Language Rights Standards in Europe: The Impact of the Council of Europe's Human Rights and Treaty Obligations (original) (raw)

Pluralism and Diversity: For the Sake of Equal Respect

2020

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Elisabetta Galeotti for her willingness to become my supervisor and mentor. I would like to thank her for her helpfulness and for all the comments and valuable advice that she has provided to me. This text would not have been written without her. I would also like to express my thanks to Pavel Dufek, who has been accompanying me throughout my studies. I would like to thank him for his kindness, detailed reading of all my text, and stimulating comments. Without him this text would not have been written. Finally, I would like to sincerely thank Jan Holzer, who guaranteed my doctoral studies and who has been always supportive of me. Additionally, I kindly thank my parents, Ivana and Vladimír, for all their support. It means very much to me. I thank Mirek for his patience and for always standing by me. I thank Vladimír Antonin for his intellectual stimuli and for always leading me to the best results. I also thank my schoolfellows, especially Terka, who has helped me overcome all the difficulties related to doctoral studies. For my grandma who passed away too early. 1.2.2. Non-comprehensive non-perfectionist liberalism 2. Respect as a default moral principle under the conditions of pluralism 2.1. The essentially political level: The justification of coercion for the sake of respect for liberty 2.2. The societal level: Struggles for recognition as struggles for respect 2.3. Recognition respect: The third-person or second-person form? 3. The justification of the exercise of political power and the formation of public reason 3.1. Standards of the justification of political power and its legitimacy 3.2. The principle of respect and the requirement of both the moral and epistemological reasonableness of persons 4. Criticism of the imperative of respect and the dual interpretation of the criterion of reciprocity 4.1. The criterion of reciprocity: The imperative of respect and the role of people's particularities 4.1.1. The convergence approach as a solution? 4.2. The role of the political community and the dual interpretation of the criterion of reciprocity 4.3. Civic friendship and a way to achieve respect at both the essentially political and societal levels 5. Disrespect and misrecognition as a path to radicalization: The case of young Muslims of immigrant origin in France 5.1. Muslim immigration to France: A brief overview 5.1.1. The case of the Kouachi brothers 5.2. Disrespect and misrecognition as reasons for outrage Conclusion 105 Bibliography 109 3 Among others, see Larmore, The Morals of Modernity; Larmore, "The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism"; Larmore, The Autonomy of Morality; Quong, Liberalism without Perfection. 4 Rawls mentions the meaning of the public political culture of democratic society. However, when defining it, he refers solely to political values. Rawls, Political Liberalism, p. 133. See also the first chapter, p. 31. 5 In this context, Kymlicka (but also Margalit and Raz) talks about minority rights. Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship; Margalit and Raz, "National Self-Determination."

Language Rights as Legal Norms

The discussion on language rights is affected by some confusion on the nature and status of rights. In this paper, a rigorous characterization of language rights is proposed. It is argued that the general assimilation or equation between language rights and human rights is not only erroneous as far as it is inaccurate, but it leads to a distorted image of the relationship between law and politics. While human rights do limit (at least, ideally) state behaviour, language rights are, more often than not, an issue devolved to the political process. The point being made in this paper is that recognition of language rights (as such or as part of minority rights) is based primarily on contingent historical reasons. Some tentative explanations on the poor status or unequal recognition of language rights in international and domestic law will also be offered throughout the paper.

Column: "The Pluralistic Approach of Human Rights - A Limited Equalisation"

INTRADERS Platform, 2021

*By Hristina Crenn Column published on the website of the Intraders Platform: https://www.intraders.org/news/ot/the-pluralistic-approach-of-human-rights-a-limited-equalisation/ *Hristina Crenn is a bachelor student of Law at Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne University (France) and History and Political Science and International Relations at Ibn Haldun University (Turkey). Column: "The Pluralistic approach of Human Rights: A Limited Equalisation?" General overview of Human Rights The era of Human Rights has been marked by an extensive legal evolution. The normativity of the legal texts started to be ambiguous over time. Legally, rights exist. Politically, rights survive. Legal provisions are crafted by many legal experts, mainly legislators. Political rules are dictated by a single individual (Head of a State or a Prime Minister). In another words, the legal rights are in the hands of the public functionaries, while the political system is regulated by a single individual deciding for the fate of the state. The Constitutional approach of human rights englobes the existence of various rights guaranteed by the mechanism of supremacy of the state social experiment or more precisely, the superpower of the state apparatus. Over time, the hierarchical mode of categorising Human Rights provoked the emergence of negative phenomena in the society such as the increase of the poverty level, a limited access to food and water, the impossibility to attend a regular educational curriculum and the manifestation of unhealthy modes of life due to lack of resources. Refugees The most significant normative document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). What is the perception about the UDHR on a domestic level? The remembrance of the notion of rights? Are the nationals of a peculiar country informed about the existence of their rights? Martin Luther King Jr. stated explicitly that freedom is a long-term objective that is hardly attainable : “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed”[1]. Unfortunately, refugees are the most undermined category by the host countries. Generally, among refugees there are plenty of educated people who can contribute greatly for the well-being of the economy of the country. Temporary protection, educational opportunities and scholarships, the delivery of a residence permit are among many of the legal mechanisms that refugees can benefit from. On the other hand, the worrying level of racism in some Western countries is the main generator of internal conflicts and riots. Nelson Mandela reflected the essence of human rights as the fundamental cornerstone of the humanity: “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their humanity”[2]. There arises the question of the direct applicability of international conventions, human rights treaties and regional human rights instruments or in another words international provisions versus national laws. The question of legal conflict among the hierarchy of norms is inevitable. Does such primacy of International mechanisms categorise rights? The answer isn’t clear enough. Be Our InTraders’ Author for Free of Registration to InTraders’ Conferences Multicultural perspective of Human Rights The idea of Universalism rejects the elements of nationalism. The approach of Universalism promotes the values of Multiculturalism. Thus, the multicultural aspect of human rights is interdependent with the notion of equalisation. Universalism is an advantage in terms of the promotion of the cultural heritage of a peculiar country. Therefore, Multiculturalism reflects the necessity of respecting and accepting the existence of diversity. If there is diversity, the logic of the notion of equality or equalisation is completely manifested, especially when the notion of ‘everyone’ in the universal human rights declarations is the equivalent word for the notion of ‘equality’. In practice the notion of ‘everyone’ is neglected by the negative influence of racism and nationalism. This is the core textual conflict. The 1st article of the UDHR reminds us of the paramount importance of the dignity of individuals: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”[3]. The basic values are legally guaranteed, but in practice, they are quite often violated or not properly implemented. Women’s Rights as Human Rights The Legal pluralism in the recent decades is related also to the massive emergence of the concept of Women’s Rights. Undoubtedly, Women’s Rights were mentioned in the French Declaration of the Woman and the Citizen promulgated in 1791. Moreover, this Declaration was drafted by the prominent French Woman of Letters, Olympe de Gouges. Thus, the French Revolution was provoked by the famous Women’s March on Versailles on October 5, 1789. Since then, Women’s Rights are Human Rights. The trajectory of emancipation and political participation was a flagrant testimony for the saying: ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights’. To conclude, we could notice that there is a pluralistic approach that reliably enforces the existence of a limited equalisation of human rights that is often quite obliterated. [1] Phrase coined by Martin Luther King Jr. [2] Phrase coined by Nelson Mandela [3] The 1st article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Human Rights Between Law and Politics : The Margin of Appreciation in Post-National Contexts

Human Rights Between Law and Politics : The Margin of Appreciation in Post-National Contexts, 2017

The author would like to acknowledge his appreciation to Tonia Novitz for helpful comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimers apply. 2 ' Conference on the Margin of Appreciation and Cultural Diversity in Europe ' , Centre for Excellence in Foundations of European Law and Polity at the University of Helsinki and Centre for Law and Cosmopolitan Values at the University of Antwerp, Helsinki, 7 May 2012. 3 For the present purposes, this largely refers to the Council of Europe mainly because, with 47 of Europe ' s 48 states, it is much more inclusive than the 28-member European Union, which has also only taken a formal interest in human rights comparatively recently. 1 Universalism and Relativism in the Protection of Human Rights in Europe: Politics, Law and Culture STEVEN GREER 1 I. INTRODUCTION F OR THE PURPOSES of this chapter, the two key concepts with which the conference prompting the publication of this volume was principally concerned 2-cultural diversity in Europe and the ' margin of appreciation ' doctrine-require some initial consideration. Broadly speaking, ' culture ' refers to shared habits of living, behaviour, thought, understanding and representation, including moral, political, social, economic and legal principles, and assumptions, artistic and architectural styles and traditions, cuisine, and even ways of sitting and sleeping. ' Cultural diversity '-a concept found in social science, social and political philosophy, and everyday politics and social discourse-can be normative, analytical/descriptive or both. It also connects intimately and directly with deeper and wider debates about universals and variations in human experience. The ' margin of appreciation ' , by contrast, is a doctrine found in some branches of public international law that refers to the room for manoeuvre that treaty bodies, such as the judicial institutions at Strasbourg, are prepared to accord national authorities in fulfi lling their treaty obligations. While in the European context, 3 this concerns how much uniformity and diversity there should be between different states with respect to human rights, it does not pertain only (or even mainly) to culture. By further contrast with the concept of cultural relativism, the margin of appreciation is entirely normative and has no descriptive or analytical dimensions.

The Human Rights of Linguistic Minorities and Language Policies

2000

It is important to distinguish at the outset between the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC); the former is governed-on a largely intergovernmental basis-by the Treaty on European Union (TEU) while the Community (commonly referred to as the 'first pillar' of the Union) is for present purposes the more relevant entity, given that it is action by the EC and not the EU that has impacted most greatly on minority language rights. The Community is regulated by and responsible for the implementation of the EC Treaty; for more details on the structure of the EU and EC, see Curtin (1993) and Everling (1992). 16 See Resolution on a Community Charter of Regional Languages and Cultures and on a Charter of Rights of Ethnic Minorities (Arfé Resolution), 16 October 1981, [1984] OJ C287/106; Resolution in favour of Minority Languages and Culture (Arfé Resolution No. 2), 11 February 1983, [1983] OJ C68/103; and Resolution on the Languages and Cultures of Regional and Ethnic Minorities in the European Community (Kuijpers Resolution), 30 October 1987, Doc. A 2-150/87. 17 Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana/European Commission (1986). 18 Resolution on Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the European Community (Killilea Report), 9 February 1994, [1994] OJ C061/110. 19 See for example, Resolution of the European Parliament calling for a Community policy on culture ([1974] OJ C62/5); statement issued by the Summit of Heads of State and Government at The Hague in 1969, recognising the need to preserve Europe as 'an exceptional seat of development, culture and progress' (EC Bulletin I-1970, Part One, Ch. 1); the European Council's Solemn Declaration on European Identity (EC Bulletin 1983/6). 20 See Community Action in the Cultural Sector, EC Bulletin Supp. 6/77; Stronger Community Action in the Cultural Sector, EC Bulletin Supp. 6/82. 21 EC Bulletin Supp. 4/87. 22 This action was supplemented by a separate resolution in the Council-see [1987] OJ C309/3. 23 i.e. New Prospects for Community Cultural Action, COM(92) [1992].