Multiculturalism and Minority
Rights: Serbia and the EU
By
Margarita Neibauere
Submitted to
University of Amsterdam
Identity & Integration Program
Margarita Neibauere
5950252
Master Thesis Identity & Integration
Supervisor: dr. Claske Vos
Second reader: dr. M.E. Spiering
Amsterdam: The Netherlands
July 2014
E-mail: M.Neibauere@gmail.com
Inhoud
Introduction ... 2
1 Theoretical Framework: Multiculturalism and Minority Rights ... 7
1.1 Introduction ... 7
1.2 Three Stages of the Minority Debate ... 8
1.3 Kymlicka’s Group Differentiated Rights ... 13
1.4 Three Arguments for Group Differentiated Rights ... 16
1.5 Nation-building and Minority Rights... 18
1.6 Implications of Kymlicka’s theory for the Implementation of Minority Rights in Serbia . 19 2 Minority Rights in the Context of the EU ... 23
2.1 Introduction ... 23
2.2 Emergence of ‘Respect for and protection of minorities’ in the EU Accession Context .... 25
2.3 EU Minority Rights Instruments and Allegations of Double Standards ... 27
2.4 Tensions between Liberalism and Communitarianism in the internal and external EU approach to Multiculturalism ... 30
3 Minority Rights in Serbia: Policies and Perceptions ... 34
3.1 Introduction ... 34
3.2 Historical look at Minority Policies in Serbia... 36
3.3 Serbian Perceptions of Minorities ... 42
3.4 Serbia and the EU: Two Disparate Accounts of Multiculturalism ... 46
4 Minority Rights in Sandžak ... 48
4.1 Introduction ... 48
4.2 Bosniak Communities in Sandžak: Involuntary Incorporation ... 49
4.3 Illiberal Nation-State Building in Serbia ... 52
4.4 The Implementation of the FCNM in Sandžak ... 55
4.5 Group differentiated rights in Sandžak ... 62
5 Conclusion ... 65
5.1 Introduction ... 65
5.2 The case of Sandžak: Just claims for Group-differentiated Rights ... 66
Introduction
Ever since the fall of Communism, post-socialist countries have been pressured by the international community to adopt Western standards regarding multiculturalism and minority rights. In fact, respect for and protection of minorities is heralded as a core EU value and is therefore part of the accession criteria that the newly democratizing countries of Central and Eastern Europe must meet in order to gain EU membership. International frameworks and minority and human rights instruments are utilized by the European Union in order to export their guidelines and norms to countries such as Serbia. The underlying assumption is that Western liberal values and standards are equally applicable to Central and Eastern European and Western Balkan countries and would function well if endorsed by these communities. However, as this thesis will show, Western countries differ not only amongst themselves when it comes to managing cultural pluralism but they differ significantly from Central and Eastern European countries, both in terms of their approach to ethnocultural diversity as well as various other underlying factors such as e.g. the socio-political climate, history, demography and regional stability. In light of these differences, Western models of multiculturalism may not be appropriate or applicable and as a consequence more contextual methods may be necessary in order to guarantee a meaningful and sustainable minority rights implementation. In accordance with this theme, this thesis will address the following question: How do the discrepancies between the European and Serbian approach to multiculturalism obstruct a meaningful and durable implementation of minority rights in Serbia’s Sandžak and what is a possible meeting ground that could facilitate further progress? In order to answer the question of why minority policies in Sandžak have only been moderately successful when it comes to achieving a durable scope of minority rights implementation, it is necessary to look at the larger debate surrounding multiculturalism and how it is interrelated to policies pursued by both Serbia and the European Union. Therefore, a theoretical discussion, illustrating the various accounts of multiculturalism will serve as a point of departure in this thesis. Separate chapters will then more elaborately deal with the strategies pursued by the EU and Serbia as well as address the underlying value systems guiding these strategies. The discussion will show that both the EU and Serbia adhere to disparate accounts of multiculturalism, which as a result thwarts any progress regarding minority rights. Will Kymlicka’s theory on group differentiated citizenship will then be introduced as a
potential middle ground and will be applied and tested in the case of Sandžak. The following sections will address the focus on Serbia and Sandžak as well as demonstrate the relevance of Kymlicka’s theory to this research. The discussion will then be followed by a succinct chapter outline and close with the preliminary outcome.
There are several reasons to observe the rights of the minorities in Serbia and to do so specifically in Sandžak. First, Serbia is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in South East Europe, with notable populations of Hungarians, Roma and Bosniaks among many other. The wars that were waged on the territory of former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, accompanied by mass violence against civilians and the continuous migrations of the refugees caused by successive waves of ethnic cleansing, have had tragic consequences for all minority groups in the region. In addition, the post conflict egregious human and minority rights violations under Milošević only served to heighten the already present atmosphere of mistrust. After the democratic changes in 2000, Serbia , then part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, started changing its discriminatory practices and passed several appropriate laws for protection of its minorities. On May 11, 2001 Serbia joined the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), which was ratified by the Federal Parliament, on September 1, 2001. This development indicated that Serbia has been willing to undertake the responsibility to enforce the requirements of the FCNM. Due to this complexity of ethnic relations in Serbia and the intricacy of minority-state relations, Serbia presents an interesting case for the evaluation of minority related progress.
The second reason to pay attention to this specific region is related to the minority group in question. The Bosniak minority communities of Sandžak are among the most disadvantaged and underprivileged groups in Serbia and their situation, therefore, offers a good benchmark by which minority rights progress can be measured in Serbia. In many ways the current Serbian government remains deaf to the region's numerous problems regarding a wide variety of issues and continues to discriminate in both obvious and subtle fashion against the regions majority population, a problem that is stalling Serbia on its further path towards the EU. Concurrently, the Bosniaks are increasingly asserting their unique societal identity: The preservation of their cultural heritage and Bosnian language related issues among other things play a central role in this ethnocultural revival.
There are furthermore several reasons for the application of Kymlicka’s theoretical framework of multiculturalism for the discussion of the Bosniaks in Sandžak. First of all, Kymlicka is one of the leading advocates of national and ethnic rights in liberal political philosophy. His work has helped to shape the debate on the rights and status of ethnocultural minorities in liberal democracies. In addition to providing various arguments in favor of group differentiated rights, Kymlicka offers a meaningful framework for assessing the rights claims of various cultural groups and as a consequence his theory has a wide range of applicability. Furthermore, Kymlicka’s theory and the associated recommendations are generally in agreement with the provisions of the Council’s Framework Convention and is therefore capable of justifying its objectives. Moreover, his typology helps to differentiate between the different types of societal cultures, as well as their associated group rights. Considering the persistent problems stemming from cultural diversity and the growing importance of international norms for minority rights in Serbia, applying Kymlicka’s theory and additionally evaluating some of its drawbacks can furthermore contribute to an educated discussion about whether or not these international norms can and should be applied in the specific case study. The structure of this thesis will be outlined below.
A succinct discussion of the course of the minority rights debate will serve as a point of departure in the first chapter, introducing various key interpretations in the theoretical debate on multiculturalism. Afterwards, central elements of Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory on minority rights will be introduced, followed by a section elaborating on the implications and significance of his theory for the implementation of minority rights in Serbia, as well as on its relation to the FCNM, a human and minority rights instrument which has increasingly become a key point of reference in the EU’s assessment of candidates’ minority policies.
Considering the importance of ‘’Europeanization’’ of minority rights in Serbia’s enlargement policy, the second chapter will briefly discuss the emergence of minority rights on the European political agenda, as well as introduce some of the legal instruments for protection of minority rights that currently serve as key reference points when assessing minority policy implementation within states that are queueing for membership. In addition, the chapter will relate the current EU policy approach to its associated theory of multiculturalism, as well as address some of the difficulties facing the European Union’s internal approach when dealing with diversity. The discussion will show that while the EU uniformly promotes strategies of
liberal multiculturalism in its external agenda, internally diverging trends can be perceived in the form of both assimilation and multiculturalism. Additionally, certain criticisms will be raised along the way.
The third chapter will provide a historical look into some of the more general characteristics of the Serbian minority policy to see how far the country has come in furthering the protection of minorities and nurturing cultural diversity. The discussion will then determine what current legal frameworks are in place for the protection of minorities as part of the pre-accession negotiations. In addition, the chapter will address some of the factors that to this day continue to shape the Serbian perceptions on national minorities, as well as relate the discussion to theories on multiculturalism in order to shed light on some of the discrepancies between the EU and Serbia when it comes to dealing with minority groups.
The last part of this thesis will discuss the situation and rights of Bosniak minorities in the Serbian Sandžak within the framework of Kymlicka’s theory of group-differentiated citizenship. It will be the tentative assumption of this final chapter that in the case of Sandžak, the opposing values of the EU and Serbia can be sufficiently reconciled, through the application of Kymlicka’s contextually focused approach. The discussion will identify the Sandžak Bosniaks as national minorities and elaborate briefly on the involuntary incorporation of their communities into the Serbian nation state. A different section will address the relationship between state nation-building and minority rights. The discussion will show that the Serbian state is engaged in nation-building that potentially disadvantages members of minority communities. The current rights of the Bosniak minorities in Sandžak will then be discussed within the framework of the FCNM.
Based on the findings in the earlier discussion, this thesis will then assess the reasons behind some of the difficulties in implementing FCNM and will additionally explore several ways in order to more effectively meet the demands of the Bosniak minority in Sandžak and in turn, move ahead with the negotiation process. Moreover, both the applicability and limitations of Kymlicka’s theory within the Sandžak regional context will be evaluated. The conclusion is that Kymlicka’s theory on minority rights presents a meaningful groundwork that allows for an effective analysis of the cultural landscape in Serbia's Sandžak. In accordance with his theory, this thesis subscribes to the idea that effective measures in the form of special representation rights and self-government rights are needed in order to allow these groups to preserve and
develop their unique cultural identities. However, due to practical considerations, as well as the nature of the Serbian state the research deviates from Kymlicka’s concept of a multinational federation as the answer to the ethnonational problems facing Serbia. Instead, it proposes a less radical solution of meaningful regional autonomy, which will provide sufficient framework to accommodate minority needs.
1 Theoretical Framework: Multiculturalism and Minority Rights
1.1 Introduction
The increasingly multicultural framework of contemporary societies has given rise to a number of issues and matters of contention, as both ethnic and national minority groups demand acknowledgment and support in order to preserve their cultural identity. There are a number of scholars who have addressed various conceptions on the rights and status of minority cultures and presented what they argue are proper ways to respond to both religious and ethnic diversity. Multiculturalism, then, is a term that describes one particular way of responding to this reality. “It is a position that rejects assimilation and the “melting pot” image as an imposition of the dominant culture, and instead prefers such metaphors as the “salad bowl” or the “glorious mosaic”, in which each ethnic and racial element in the population maintains its distinctiveness”.1 Like with many other concepts in political theory, there exists no consensus
about what constitutes multiculturalism and as a consequence it continues to be a highly controversial and debated issue. For some, multiculturalism necessitates the realization of social and institutional changes in order to enable cultural and religious minorities to preserve and develop their distinctive customs. For others, multiculturalism is about removing both overt and subtle racism and cultivating, rather than rejecting or tolerating difference. Despite of the various forms it assumes, multiculturalism is generally placed in opposition to the assimilationist strategies prevalent in the past. As a political philosophy and policy approach, the concept of multiculturalism suggests that in an attempt to structure a cohesive society from various distinct cultural, ethnic and religious communities, ‘’it is better to acknowledge and value that diversity and not seek to minimize diversity, or to cast various groups within one single cultural mould’’.2
An indispensable realization is that multiculturalism means different things in different places. More than this, multiculturalism can assume various forms and be understood very differently within the same country. That being said, both the European Union and Serbia adhere to different interpretations of the concept of multiculturalism.
A succinct discussion of the course of the minority rights debate will serve as a point of
1 Gerald F. Gaus & Chandran Kukathas. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE, 2004. Pp. 251.
2 Jeffrey G. Reitz. Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity. New York:
departure in this chapter, introducing various key interpretations in the theoretical debate on multiculturalism. Afterwards, central elements of Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory on minority rights will be introduced, followed by a section elaborating on the implications and significance of his theory for the implementation of minority rights in Serbia, as well as on its relation to the FCNM, a human and minority rights instrument which has increasingly become a key point of reference in the EU’s assessment of candidates’ minority policies.
1.2 Three Stages of the Minority Debate
The modern day debate over the rights of minorities during the 1970s and 1980s essentially began in the form of a critical reaction to John Rawls book A Theory of Justice (1971) which reignited the old controversy between liberalism and communitarianism. Drawing primarily upon Aristotelian and Hegelian insights, political philosophers such as e.g. Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer contradicted Rawls' suggestion that the central task of the government is to guarantee and distribute fairly the liberties, wealth and income individuals need to lead freely chosen lives.3 For liberals the primary aim of human rights was to bring about
freedom and autonomy for individuals. Communitarians on the other hand stressed the importance of shared values and communities and therefore the necessity to recognize and respect the identity of individuals as members of groups.4 For instance, in his famous essay, The
Politics of Recognition, Charles Taylor emphasizes the crucial role society plays in the formation
of an identity and the importance of a community to be recognized. He states that: “Identity is formed by others recognition, or the absence of it, and often its misrecognition of it, so that one person or a group of people can suffer inconsiderably, suffer from a real distortion, if the people or the society surrounding them reflect a restricted or a degrading image of them.”5
The debate on whether human rights should mostly protect individual freedom or group identity was one of the more pronounced expressions of a much larger controversy between individual and collective rights within the human rights theory. At the earlier stage of the debate, supporting minority rights was inevitably tied to the communitarian criticism of liberal
3 ‘Communitarianism.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013. Web. June 25, 2014.
4 David Kindley. Human Rights: Old Problems, New Possibilities. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2013. Pp. 201.
individualism, and to the perception of minority rights as a defense of minority groups against liberalism. The advocates of minority rights generally agreed with communitarians that the concept of minority rights stood in stark contradiction to liberal individualism and as a consequence saw in it the inherent failure of liberalism.
However, for as long as this liberal-communitarian, autonomy-identity controversy has existed, there have been various attempts to create a connection between the two disparate accounts of human rights. Various theorists have both contributed to and strengthened the position of liberal culturalism, which is essentially framed around the crucial importance of cultural identity and national membership for the autonomy of individuals. For instance, Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz, emphasize the value and importance of communities and successful relationships to the overall well-being of their individual members.6 Certainly one of the most
influential of these theories is presented by Will Kymlicka, who believes that liberals should value group attachment, because it provides a ‘context of choice’ which allows individuals to make independent choices about what constitutes ‘the good life’ for them.7 Kymlicka’s first
theory was developed in his two major works: Liberalism, Community and Culture (1989) and
Multicultural Citizenship (1995). Kymlicka’s work was developed out of his dissatisfaction with
the political theory of post-war liberalism, which was based on the assumption that the issues surrounding minority rights could be resolved by guaranteeing the protection of individual rights, as codified in the UN Charter. In his influential work, Multicultural Citizenship, Kymlicka claims that individual rights are not enough to protect minorities from majority oppression and provides a liberal theory in favour of minority rights. However, he does emphasize that no uniform formula can be applied to all groups and that the aspirations of immigrant communities are generally different from those of indigenous peoples and national minorities. More precisely, he contends that liberal democracies must accommodate such diversity in a morally defensible way and that safeguarding group-specific rights requires the development of the concept of "group-differentiated" citizenship.8 For instance, he advocates self-government rights for
indigenous peoples and national minorities because their minority status is unchosen. In other
6 Joseph Raz. ‘Multiculturalism. A Liberal Perspective.’ Birkbeck University of London. Pp. 177. Web. July 10,
2014.
7 David Kindley. Human Rights: Old Problems, New Possibilities. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2013. Pp. 203.
words, such groups have often been forcibly incorporated into the larger state. This as opposed to immigrant communities, who in his opinion are composed of voluntary economic migrants who have chosen to give up the access to their native culture by migrating to a different country. He understands immigrant multiculturalism mostly as a demand for fairer terms of integration, e.g. funding for bilingual education or exemptions from dress codes, and not a rejection of integration.9
The individualism versus collectivism controversy, that marked the discussion at its primary stage soon provoked another debate on multiculturalism which was primarily preoccupied with the question as to how state neutrality was to be interpreted within the framework of liberal culturalism. Advocates of liberal culturalism support the idea that certain minority rights may advance liberal values. However, the very idea of granting special rights to minority communities stands in stark contrast to the concept of a ‘neutral’ liberal state. As a consequence, liberal culturalists aimed to meet the burden of proof by demonstrating the importance of cultural adherence in advancing and protecting individual autonomy. In short, their aim was to prove that special rights supplement individual autonomy and equality. However, the extent of special group rights within liberal theory remains highly disputed.10 One of the
difficulties facing liberal culturalists is separating minority rights that supplement individual rights, from those that restrict them. Kymlicka aims to tackle this problem by differentiating between ‘internal restrictions’ and ‘external protections’. Internal restrictions are those that a community wants imposed against members of the community. These restrictions may impinge upon basic and political liberties of a groups individual member. External protections, on the other hand, are designed to reduce the restrictions that are imposed upon a certain community by external pressures.11
The veiled assumption that had characterized the second stage of the debate in the late 80s and 90s, was the ethnocultural neutrality of the liberal state. Generally, liberals have strongly supported the idea of a secular state and the privatization of religion, for that reason many have assumed that the concept of state neutrality could be equally applicable to cultural diversity. Many theorists furthermore frame the concept of the separation of state and culture within the
9 ‘Multiculturalism.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2014. Web. June 26, 2014. 10 One example is Brian Barry’s Culture and Equality. His criticism will be elaborated below.
11 Jeff Spinner-Halev. Surviving Diversity: Religion and Democratic Citizenship. Baltimore: John Hopkins
(liberal) civic and (illiberal) ethnic debate.12 While ethnic nations have a genuine interest and
take an active part in safeguarding a particular culture and identity, civic nations define their membership in terms of common political values. It should therefore come as no surprise that minority rights, in liberal states, have often been rejected based on the ideal of a civic nation and a neutral state.
The third stage constituted a radical departure in the sense that the very idea of liberal ethno-neutrality had grown increasingly contested. For instance, according to Kymlicka, no civic (liberal) state can possibly hope to be neutral in determining which ethnic groups’ language, culture and national holidays to advocate at the national level. Equally, communitarians such as Charles Taylor disagree with the idea that the state neutral liberalism functions in a culturally neutral manner. He states that: “Liberalism is not a possible meeting ground for all cultures, but is the political expression of one range of cultures, and quite incompatible with other ranges”. As an “organic outgrowth of Christianity” he states, “liberalism can’t and shouldn’t claim complete cultural neutrality.’’13
As demonstrated above, the debate over multiculturalism and minority rights has intensified over the past few decades, specifically in the Western countries. However, liberal criticism of multiculturalism has also achieved a fair amount of success. One of the proponents of multicultural criticism is the political philosopher Brian Barry, who in his book Culture and
Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism systematically attacks the concept of
multiculturalism. Barry believes that multiculturalism is inconsistent with liberal egalitarianism because it condemns liberal rights, fragments society, and in addition removes the attention from the socio economic inequalities. According to Barry, concepts such as common citizenship or the universal right do not negate the multicultural realities of today's societies. In fact he contends that liberal citizenship does a pretty good job at promoting inter cultural co-existence.14 In
contrast to a number of proponents of multiculturalism, who denounce universality and instead promote politics of difference, Barry views the latter as a formula for manufacturing conflict. He
12 William Pfaff. The Wrath of Nations. Civilization and the Furies of Nationalism. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1993. Pp. 162.
13 Gerd Baumann The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic and Religious Identities. NY: Routledge,
1999. Pp. 111.
14 Pierik Roland. Rev. of Culture and equality : An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism by Brian Barry. Political Theory. Vol. 30, No. 5, October 2002. Pp.751.
convincingly argues that group specific rights have not proven to be a fruitful enterprise and instead believes that these rights create a larger diversity within a community.
He furthermore attacks various proposals advanced by multiculturalists, such as the theory of group differentiated rights (Kymlicka) and public recognition (Taylor), stating that these ideas threaten the fabric of society and justice. In Barry’s view, liberal institutions have provided more opportunities for immigrants than multicultural theorists tend to recognize. As a consequence, he contends that successes need to build upon the expansion of liberal justice rather than its abandonment.15
In contrast to the aforementioned political theorists, Brian Barry argues for a uniform model of citizenship according to which “everybody enjoys the same legal and political rights,” with no differentiations being made between citizens on the basis of group membership, class, or ethnicity.16 He furthermore suggests that those who migrate permanently to liberal democratic
societies have the responsibility to act in accordance with the customs of the host nation. He states that “it is an appropriate objective of public policy in a liberal democratic state to facilitate the achievement of a state of affairs in which all immigrants - or at least their descendants - become assimilated to the national identity of the country in which they have settled.”17
Brian Barry’s criticism of multicultural advocates takes issue with liberal multiculturalists understanding of what equality requires. In his view, religion and culture may shape one's disposition towards seizing certain opportunities, but they do not affect whether one has an opportunity. He contends that justice is primarily concerned with providing equal opportunities and not with guaranteeing equal access to any particular choices or outcomes.18 Barry believes
that neither cultural nor religious affiliations ultimately limit the scope of opportunities one can enjoy. However, they do clearly impinge upon the choices one can make within a set of given opportunities available to all. He also distinguishes between both positive and negative public policies that are involved in equal treatment. For instance, the former refers to policies that
15 Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Rev. of Culture and equality : An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism by Brian Barry. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 64, No. 2, 2002. Pp. 681-683.
16 Anna Stilz. ‘Civic Nationalism and Language Policy.’ Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol.
37, No. 3, 2009. Pp. 261.
17 David Bromell. ‘Ethnicity, Identity and Public Policy Critical Perspectives on Multiculturalism.’ Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. 2008. Pp. 253.
18 Brian Barry. ‘Equal Treatment & Same Treatment.’ The Wilf Family Department of Politics. Pp. 11. Web. July 10,
provide subsidies and other resources to minority groups, while the latter grants minority groups exemptions from certain obligations, such as for instance the case concerning crash helmets.
All positions taken in the communitarian/liberalism debate ultimately reflect a certain position in relation to sate, society and the characteristics of the minority group. Cultural factors and justifications will often result in the hierarchization of rights and therefore in the prioritization of certain interpretations of the concept of multiculturalism over others. I believe that neither a strict communitarian, nor a liberal concept can provide the answer to the multiethnic realities of today’s societies and therefore a more contextual approach, taking into account the various regional complexities as well as minority and state relations, is necessary in order to meaningfully address the problems emanating from cultural pluralism.
1.3 Kymlicka’s Group Differentiated Rights
The majority of the countries in the world are made up of cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities that are different from the majority population. The diverse character of nations creates considerable challenges for countries to accommodate cultural diversity fairly. Kymlicka states: ‘’Minorities and majorities increasingly clash over issues as language rights, regional autonomy, political representation, education, curriculum, land claims, immigration, and naturalization policy, even national symbols, such as the choice of national anthem and public holidays. Finding morally defensible and politically viable answers to these issues are the greatest challenge facing democracies today.’’19 Throughout history, many efforts have been
undertaken to safeguard the rights of minorities and to resolve minority conflicts. Nationalist conflicts have formed a constant threat to international peace and stability and this encouraged liberals to attend to the rights of minority groups. After the WWII, the codification of human rights was the central principle guiding the UN Charter and the protection of individual rights was considered as adequate in also protecting those belonging to a minority group.20
However, it soon became apparent that the existing arrangements within the framework of human rights could not provide sufficient protection for minorities and as a consequence a new approach was necessary to meet the demands of minority communities. The major issue
19 Will Kymlicka. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. 1. 20 Julie Sunday. ‘Minority Rights.’ Globalization and Autonomy. Web. June 28, 2014.
with the traditional civil and political rights was that they could not address the questions that arose in relation to ethnic and national groups, such as i.e.: ‘’Which language should be recognized in the parliament? Should ethnic or national groups have publicly funded education in their mother tongue? Should political offices be distributed in accordance with a principle of ethnic or national proportionality?’’21 If the state was going to address these questions it needed
to supplement individual rights with institutional measures that also represented its multi-ethnic reality. According to Kymlicka, the problem is that these questions were and to this day are generally left in the hands of the majority and this has resulted in increasing vulnerability of minority groups to social injustice, which has only served to aggravate the ethnocultural conflicts. Kymlicka contends that there is little hope to secure peace and respect for human rights until the minority rights issues are resolved.
To date the topic of minority rights is too often dealt with in somewhat vague terms, therefore Kymlicka’s attempt to differentiate between certain groups is certainly commendable as specification of the definitions in this debate is often necessary. This, by no means, signifies an endorsement of his specific proposal for differentiation, however it does enable to elevate the discussion beyond the broad definition of minorities. Kymlicka’s complete systematic classification of cultural minorities allows to compare both the nature and claims of the different communities. As mentioned above, Kymlicka divides ethnocultural groups into two general categories: national minorities (in multinational states) and immigrant groups (in polyethnic states). The main reason for the separation of these two groups lies in the often divergent aims of both groups. Whereas the main goal of a national minority is to be independent, the goal of an immigrant is to integrate. Obviously this theory does have its weaknesses. For one, not only does it provide a very one-sided and mostly unrealistic view of especially immigrant minorities, it furthermore points towards a discrepancy within Kymlicka’s own views. Kymlicka is known as a staunch defender of both national and immigrant minorities. However with regards to the latter, he seems to advocate a policy of assimilation, which ultimately entails the abandonment of one's identity. This also appears somewhat at odds with current migrant’s policies in most Western European countries, who despite advocating integration still accept the preservation of one owns
identity.
Despite of these objections, which are mainly aimed at Kymlicka’s treatment of immigrant
minorities, his group-differentiated theory elaborates rather exhaustively on the main focus of this research, namely, the rights of national minorities, additionally taking into account the minority state relations in post socialist settings. Therefore, when it comes to the assessment of the rights of the Sandžak Bosniaks his theory is still very much relevant and applicable.
A multinational state which grants universal human rights to all its citizens, irrespectively of one's group affiliations, may be perceived as neutral. Kymlicka, however, perceives it in a different light and states that a neutral state is neither realistic nor impartial. He describes it as “the myth of ethnocultural neutrality”22 which in essence is a reflection of hegemonic culture, in that it privileges the majority population in fundamental ways. One example of this would be the language of schools, governments and courts. Minority groups are essentially forced to accept the lifestyle that is imposed by a majority group and this in turn may radically decrease the political power and the cultural feasibility of a minority group. As a consequence, this ‘’neutrality’’ is actually a legitimization of discrimination. Because of this injustice Kymlicka proposes a different model, namely a differentiation policy, which is fairer towards minorities, as it grants them group specific rights that may reimburse some of the inequalities and help them integrate into society as well as to retain some of their cultural identity. The group differentiated rights Kymlicka defines are self-government rights, polyethnic rights and special representation rights.
Self-government rights are answers to claims put forward by national minority groups, such as those of indigenous peoples and polyethnic rights are those articulated in response to immigrant and religious minority demands, such as for instance anti-racism policies, funding of ethnic associations and exemptions from law. Lastly, special representation rights are described as corollary to self-governmental rights and are used in order to offset the historical exclusion that individuals of disadvantaged communities experience. 23 One way to address these
inequalities is to make political parties more inclusive and to reduce the barriers which restrain members from disadvantaged groups from becoming party candidates.
In general, much criticism is directed at the very idea of group-differentiated rights. There are generally two types of criticisms. The first is skeptical of the very claim that groups can hold rights, whereas the second criticism is directed at the implications or consequences of ascribing
22 Will Kymlicka. ‘Nation-building and minority rights: Comparing West and East.’ Highbeam Business. 2000.
Web. July 17, 2014.
rights to groups. The common worry is the threat that group rights may pose to individual rights.24 However, according to Kymlicka, if the group-differentiated rights did not exist,
minority communities would be deprived of their rights of learning and working in their own native language, something that the majority group takes for granted. Therefore, despite of this criticism, he offers three arguments in favor of group rights.
1.4 Three Arguments for Group Differentiated Rights
Kymlicka offers three arguments in support of group-differentiated rights: the equality argument, the role of historical agreements and the value of cultural diversity. As the discussion will show, the value of cultural diversity and the historical agreements are not particularly appropriate for the purpose of justifying the rights of national minorities. Therefore, the discussion here will primarily focus on the equality argument.
According to the equality argument, group-specific rights are necessary to offset the disadvantages that are faced exclusively by members of minority cultures within states that are actively engaged in diffusing a societal culture. It affirms that group-differentiated measures are needed to guarantee that all citizens are treated equally in a society. Group specific rights such as i.e. territorial autonomy or language rights may rectify these disadvantages by for instance ensuring that members of minority communities are granted the opportunity to live and work in their own culture.
The realization of historical agreements such as treaty rights of indigenous people, terms of federation, agreement concerning boundaries and use of language is important according to the equality principle. If the integration of a national minority happened on voluntary grounds, the rights may have been written down in treaties, which presents both moral and legal arguments to respects these agreements. However, this may create problems for groups that never relinquished control or that were integrated involuntary. In that case the national minorities have the right to claim self-determination. However, Kymlicka himself is skeptical about the applicability of the historical agreement argument by stating that: ‘’Those people who think that group differentiated rights are unfair have not been appeased by pointing to agreement that were
made by previous generations in different circumstances, often undemocratically and in conditions of substantial inequality in bargaining power.’’25
The third argument used for special minority rights is the one that is based on the inherent value of cultural diversity. Kymlicka states: ‘’Cultural diversity is said to be valuable, both in the quasi aesthetic sense that it creates a more interesting world and because other cultures contain alternative models of social organization that may be useful in adapting to new circumstances.’’26
This argument differs from the previous two in the sense that it appeals to self-interest of the majority, as opposed to justice and obligations. For instance, minority groups can contribute to the mainstream culture through diversity of arts, music and so forth. However, here too Kymlicka seems skeptical about the applicability of this argument to support group specific rights and self-government. First of all, a society could arguably gain more diversity at a considerably cheaper cost, simply by increasing immigration from various countries, as opposed to funding the various projects of national minority groups. The second problem emanates from the same fact, taking into account that the benefits gained by the majority population from diversity are spread thinly and widely. In short, the majority population would be asked to pay a significantly higher price so that others could enjoy a flourishing minority culture.27 As a
consequence, the majority may not always accept diversity as enlightened self interest. Finally, Kymlicka considers that the diversity argument in itself is insufficient to justify the rights of national minorities. The benefits are at best desirable by-products, rather than primary justifications for special minority rights. The argument of the value of cultural diversity is therefore best combined with the former two arguments that entreaty to the obligations of the majority.
According to Kymlicka all liberal democratic states generally engage in the process of diffusing some form of societal culture, in the form of e.g. official language policy or national holidays, a process which Kymlicka terms nation-building. As a consequence both multi-nation and polyethnic states will often make decision that favor the majority population and disadvantage minority groups. What Kymlicka essentially proposes, is to both recognize and compensate for these drawbacks and as a consequence provide minorities with an equal
25 Dale Turner. This Is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy. University of Toronto Press,
2006. Pp. 68.
26 Cecile Fabre. Justice in a Changing World. London: Polity, 2007. Pp. 55.
opportunity to e.g. live and work in their own cultural environment. It is therefore not a matter of preferential treatment, but more an issue of lessening certain vulnerabilities that are strictly characteristic to both national and ethnic minorities in states that are actively engaged in diffusing a societal culture. The next section will address the relationship between state nation-building and minorities in the newly democratizing post socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe as well as introduce certain conditions that a liberal state should satisfy in order to justify its nation-building.
1.5 Nation-building and Minority Rights
According to Kymlicka the newly-democratizing countries of Central and Eastern Europe are following the model of the ‘nation-building’ state. These countries are not ethnoculturally neutral, but are in fact engaged in projects of nation-building, and of ‘’diffusing a common societal culture throughout the territory of the state’’. Some of the nation building tools that are employed are for instance: school curriculums, citizenship policy, national symbols, official language policy, support for national media etc.28 Nation-building projects have been quite
successful in some states, but have under certain circumstances experienced resistance in multination states, by members of national minority groups who do not view themselves as part of the majority. Precisely because of this, minority groups have often been submitted to assimilation policies, aimed at suppressing their unique cultural identity.
Some Western commentators29 have taken this evidence and used it to prove that Central
and Eastern European countries are fundamentally different from the Western ‘civic’ states. However, Kymlicka notes that nation-building is not inherently contradictory to Western liberal democracy. In fact, he states that Western states too have engaged in nation building activities in order to give a more national character to public space. Instead, Kymlicka distinguishes between practices of liberal and illiberal nation building. For instance, illiberal nation building will often go hand in hand with more coercive measures and impose greater injustices upon minorities,
28 Will Kymlicka. ‘Nation-building and minority rights: Comparing West and East.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010. Pp. 195.
29 This notion of fundamental difference in national identities can ultimatly be traced to the Western (civic) and
Eastern (ethnic) debate derivational from the works of i.a. Hans Kohn, Friendrich Meinecke and more recents works such as that of Michael Ignatieff.
whereas liberal nation building is more inclusive and involves the diffusion of a very thin form of culture, which is primarily centered on a shared language. According to Kymlicka, nation-building in a liberal democratic state should generally satisfy the following three conditions: a) nation-building must be inclusive: in other words, no long-term residents should be permanently excluded from membership, and everyone should be able to become an equal member of the nation; b) the concept of national identity and integration must be pluralistic and tolerant, not imposing any particular set of customs, religious beliefs, or lifestyles and should furthermore leave enough room for the expression of individual and collective differences, both in public and private; c) all national groups within a state, not just the majority nation, are allowed to engage in their own nation-building.30
He furthermore proposes to view minority demands in relation to majority nation-building, more specifically, he views them as a defensive response to the threats and injustices posed by the majority nation building. According to Kymlicka, in order for state nation-building to be legitimate, it needs to be balanced out with group-differentiated rights, in addition to common rights. For example, granting an official status to local languages can protect against an unfair language policy, whereas granting self-government and special representation rights can safeguard minority communities against division of powers, etc. This framework is broadly applicable to the current situation in Serbia.
1.6 Implications of Kymlicka’s theory for the Implementation of Minority Rights in Serbia
As the theoretical discussion in the first half of this chapter has demonstrated, there has been a lot of change, development and reaction regarding the concept of multiculturalism. To this day, there continues to be a great amount of praise for the concept, as well as a fair amount of criticism. Different multiculturalist theories vary greatly in their applicability depending on the country or region and therefore ideally require a contextual and empirically sensible approach. There is certainly no one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with multicultural diversity. That being said, liberal theories on multiculturalism are generally more in line with strategies pursued on a European level and liberal views on multiculturalism are therefore considered more applicable in
the Western democratic context. However, the application of this liberal multiculturalism is predominantly only theorized across borders and many critics, including Taylor, argue against the universality of this model, by stating that the so called state neutral liberalism does not operate from the premise of ethnocultural neutrality.
In Serbia on the other hand, the pro-nationalist inclinations tend to fit with the communitarian stance in general. As already outlined above, according to communitarianism some form of community is necessary for the acquisition and preservation of one’s identity. In the case of Serbia, the ethnocultural nation is the type of community that is generally perceived as appropriate for this task by ethnic Serbian citizens. Furthermore, communitarianism is equally applicable to the case of Sandžak, because this model of multiculturalism defends the right to assume a political form of state. That being said, the situation in Serbia is very intricately coiled, in the sense that it exhibits the characteristics from both ends of the theoretical spectrum. The legal frameworks that are in place for the protection of minorities, such as the Framework Convention, are very liberal and individually oriented, whereas, as the case study will demonstrate, the practical implementation is often thwarted by Serbian collective priorities. As already indicated above, the primary theoretical focus will be attributed to Kymlicka’s liberal theory on multiculturalism. There are a number of reasons to use Kymlicka’s theoretical framework for the discussion of minority rights in Serbia and Sandžak more specifically. Kymlicka was one of the first political theorists to systematically theorize the rights of cultural minorities and his theory is generally regarded as the most influential in the field of multiculturalism. In addition, he considers both the theoretical as well as practical dilemmas facing multicultural nations and as a consequence his work is generally empirically sensible and provides an elaborate categorization system for various contextual implementations, limiting the amount of violence to the diversity and complexities of a geographical location such as Sandžak.
Moreover, his work in general has focused on minority rights protection internationally, as a consequence his theories should have a broad range of applicability across the European borders, an assertion that I intend to test in the second half of this thesis. Unlike most liberal theorists he does not act from the premise of ethnocultural neutrality, which is an appropriate stance when dealing with a state such as Serbia, which clearly still pursues collective interests. In addition, Kymlicka distinguishes between different sets of minority rights for both national and immigrant minorities and as a consequence sets limits to the claims certain minorities can make
within a society. In this thesis I propose to focus on the model Kymlicka has designed to deal with the multinational sort of diversity, however, leaving out the issue of immigration, as my focus will primarily be on the Bosniak community in Serbia. Furthermore, applying Kymlicka’s theory on minority rights to Serbia may help to identify and elucidate some of the discrepancies and inequalities underlying the Serbian minority protection. For instance, it would be interesting to find out whether the minority groups in Serbia have been given any group-differentiated rights and if so, whether they have been implemented consistently. Considering the persistent problems stemming from cultural diversity and the growing importance of international norms for minority rights in Serbia, applying Kymlicka’s theory and additionally evaluating some of its drawbacks can furthermore contribute to an educated discussion about whether or not the international norms can and should be applied in the specific case study. The next paragraph will discuss the relevance of Kymlicka’s theory to the Council of Europe’s FCNM.
The significance of the FCNM to the debate on multiculturalism, and the reason why it will be used as a benchmark to measure progress later on in the case study, lies in the fact that to some degree the framework of the FCNM and the work of the Advisory Committee parallels the concerns and conceptions as disseminated within the public discourse by the multicultural advocates. This is also reflected in the two most basic tenets of minority protection in the FCNM, namely, guaranteeing equality on the one hand, while protecting the ability to preserve a distinct group identity on the other hand. In addition, the Convention is not restricted in its conception of what constitutes a minority and is therefore applicable to all sorts of religious, linguistic, ethnic and cultural groups who find themselves in a minority position. However, the FCNM does clearly build on liberal foundations of tolerance, which indicates a focus on individual freedom and is therefore more in line with Kymlicka’s theories on multicultural citizenship. The departure from communitarianism does to some extent limit the Framework Convention when it comes to addressing the problems emerging from the collective character of minority rights. Particularly, because in certain circumstances the protection of national minorities can only be effectively guaranteed through collective action. However, for this reason the Framework Convention does require that persons belonging to national minorities should exercise their minority rights ‘in community with others’, in essence identifying a collective dimension within its boundaries.31
31 Claudia Tevani. Collective Rights and the Cultural Identity of the Roma: A Case Study of Italy. The Netherlands:
Despite of its obvious leanings towards a more liberal approach, it does recognize and take into account the significance of the other side of the debate.
2 Minority Rights in the Context of the EU
2.1 Introduction
Minority rights have increasingly become an area of concern for the European Union. Yet despite of the European Union's longstanding commitment to the protection of human rights, the minority question did not arise as a major policy concern until the 1990s. When considering some of the more serious conflicts regarding the minority questions such as inter alia Northern Ireland, Corsica and the Basque separatist movements it becomes obvious, from the lack of an active EU role in the settlement of these disputes, that the member states, since the early European stages have considered these issues as relating to their internal affairs.32 The lack of
common policy objectives with regards to the minority issues at the European level has as a consequence resulted in different policy practices being adhered in various member states, which generally do by default comply with international human rights standards as articulated by such bodies as the UN, The Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).33 However, the need for the EU to develop its own policy dealing with minority
issues has not been self-evident, and it can be rationalized by the fact that in practice the member-states have been fairly obliging towards their minorities. While questions regarding the harmonization of the community approach were certainly raised on the occasion in the European Parliament, the general attitude on the part of both the Commission and Council could be summarized by the belief that 'what the member-states do with "their" minorities is not the EU's business'.34
Subsequently, the turning point occurred as a matter of external policy process which was reflected in the ongoing enlargement towards Eastern Europe. Gwendolyn Sasse asserts that in the post-Cold War period many of the post-communist countries prioritized the enhancement of central state capacity and the status of the titular nationality, which in turn exposed the minority
32 Balázs Vizi. ‘The European Union and the Rights of Ethnic Minorities.’ Hungarian Human Rights Foundation.
Web. May 25, 2014.
33‘Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection.’ Open Society Foundations. 2002. pp. 18. Web. May
25, 2014.
34 Witte, Bruno, ‘Politics versus Law in the EU’s Approach to Ethnic Minorities’, in J. Zielonka (ed.) Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union, London: Routledge, 2002. Pp.9.
population to potential forms of discrimination and alienation.35 In addition, the violent collapse
of former Yugoslavia and the potential danger of intensification of ethnic conflict in the region as a result of the presence of considerable minority populations in many of the post-communist countries brought about an increasing sense of awareness within the EU to deal with the minority problem more efficiently.36 Concurrently, the obvious eagerness on the part of the Central and
Eastern European countries to join Europe, granted the EU with a golden opportunity to exert more influence on the matter by incorporating minority rights into EU’s accession conditions. In fact, this aspiration culminated with the adoption of the political criteria for membership at the Copenhagen Council in June 1993, which included “respect for and protection of minorities’’37 as a pre-accession requirement and as a consequence marked a significant turning point in European policy making in the field of minority rights.
Opening up to Central and Eastern European countries has presented the EU with numerous challenges and the incorporation of minority rights into the broader definition of EU conditionality has additionally contributed to a rather contentious kickoff in foreign policy. Certainly it has led to allegations of double standards, seeing as how externally the EU does adhere to a unified policy stance, while internally the member states do not act according to a single uniform approach.38 The lack of a European model in the area of minority rights has
additionally left a lot of room for interpretation and this in itself, together with the obvious loss of credibility as a consequence of the perceived double standard, is a reason enough to strive towards a more coherent EU approach.39 Furthermore, given the ongoing project of widening and
deepening as a means to operate both the enlargement and integration policies, the EU’s hesitancy and vacillation regarding the minority rights in its own member states may become infeasible in the future. The issue surrounding immigration and minority rights in both member states and third countries has become a conspicuous one, and as a consequence it is safe to
35 Gwendolyn Sasse. ‘Gone with the Wind? Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe before and after EU
Enlargement.’ KU Leuven Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen. April 2006. pp. 2. Web. May 25, 2014.
36 Gwendolyn Sasse. ‘Gone with the Wind? Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe before and after EU
Enlargement.’ KU Leuven Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen. April 2006. pp. 3. Web. May 25, 2014.
37 ‘Accession criteria (Copenhagen criteria).’ Europa: Summaries of EU Legislation. Web. July 17, 2014. 38 Regarding issues on ‘’double standards’’see: B. de Witte, ‘Politics versus Law in the EU’s Approach to Ethnic
Minorities’, in J. Zielonka (ed.) Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union, London: Routledge, 2002. James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse. ‘Monitoring the Monitors: EU Enlargement
Conditionality and Minority Protection in the CEECs.’ European Center for Minority Issues. 2003.
39Amato, Giuliano and Judy Batt. ‘Minority Rights and EU Enlargement to the East.’ European University Institute.
assume that further expansion, incorporating countries with highly divergent interests and minority approaches, will only exacerbate the issue. At the same time, the supranational integration has further challenged the sovereignty of the member-states and has as a consequence, fueled many debates on national identity and multiculturalism. The resulting regional nationalism, together with the aforementioned widening processes are both developments that are likely to push the issue further onto the European agenda.40
The following sections will address the emergence of minority rights on the European political agenda, as well as discuss the legal instruments for protection of minority rights that currently serve as key reference points when assessing minority policy implementation within states that are queued for membership. In addition, the chapter will relate the current EU policy approach to its associated theory of multiculturalism, as well as address some of the difficulties facing the European Union’s internal approach when dealing with diversity. The discussion will show that while the EU uniformly promotes strategies of liberal multiculturalism in its external agenda, internally diverging trends can be perceived in the form of both assimilation and multiculturalism. Along the way some of the criticisms related to the European external strategies will be addressed.
2.2 Emergence of ‘Respect for and protection of minorities’ in the EU Accession Context
Some form of internal consensus with regards to minority protection at the EU level has emerged during the period of time of the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.41 It was only with the
establishment of the Maastricht Treaty that, for the first time in the history of the EU, specific minority concerns were addressed through the inclusion of Article 151 (preciously 128) of the EC treaty, committing the community ‘’to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’. 42 Additionally, European competencies were introduced in both
education (art. 149) and culture (art. 151), hence introducing both social policy aspects and the
40 Giuliano Amato and Judy Batt. ‘Minority Rights and EU Enlargement to the East.’ European University Institute.
September 1998. Pp. 4.
41 Tove. H. Malloy. Minority Issues in Europe: Rights, Concepts. Policy. Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013. Pp. 86. 42 Giuliano Amato and Judy Batt. ‘Minority Rights and EU Enlargement to the East.’ European University Institute.
cultural diversity principle in what had previously been an overwhelmingly economic union.43
For minority studies in general, this development, as embodied by the Maastricht Treaty, created a major link between EU-policy making and minority rights. In short, the EU discourse throughout the 1990s was increasingly marked by the emphasis on minority rights protection, though this was meant purely for an external audience, in other words, the states queued for accession. Consequently, the Copenhagen Criteria were very explicit as to the conditions that the aspiring members would have to effectuate, and these included in no uncertain terms the protection of national minorities.44
According to the first Copenhagen criteria, as laid down in 1993 European Council in Copenhagen for the purposes of enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe, in order for a country to be eligible to join the European Union it requires for that state to ‘’preserve democratic governance and human rights, the rule of law, and respect for and protection of minorities’’.45 Ever since, minority rights have become an integral part of EU political
conditionality, a key tool in fostering the spread of norms on human rights and democracy. In addition, the Amsterdam Treaty has further extended the EU potential in this area by referring to ethnicity in their anti-discrimination agenda. Article 19 (previously art 6a) provides that the European Community may 'take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.'46 This was clearly
designed to aid immigrant populations. Yet it was the Lisbon Treaty that was far more innovative, as it had officially introduced the term ‘minority’ within the acquis communautaire and moreover, had made the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, requiring that for the first time in EU history minority and human rights are to be respected. This gradual, yet important evolution of minority rights protection within the EU has been summarized by Bruno de Witte as an ''incipient EU minority rights policy constituted by specific (and often quite limited) activities in a number of different fields.''47
As already mentioned above, the key tool at the disposal of the EU to encourage and ensure compliance with the minority rights criteria is the EU conditionality. Political
43 Tove. H. Malloy. Minority Issues in Europe: Rights, Concepts, Policy. Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013. Pp. 86. 44 Idem, pp. 65.
45 ‘Conditions for membership’. European Commission. Web. July 13, 2014.
46 ‘Fundamental rights and non-discrimination.’ Europa: Summaries of EU Legislation. Web. July 13, 2014. 47Tove. H. Malloy. Minority Issues in Europe: Rights, Concepts, Policy. Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013. Pp. 86.
conditionality can be described as: “the exercise of policy instruments by one party to secure compliance and shape the actions of another party”.48 The main driving force in EU political
conditionality is the incentive of EU membership, while the main danger is that of exclusion.49
Despite of the varying degrees of achievement in the Central and Eastern European countries, the use of EU conditionality has generally been perceived as successful and as having worked according to its intended purpose. However, there are several authors that have criticized its effect on minority protection, by pointing to the limited EU leverage and to the lack of commitment to the implementation of such criteria by candidate countries. Other inconsistencies can also be found. For instance, by allowing Cyprus to join the EU without having resolved its deep-rooted ethnic problems, it may likely make it difficult to put pressure on other aspirant members to make similar improvements prior to membership.50
2.3 EU Minority Rights Instruments and Allegations of Double Standards
The concept of respect for and protection of minorities within the framework of the EU remains highly debated. Despite of the minority protection being increasingly implicit in the growing human rights culture of the EU, much of the focus is clearly directed towards potential members. Bruno de Witte notes that: ‘For the EU the concern for minorities is primarily an export product and not one for domestic consumption.’’51 As a consequence the meaning of the term has been
insufficiently developed within the EU law. Will Kymlicka, in a similar fashion, points to the diverging approaches amongst the member states themselves when dealing with ethnic relations, which in turn complicates any attempts at setting common standards and practices.52 Soft law
measures, such as guidelines and declarations have progressively been developed in order to aid the situation, but many are yet to be accepted by all EU member states. Additionally, because the
48 Merve Yildiz. ‘EU Conditionality and Minority Rights: A Comparative Study on Romania and Turkey.’
Academia.edu. 2011. Pp. 11.
49 Simonida Kacarska. ‘Minority Policies and EU Conditionality - The Case of the Republic of Macedonia.’ Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe. Vol 11, No 2, 2012. Pp. 65.
50 Michael Johns."Old" and "New" Minorities within the EU: The Growing Need for Policies on Social Cohesion.’ John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. June 2010. Pp. 16.
51 Helen O'Nions. Minority Rights Protection in International Law: The Roma of Europe. England: Ashgate, 2007.
Pp. 89.
52 Will Kymlicka. ‘’Language Rights and Political Theory.’’ Bratislava International School of Liberal Arts. 2003.
