Freedom of Language: A Universal Human Right to Be Recognised (original) (raw)
Related papers
Language Human Rights: A New Right Rising in the Era of Globalization
Language Human Rights as a newly-grown type of human rights has been raised in the field of linguistics in recent two decades. Due to its increasing importance, this chapter attempts to firstly define this concept, its nature and scope. Secondly, it tries to introduce the trace of this type of human rights in the available documents. Then, the chapter deals with and discusses the reasons for growing importance of language human rights from at least three aspects, namely a) the exponential decline and loss of world's languages; b) the growing presence of English as the language of globalization; c) nationalism and the violation of language rights of the minority in the field of education. Finally, some suggestions and practical recommendations are provided.
The Nature of Language Rights 1
The discussion on language rights is affected by some confusion on the nature and status of rights. In this paper, a rigorous characterisation 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. The literature on linguistic human rights is very hortatory and at times strident. It echoes to " shalls " and " shoulds " and " musts " (…). Christina B. Paulston (IJSL 1997: 188)
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.
Foreign Policy Review, 2021
International law recognizes language rights within international human rights law and the study shows that while codifying human rights within the UN and the Council of Europe, legislators have made two serious mistakes that affect language rights. The competent bodies of implementation have corrected, to some extent the first mistake, but they have not recognized the second one or if they have recognized it, they have not interpreted it appropriately. Then the study concludes that what is most lacking from international law regarding language rights is the explicit recognition of freedom of language and a satisfactory definition of minority language rights. However, since minority language rights cannot be properly defined in the absence of the definition of freedom of language, the study seeks to define this freedom and according to the definition found, freedom of language is a partly territorial human right.
Language Rights as Collective Rights: Some Conceptual Considerations on Language Rights
Res Publica: Revista de Filosofía Política, 27 (2012), 109-118 ISSN: 1576-4184
"Stephen May (2011) holds that language rights have been insufficiently recognized, or just rejected as problematic, in human rights theory and practice. Defending the “human rights approach to language rights”, he claims that language rights should be accorded the status of fundamental human rights, recognized as such by states and international organizations. This article argues that the notion of language rights is far from clear. According to May, one key reason for rejecting the claim that language rights should be considered as human rights is the widespread belief that language rights are collective rights. In order to address this kind of objection, the collective character attributed to language rights must be carefully assessed, distinguishing two different views of what a collective right is."
The Tower of Babel: Human Rights and the Paradox of Language
European Journal of International Law
should be treated as human rights, both because language is constitutive of an individual's cultural identity and because linguistic pluralism increases diversity. These treaties and academics assign the value of linguistic pluralism in diversity. But, as this article demonstrates, major human rights courts and quasi-judicial institutions are not, in fact, prepared to force states to swallow the dramatic costs entailed by a true diversityprotecting regime. Outside narrow exceptions or a path dependent national-political compromise, these enforcement bodies continuously allow the state actively to incentivize assimilation into the dominant culture and language of the majority. The minority can still maintain its distinct language, but only at its own cost. The slippage between the promise of rights and their actual interpretation carries some important political and economic benefits, but the resulting legal outcome does not provide the robust protection of diversity to which lip service is paid. Importantly, the assimilationist nature of the jurisprudence is not indifferent to human rights. However, instead of advancing maximal linguistic diversity as a preeminent norm, the regime that is applied by judicial bodies supports a different set of human rights: those protecting linguistic minorities from discrimination, and promoting equal access of the group to market and political institutions. The result is a tension between two human rights values: pluralism and equality.
Bajo Palabra, 2017
Not even one universal international treaty is dedicated extensively to linguistic rights. This article presents the results of the analysis of selected universal and regional treaties containing provisions for the protection of language rights, and aims at drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the legal international approach in this subject matter. The analysis of the chosen acts of the international law and the European law leads to the conclusion that states are rather willing to accept soft law regulations, due to the lack of concern about stiff legal consequences, and then to adjust the particular issues with the help of bilateral agreements on a reciprocal basis.