCE standards legal effect in bilateral relations: Heintze, HJ, ‘The International Law Dimension of the German Minorities Policy’ (1999) 68 Nordic J of Int'l L 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 The CSCE, a flexible state conference created in 1972 sought to normalise European interstate relations through dialogue. Undergoing institutional consolidation after Communism's retreat, it became the OSCE in 1995, charged with constructing a new European security architecture based on democracy and market economics: Budapest Summit Declaration on Genuine Partnership in a New Era, para 3 (1994); (1995) 34 ILM 764.

56 The task of supervising two EU initiatives seeking to promote peace through strengthening human rights (the March 1995 Stability Pact in Europe and June 1999 Stability Pact for SE Europe, available at <http://www.seerecon.org> (visited July 2000)), was placed under OSCE auspices. (1999) 6 OSCE Newsletter 7. This recognised the OSCE as Europe's primary conflict management instrument.

57 Lisbon Declaration, Common & Comprehensive Security Model for 21st Century Europe (1996), para 2.

58 Para 25, Helsinki Document, above n 12.

59 Moscow Document, above n 29, para 8.

60 Encompassing OSCE members' commitment to ensuring respect for human rights and other humanitarian issues: Ch IV, Vienna Document, above n 26 at 547.

61 The Geneva Document, above n 13, noted the relevance of appropriate CSCE mechanisms to national minorities issues, recommending an expanded Human Dimension Mechanism: Sect VIII. Para 37; Section I(2) Moscow Document, above n 29.

62 Section VIII, Geneva Document, Ibid.

63 Section VII, Ibid.

64 This body of commitments, from the UN Charter and OSCE Documents, were recognised as establishing clear standards regulating individual treatment within state territories: Section II, Istanbul Charter, above n 42.

65 Moscow Document, paras 1–16, above n 29.

66 The Vienna Document, above n 26, details four control methods.

67 Minorities' issues can be raised before the ambassador-level Permanent Council, whose Chairman has investigatory powers and can deploy good offices.

68 Specifically, the non-binding ‘Valletta Mechanism’ available to OSCE members and the Geneva-based 1994 Optional Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration. This provides for obligatory conciliation procedures and non-binding settlement proposals. See Preece, JJ, National Minorities and the European Nation-States System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), at 145–6, 156–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Prague Document, above n 49. Initial reluctance to invoke these techniques to criticise politically vulnerable former communist states dissipated by 1995, eg, the EU and US sent Slovakia diplomatic notes criticising its failure to respect democracy, human, and minority rights. Preece, op cit, at 149.

70 ODIHR, Fourth Implementation Warsaw Meeting on Human Dimension Issues, Consolidated Summary, (1998), Rapporteur's Report: ‘National Minorities’.

71 Prague Document, above n 49.

72 Helsinki Document, above n 12, contains the HCNM mandate terms, its procedural and operational guidelines.

73 Ibid, Part II, (2) and (3). Though undefined, their meaning was discussed at CSCE Warsaw Seminar on Early Warning and Preventive Diplomacy (Jan 1994). The first formal warning in May 1999 stemmed from inter-ethnic tensions in FRYOM following a massive Kosovar Albanian refugee influx; the HCNM was asked to monitor the situation: (1999) 6(5) OSCE Newsletter, 8–9.Google Scholar

74 Helsinki Document, para 33.3, above n 12.

75 Ibid, para 34.

76 Ibid, para 79. The HCNM may request authorisation to take ‘early action’ through consulting the concerned parties: para 16.

77 Helsinki Document, Section II, para 5(b), above n 12.

78 Early warning serves ‘to provide the information’ upon which to base preventive diplomacy. HCNM Speeches, above n 15, 61, at 64.

79 Helsinki Document, Sect II, para 5(c), above n 12. Arguably, individual cases are better served by legal-judicial procedures affording victims remedial measures.

80 Above n 7.

81 Where affiliated with a national minority or citizen of an involved state, the HCNM needs all parties' approval to act: Helsinki Document, Section II, para 4, 5(a), above n 12. This impartiality requirement extends to HCNM enlisted experts: paras 31–6.

82 Ibid, Section II, para 25. Turkey insisted on adding this paragraph.

83 These include national and regional governments of participating states, including minority organisations representatives or NGOS authorised by minorities to represent them: Ibid, Section II, para 16.

84 The HCNM when visiting Kosovo in Dec 1999 met representatives from communities besides the Albanians, including Turkish and Muslim Slav communities (2000) 7(1) OSCE Newsletter, 17. The HCNM provides confidential reports to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office's (Kosovo), suggesting possible tension-reducing steps the international community can undertake: Annual Report OSCE Activities (1998), 3.7.

85 Para 29, Helsinki Document, above n 12.

86 Ibid, para 30.

87 This decision is shared between the Permanent Council and the Chairman-in-Office, to who the HCNM sends confidential reports. The former decides whether to publicise HCNM recommendations.

88 HCNM Proposal to Slovakia and Hungary and Replies (1993) 14 HRLJ 224–6. The expert team's terms of reference are found in CSO Vienna Group, Journal No 14, Annex I.

89 Letter, Hungarian MFA to HCNM (Mar 1993) supporting the HCNM proposal (1993) 14 HRLJ 226.Google Scholar

90 The CSCE endorsed the HCNM's recommendation for a team of experts to study the Ukraine-Crimea constitutional and economic relationship, Annual Report CSCE Activities (1994), 3.9.

91 Helsinki Documents, Section II, paras 11–12, 23–4, above n 12.

92 Greece and the FCNM: (1999) 6(10) OSCE Newsletter, 10.

93 Eg, an Albanian special office for minority questions (1993) 14 HRLJ 432, at 436.Google Scholar

94 Para 26, Helsinki Document, above n 12, advocates constructive dialogue.

95 Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), para 2.6.

96 The HCNM participated in a joint OSCE-UN-COE Mission of this nature to Croatia, Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), para 2.2.

97 The HCNM cooperated with the OSCE Mission, the ODIHR, and the COE in analysing Croatian electoral law, Annual Report OSCE Activities (1998), para 3.2.

98 The HCNM, COE, and EC representatives jointly commented on a Slovakian minority language draft law before a Slovak delegation, resulting in a revised draft (1999) 6(6), OSCE Newsletter, 12.

99 Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), para 1.1.6.

100 (1998) 5(11), OSCE Newsletter, 12.

101 The HCNM supported projects providing educational support for Albanian students sitting University of Skopje entrance examinations and to create multicultural home schools in areas with undeveloped infrastructures in Ukraine, mostly Tartar settlements: Annual Report OSCE Activities (1998), 3.10, 3.31.

102 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 21–2.

103 HCNM Speeches, above n 15, 127, at 130.

104 Helsinki Documents, Section II, paras 17–18, above n 12.

105 This is a party ‘authorised by states or an international organisation seeking to promote observance of a norm, who involves himself … in a particular compliance shortcoming of a state and seeks to induce compliance through a hands-on process of communication and persuasion with relevant decision-makers’. Ratner, SR, ‘Does International Law Matter in Preventing Ethnic Conflict?’ (2000) 32 NYU J Int'l Law and Po 591, at 668.Google Scholar

106 Helsinki Documents, Section II (4), above n 12.

107 Ibid, Section II (23)(b).

108 On how the HCNM uses soft law, Ratner, art cit, n 105, at 609–47.

109 Eg, during his August 1995 Romanian visit, the HCNM stated his opinion regarding the Education Law rested on international standards, including the Copenhagen Document, the UN Minorities Declaration and FCNM: HCNM Statement, Romania visit, Press Release, 1 Sept 1995.

110 The HCNM recommended that Slovakia, to promote government-minority dialogue, adopt an institution similar to Romania's Council for Ethnic Minorities which maintained links with local authorities and could receive minority concerns-related complaints from institutions and organisations, HCNM Letter to the Slovak Republic (1320/93/L) (CSCE Communication No 308, Prague, 29 Nov 1993).

111 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 23.

112 See ‘Special Issue on the Education Rights of National Minorities’ (1996/1997) 4(2) International Journal on Minority and Group RightsGoogle Scholar.

113 See ‘Special Issue on the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities’ (1999) 6(3) International Journal on Minority and Group Rights’.Google Scholar

114 HCNM.GAL/4/99.

115 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 25.

116 Eg, in discussing the Romanian educational system, the HCNM stated that international standards were integrationist, rejecting coercive assimilation. Education should both promote minority identity and provide minorities opportunities to learn the state language to enhance minority participation in public affairs. International standards did not require minority language instruction in all subjects or at all educational levels. Above n 109.

117 The HCNM has urged that inadequate laws be redressed through elaborating more comprehensive minorities codes, stating the constitutional position of minorities. HCNM Recommendations, Visits to Romania and Albania (1993) 14 HRLJ 432–7: Recommendation 3.Google Scholar

118 The HCNM commented on the compatibility of Latvia's draft language laws with international standards: (2000) 7(4), OSCE Newsletter 19.

119 Eg, the HCNM recommended a special Albanian Language tertiary institute to provide qualified teachers equipped to teach Albanian at all educational levels in Macedonia, facilitating the ethnic Albanian community's long-term socio-economic and political advancement. (2000) 7(5) OSCE Newsletter, 18.

120 The HCNM noted the significant interest national minorities in Romania displayed towards vocational and minority language education should be the ‘subject of special attention’. HCNM Statement, Romania visit, above n 109.

121 The HCNM recommended that Albania regularly consult Greek minority representatives over relevant legislation, see above n 119. The HCNM approved the National Minorities Council (Romania), the Presidential Roundtables (Latvia and Estonia) and the People's Assembly (Kazahkstan and Kyrgyzstan) as facilitating minority participation in the decision-making process, Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), paras 2.5, 2.6.

122 The HCNM recommended that, pursuant to para 40(5), Copenhagen Document, the Albanian government should ensure that minorities' members suffering discrimination had a sufficient complaints procedure available, above n 119: Recommendation 5. The HCNM suggested creating a human and ethnic rights ombudsman (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) and a ‘National Commissioner on Ethnic and Language Questions’ (Estonia and Latvia), Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), paras 2.5, 2.6.

123 Eg, the Croat government was urged to open dialogue with Serbs in the Danube fearing for their physical security; consequently, the Croat government created an advisory body to coordinate and express Serbian concerns about government policy. Exchange of Letters, Croatian MFA and HCNM, HCNM.GAL/8/99.

124 The HCNM approved FYROM's efforts to accommodate local needs, including minority concerns, through decentralisation, offering suggestions effective local self-government. HCNM Statement, Recommendations on inter-ethnic issues in the FYROM, HCNM.GAL/10/98.

125 For example, the HCNM and Foundation of Inter-Ethnic Relations organised seminars in Croatia and Ukraine in June and Sep 1999 to discuss the Hague and Oslo recommendations: Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), paras 2.2, 2.11.

126 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 24.

127 HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 165–73, 171–2.

128 Above n 13.

129 Secession as a panacea to minorities' problems was clearly rejected: Keynote Address, HCNM Warsaw CSCE Human Dimension Seminar Case Studies on National Minorities Issues: Positive Results (1993).

130 Keynote Speech, Stability Pact Conference, 16 Mar 2000.

131 HCNM Address, National Minorities Issues in the OSCE Area, Seminar on the OSCE, arranged by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry, 22 Oct 1998.

132 HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 45–8.

133 Eg, the Ukraine government feared that seeking ‘economic sovereignty’ was a prelude to separating the Crimea from the Ukraine: Ukraine MFA Letter to the HCNM, CSCE, Communication No 23/94.

134 Statement, 25 Aug 1999: (1999) 6(8) OSCE Newsletter, 10.

135 Packer, J, ‘Autonomy within the OSCE: The Case of Crimea’, in Suksi, M (ed), Autonomy: Applications and Implications (The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1998), 295–316.Google Scholar

136 HCNM Report, Warsaw Implementation Meeting on Human Dimension Issues (1995), 6(4) Helsinki Monitor.Google Scholar

137 Annual Report OSCE Activities (1997), 3.1.2.

138 Ibid (1998): 3.12.

139 Above n 136.

140 While restoring the Kazakh language, the HCNM urged that Russian Speakers, constituting 36 per cent of the population, be allowed to continue using Russian before public authorities, to stem their outflow and encourage them to contribute towards Kazakhstan's development, HCNM Recommendations to the Kazakhstan Government (CSCE Communication No 26/94).

141 (1999) 6(8) OSCE Newsletter, 10.

142 Eg, the HCNM requested donor aid to help resettle Crimean Tartars, Annual Report OSCE Activities (1998), 3.13.

143 Above n 136.

144 This related to language and education concerns (1999) 6(7) OSCE Newsletter, 12. The HCNM has discussed the ethnic Greeks in southern Albania with high-ranking Greek ministers, Annual Report CSCE Activities (1993), Section 3.

145 See Zaagman, R, Conflict Prevention in the Baltic States: The OSCE HCNM (Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues, 04 1999).Google Scholar

146 Kemp, WA (ed), Quiet Diplomacy in Action: The OSCE HCNM (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001).Google Scholar

147 Other European instruments, eg, FCNM, do not define ‘national minorities’, but see PA Recommendation 1201(1993): (1993) 14 HRLJ, 144–8Google Scholar. Clearly, national minority membership turns on individual choice, para 32, Copenhagen Document, above n 28.

148 Citizenship is apparently a pre-requisite for attracting minority protection: Section IV, Geneva Document, states that national minorities' members share the same rights and duties of citizenship. ‘National’ in the CSCE process seems to narrowly refer only to citizens, excluding migrant workers and refugees from the ambit of ‘national minority’, contrasted with the liberal though controversial view of the Human Rights Committee in General Comment 27(50) that even ‘visitors’ attracted minority protection.

149 Advisory Opinion No 17, 1930 PCIJ ser B No 17 (31 July).

150 HCNM.FGAL/6/99; Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), 2.4.

151 HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 45–8.

152 Although undefined in Principle VII, HFA, ‘national minorities’ were understood as distinct from ‘peoples’ having the right of self-determination, the latter constituting a state's entire population: Cassese, A., Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 283, 289.Google Scholar

153 The HCNM framed his recommendations about the national minorities' situation in the Baltic states in terms of the ‘non-Estonian’ and ‘non-Latvian’ population group, indicating their application to other population sectors although Russians, who have a kin state, were of chief concern: Recommendations, HCNM to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (1993) 14 HRLJ, 216–19. The HCNM's efforts were not blocked by objections that ‘national’ means citizen, as the Russian speakers' lack of citizenship was at issue.

154 Groups like indigenous populations have received particular attention within the CSCE Human Dimension context: Section VI, Para 29 Helsinki Document, above n 12.

155 The HCNM stated that the Roma's plight, stemming from discrimination, straddled both national minorities concerns and the general OSCE Human Dimension but were better managed under the latter. HCNM Address, 1999 Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Roma and Sinti Issues, HCNM.GAL/7/99.

156 HCNM Speeches, above n 15 at 147–50.

157 Above n 118, at 435.

158 Russia commented on the HCNM's recommendations on his Estonian and Latvian visits (1993) 14 HRLJ 223–4.Google Scholar

159 The HCNM opposed Russia's proposal to make HCNM recommendations binding with mandatory reporting obligations, preferring a flexible non-coercive approach, Zaagman, above n 145, at 13.

160 Slovakia and Hungary supported the HCNM's 1993 proposal to establish an impartial experts team to analyse the minorities' situations in both countries: (1993) 14 HRLJ 224–6.Google Scholar

161 Without cooperation, any effective role for the HCNM or the OSCE is precluded. Eg, the Mission to Kosovo, Sandjak, and Vojvodina deployed on 8 Sept 1992 was non-operational after 28 June 1993 when the FRY refused consent to Mission activities unless its' suspension to the CSCE was lifted, Annual Report CSCE Activities (1993), 2.1.

162 Even after the Moldovian Foreign Minister (31 March 2000) rejected by exchange of letters the HCNM's view (2 Nov 1999) that amendments to a draft advertising law mandating the use of the state language in private advertisements were incompatible with Moldovia's international commitments, the HCNM sought to keep the dialogue process open. The HCNM in a letter (20 Apr 2000) received Moldovia's views on linguistic legislation and the need to reverse the effects of imposed russification ‘with great interest’, welcoming the invitation to visit and ‘undertake a constructive dialogue on these issues in the Moldovian context’, while maintaining that protecting the linguistic rights of all were central to consolidating civic peace. (These letters were made public; available at <http://www.osce.org/hcnm>.)

163 HCNM Speeches, above n 15,165, at 169.

164 Ibid.

165 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 18. On 27 May 1999 the HCNM consulted with the European Commission in Brussels concerning potential new EU members: (1999) 6(5) OSCE Newsletter, 9.

166 The EU presidency made a Declaration on 26 June 1998 noting that the passage of a Latvian citizenship law would ‘fulfil key elements on the recommendation of the OSCE HCNM … in respect of citizenship’: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgla/daily/06_98/pesc_98_68.html>

167 European Commission Opinion on Latvia's Application for EU Membership, B.I.3. 15 July 1997: <http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/latvia>.

168 Zaagman, above n 145, at 11. The EU issued a 9 Dec 1998 statement that Estonia's amended Citizenship law fulfilled OSCE recommendations respecting citizenship requirements: at 47.

169 A press statement lauded restoring of minority languages usage in official communications, noting that the Slovak Law on the Use of National Minority Languages (1999) met HCNM recommendations permitting national minorities members to use their own language before public administrative organs in municipalities where the minority constituted minimally 20 per cent of the population. (1999) 6(7) OSCE Newsletter, at 13.

170 HCNM Statement on Romania, Press Release 8 Oct 1998 (Petofi-Schiller University).

171 HCNM Statement, Press Release, 5 Oct 1998.

172 (1993) 14 HRLJ 216–24.

173 Indeed, Russia quietly supported the HCNM's recommendations in this respect. Ibid. See the HCNM's affirmation that Ukrainian legislation concerning minority questions complied with international obligations (CSCE Communication No 23/94, 14 June 1994).

174 Zaagman, above n 145, at 46.

175 (1999) 6(1) OSCE Newsletter, 12.

176 HCNM.GAL/10/98.

177 HCNM Interview, HCNM Speeches, above n 15, at 16.

178 Eg, the HCNM drew international attention to the problems of the Meskhetian Turks, a people deported from Georgia by Stalin in 1994. He initiated consultation meetings in cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Sept 1998, attended by Turk representatives and the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Russian Federation, Annual Report OSCE Activities (1998), 3.5. The HCNM also convened roundtables to address the complex Crimean problem: REF.HC/7/96.

179 The Kyrghyz Republic government's letter of 6 Sept 1995 (21–601) expressed gratitude for the HCNM's facilitation of funding assistance for various ethnic conflict prevention programmes. It welcomed further OSCE support through providing material assistance to the Executive Council of the People's Assembly in the form of grants, equipment and personnel training. HCNM Letter to Republic of Kyrghyzstan MFA (897/95/L), 7 Aug 1995 and Reply (REF.HC/7/95, 7 Sept 1995).

180 Eg, recommending that Lithuania establish an Ombudsman, Letter to Lithuania (No 239/93/L), (1993) 14 HRLJ 221.

181 HCNM.GAL/6/99.

182 The HCNM in his letter to the Slovak Republic stated that Art 11, Recommendation 1201 imposed no legal obligation to provide ethnic-based autonomy. However, making extensive reference to FCNM provisions, he recommended that language laws not criminalise propaganda for autonomy. This would violate Art 10 ECHR free expression guarantees, given the difficulty in maintaining that calls for the territorial autonomy concept threatened state security. HCNM Letter to Slovak MFA, 13 Aug 1996 (Ref 910/96/L) (REF. HC/12/96, 25 Oct 1996). In noting the over-centralisation of education, the HCNM urged that greater responsibility and funds be given to municipalities for running schools, pursuant to Art 15 FCNM. Regarding Art 12, the HCNM asked whether the Nitra pedagogical university could train sufficient numbers of Hungarian teachers and urged allowing purchasing textbooks from other countries.

183 The HCNM criticised the Slovak Local Elections Law, effectively fixing electoral representation along ethnic lines, as contradicting various human rights standards. He referred to both legal and political standards: Art 21(3) UDHR, Art 25(b) ICCPR, Art 5(c) CERD, para 7(5) Copenhagen Document and P1–3 and Art 14 of the ECHR. HCNM Letter to Slovak Republic and Reply, Ref No 1026/98, 29 May 1998.

184 HCNM Letter to the Romanian MFA, 2 Mar 1998, Ref 730/98 recommending consultations with COE experts about problems faced elsewhere concerning the need for separate state-funded minority language institutions.

185 Report on the Protection of National Minorities, Doc 7899, 8 Sept 1997, para 7.

186 Several states at the 1999 OSCE Review Conference expressed appreciation for the HCNM's aid in assessing their domestic practices against international obligations: Review of the implementation of all OSCE principles and commitments in the human dimension, Rapporteurs' Report: National Minorities.

187 HCNM Recommendations: Kazakhstan Government (CSCE Communication No 26/94, 14 June 1994).

188 Exchange of Letters between the Ukraine MFA and HCNM, Ref HC/7/96, 15 May 1996.

189 (1993) 14 HRLJ 436–7.

190 Ibid, at 223.

191 Ibid, at 437.

192 Ibid, at 221.

193 Annual Report CSCE Activities (1993):,3.0

194 Ibid (1998): 3.12.

195 Ibid, 3.9.

196 Letter to HCNM (17 Sept 1993), responding to HCNM letter (10 Sept 1993); (Ref 1051/93/1) (1993) 14 HRLJ 434–6 and 437.

197 Annual Report CSCE Activities (1994), 3.6.

198 (1999) 6(7) OSCE Newsletter 13.

199 Annual Report OSCE Activities (1999), 2.7

200 HCNM Speech, OSCE Review Conference, Vienna, 20 Sept 1999.

201 HCNM Statement on Latvian Language Law, Press Release, 15 July 1999.

202 HCNM Welcomes State Language Law in Latvia, Press Release, 9 Dec 1999.

203 Zaagman, above n 145, at 27.

204 22nd CSO Journal, No 2, Annex 2.

205 CSCE Communication, No 194, 8 July 1993.

206 The Estonian President made public the HCNM's recommendations: (1993) 4(3) Helsinki Monitor 89–91.

207 Russia supported as a realistic and balanced compromise the HCNM's recommendations to peg stringent language requirements for Estonian citizenship at the lower level of ‘conversational knowledge’. This would sufficiently indicate the Russian minority's willingness to be integrated in Estonian society, allow most ethnic Russians to satisfy this citizenship requirement, while affirming the state's interest in consolidating national identity through requiring reasonable national language proficiency and loyalty oaths, Russian Comments, above n 153, at 223–4.

208 For interpretative statements to the HCNM's mandate, see Journal No 50, 8 July 1992.

209 While para 4 grounds the mandate on OSCE principles, para 6 permits the HCNM to consider international instruments. Ibid.

210 In 1993, the Council of Ministers invited the HCNM focus on all aspects of aggressive nationalism, Declaration on Aggressive Nationalism, Racism, Chauvinism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism, CSCE and the New Europe—Our Security is indivisible.

211 Report on the Situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE Area (2000).

212 Ibid, 10.

213 In contrast, the CBSS Commissioner may receive communications regarding human rights concerns from individuals, groups and organisations, make recommendations and refer non-compliant states to the Council Ministers. See Report of the First Mandate Period (1994–7), Section 2: <http://www.cbss-commissioner.org>.

214 Eg, the HCNM in Aug 1995 criticised the Slovak government's reduced budget for minorities' cultural activities: REF. HC/5/95 (No. 924/95/L).

215 The HCNM recommended the acceleration of the compensation process in Albania regarding Communist era seized church property, above n 117: Recommendation 6.

216 HCNM.GAL/10/98.

217 Regarding Art 7(3), the HCNM recommended guaranteeing using mother tongue before Romanian administrative authorities in regions with substantial numbers of a national minority, above n 117.

218 He discussed these instruments in relation to providing ‘alternative instruction’ in the Slovak Republic offering broader possibilities in choosing one of three educational forms: conducted in Slovak, Hungarian and both languages. Letter from Slovak MFA to HCNM, 28 Oct 1994 (CSCE Communication No 36, Vienna, 14 Nov 1994).

219 The HCNM invoked the FCNM in criticising Latvia's draft language law, although Latvia had only signed it: HCNM Letter to Latvian MFA, 10 Nov 1997.

220 HCNM welcomes restoration of use of minority languages in official communications in Slovakia, Press Release, 16 July 1999. He sought to ensure the Slovak Language Law complied with Copenhagen Document standards.

221 Above n 124.

222 In discussing minority public participation, the HCNM made detailed recommendations to Slovakia, calling for ‘specialised organs with adequate minority representation and participation … [with] real competencies with regard to legislation touching upon minority issues’, HCNM Letter on National Minorities to Slovak Republic, OSCE Communication, No 36, Vienna, 14 Nov 1994.

223 Recommendations: Ukraine Government, CSCE Communication, No 23/94, Prague, 14 June 1994.

224 HCNM Letter to Ukraine MFA, HC/10/95, 15 Nov 1995, discussing the 1992 Ukraine Demarcation Law.

225 Above nn 112, 113.

226 Donnelly, J, ‘International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis’ (1986) 40 International Organisation 599 at 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

227 Plenary Session, 31 May 1920; Temperley, HWV, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, vol 5 (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

228 President FD Roosevelt, referring to what civilisation needed to survive (1945) International Conciliation, 403–5, reprinted from 91(74) Congressional Record (1945).