http://sdi.sagepub.com

Security Dialogue

DOI: 10.1177/096701068701800403

1987; 18; 507

Security Dialogue

Rodolfo Stavenhagen

Ethnic Conflict and Human Rights Their Interrelationship

http://sdi.sagepub.com

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo

can be found at:

Security Dialogue

Additional services and information for

http://sdi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://sdi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

507

Ethnic Conflict

and Human

Rights

Their

Interrelationship

Rodolfo

Stavenhagen*

El

Colegio

de

Mexico,

Mexico

City

*

Rodolfo

Stavenhagen

is Professor of Social

Sciences

at

El

Colegio

de

Mexico;

he is Coordi-

nator

of the

Programme

on

Ethnic Conflict

at

The

United

Nations

University,

Tokyo.

1.

Ethnic

identity

Ethnic

conflict

appears

to

be

a

permanent

form of social

and

political struggle

in the

modern

world.

No

major region

is

free from

it.

In

its

more

acute

manifestations,

it may

turn

into

murderous,

destructive

violence.

Under certain circumstances ethnic conflicts

have been

predictable;

under

others,

how-

ever,

they

seem

to

come as

a

surprise

to

many

observers,

politicians

and

academics

alike,

and

sometimes

even

to

the

actors

in

the conflict

itself.

Not

infrequently,

ethnic

conflict simmers for

long periods just

under

the surface of

apparently

stable

and

bal-

anced

societies which

seem

unaware

of

the

potentially

explosive

nature

of the

underly-

ing

contradictions,

till the conflict

suddenly

bursts

out

of

its

shell,

upon

an

unprepared

and

disbelieving

public opinion.

Yet

once

an

ethnic conflict has

already begun

to

in-

volve several of

the institutions

of

a

society

and

a

polity,

then it

becomes

most

difficult

to

control,

unless

its

root

causes can

be

re-

moved.

The

term

’ethnic

conflict’

covers

a

wide

range of

situations. In

fact,

it

might

be

ar-

gued

that

ethnic conflict

as

such

does

not

exist. What does

exist is

social,

political

and

economic

conflict

between

groups

of

people

who

identify

each other in

ethnic

terms:

color,

race,

religion, language,

national

origin.

Very

often such

ethnic character-

istics may mask other

distinguishing

fea-

tures,

such

as

class

interests

and

political

power,

which

on

analysis

may

turn out to

be

the

more

important

elements

in the

con-

flict.

Still,

when

ethnic differences

are

used

consciously

or

unconsciously

to

distinguish

the

opposing

actors

in

a

conflict situation -

particularly

when

they

become

powerful

mobilizing

symbols,

as

is

so

often

the

case

-

then

ethnicity

does become

a

determin-

ing

factor

in the

nature

and

dynamic

of

the

conflict.

Various theories

in

the social sciences

at-

tempt

to

explain

the

nature

of

interethnic

relations,

and such theories have made

im-

portant

contributions

to

the

understanding

of these

complex phenomena,

each

from its

own

particular

perspective.

Some of the ap-

proaches

underline the

subjective, psycho-

logical

elements in ethnic

identification

and

confrontation.

Here

emphasis

is

placed

on

so-called

primordial

affiliations: the

in-

group

feeling

which

characterizes every

human group,

the

hostility

felt for all

’others’,

the

rejection

of

’they’

by

’we’. Eth-

nic

conflict,

according

to

this

viewpoint,

is

simply

the open

expression

of

latent,

per-

manent

attitudes.

When social

norms

which

keep

group

hostility

in

check break

down,

due

to

any

number

of

possible

causes,

then

conflict

and

often violence

tend

to

break

out.

This

perspective

would have

us

believe that eth-

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

508

nic

rivalry

or

hostility

is

a

natural

phenom-

enon,

the

expression

of

human nature,

that

when diffferent

ethnic

groups

or

ethnies

(we

shall

use

the

term

interchangeably)

live

side

by

side within

a

given society,

the

like-

lihood of

conflict is

always

present.

Only

the

legal

and

political

institutions

of the

State

can

regulate

the

behavior of the op-

posing

groups;

and when these institutions

fail,

then

ethnic

conflict becomes the order

of the

day.

Lebanon

since the

mid-1970s

might

be cited

as one

example

of such

a

breakdown which led

to

open conflict

be-

tween

ethnically

differentiated

political

groups.

Other

theories, however,

emphasize

the

social

organizational

aspects

of

the

ethnic

group

and the

maintenance

of

ethnic

boundaries. Within this theoretical perspec-
tive,

the

ethnic

identity

of

a

group

is

not

so

much the

result of

deeply ingrained primor-

dial

sentiments,

as

rather the

expression

of

a

type

of social

organization

within

which

individuals situate themselves

and relate

to

others.

Ethnic

conflict,

when

it

occurs,

is

then

a

specific

kind of

conflict

between

two

different

types

of social

organization.

It is

the

society

which defines

the

ethnicity

of

the

individual,

of the member

as

well

as

of

the

outsider,

and

not

the

other way around.

According

to

this

viewpoint,

there

can

be

no

’ethnic’

individual,

only

ethnic groups.

Still others pay attention

to

political

power

and its distribution within the wider

society.

Ethnies relate

to

each

other

un-

equally

and

struggle

over

political

power;

ethnic conflict is

then

a

purely political

struggle

to

be

solved

only

by

political

means.

Ethnic

politics

or

ethnopolitics

is

simply

an

instance of how

politics

in

general

is

played

within the

polity.

An

ethnie may

activate its

ethnicity

when it

considers this

politically

useful,

as

it will

downplay

or

ig-

nore

its

ethnicity

when

this

is

not

deemed

useful.

Conversely, political

actors

may

im-

pute

ethnicity

to

their

political

opponents

for

purely

instrumental

ends.

A

widely accepted approach

to

ethnic

re-

lations

places

these within the

framework

of

segmented, plural

societies,

resulting

from

the

imposition

of colonial

exploi-

tation.

Within

such

plural

societies,

ethnic

groups

and

communities maintain

a

se-

parate,

parallel

existence.

They

are

united

only by

an

overarching, integrating (usually

colonial)

political

system

and tend

to

meet

only

in the ’market

place’.

Ethnic conflict

within the

plural society

is then the result

of

inequalities

instituted

by

colonialism.

Starting

from

the

historical fact of coloni-

alism,

and

leading

into the modern inde-

pendent

State,

some

authors

explain

ethnic

relations under

certain circumstances

as a

process of

internal

colonialism. Domination

and

exploitation

of

one

ethnie

by

another

does

not

end

after the

political indepen-

dence of

a

former

colony. Unequal

re-

lations

between

such groups

persist

well

into

the

post-independence period

and may

even

be

strengthened

as a

result of the de-

velopment

of

capitalism.

The

unequal

regional development

of industrialized

countries,

when certain

peripheral

or

margi-

nal

regions

are

the historical habitat of

ethnically

distinct

peoples,

has also

been

described

in

terms

of

internal

colonialism.

2.

Ethnic

conflict,

class

struggle

and

nationalism

Marxist

analysis

seeks

to

relate

the ethnic

problematique

to

the

dynamics

of class

struggle

on

the

one

hand

and the

’national

question’

on

the

other. Classical Marxists

considered

class

analysis

to

be

theoretically

and

politically

more

important

than the

study

of

the ethnic

question,

but

they

did

not

underestimate the

powerful impact

of

ethnic identification

and

nationalism

on

social

and

political

processes. Both Marx

and

Engels

were

concerned

about the ’Irish

question’

in

their

day,

while

Engels

also had

some

controversial ideas of

his

own on

’nations with

history’

and

’nations without

history’

in Central

Europe.

As for

Lenin,

he

and Rosa

Luxemburg lengthily

debated

the

problem

of Polish nationalism

in

con-

nection

with the

socialist revolution.

And

Stalin,

of

course,

established

the

framework

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

509

for

the

nationalities

policy

of the

newly-

created Soviet Union.

Some

latter-day

Marxist scholars would

deny

any

reality

whatsoever

to

ethnicity,

labeling

it

merely

an

ideological

ploy

used

to

distract

attention from the

more

serious

matter

of the class

struggle. They point

out

that

in

Africa,

for

example,

the

concepts

of

’tribe’ and ’ethnie’

have

been

widely

ma-

nipulated by

colonialists

to

’divide and rule’

the African

laboring

masses.

In

South

Africa

today,

as

the

case

study

in this vol-

ume

shows,

ethnicity

is used

by

the white

supremacist

government

to

split

the

popular

movement

for liberation

and democratic

majority

rule.

Whereas

most

earlier

approaches

take

ethnies

as

something given

and

permanent,

new

Marxist

analysis recognizes

that ethnic

groups

are

in

constant

flux.

They

may

arise,

crystallize, decay

and

even

disappear

as

identifiable units under certain historical

conditions. There is

nothing

final

nor

fatal

about

ethnicity.

Most

certainly

the

causes

of ethnic conflict

are

not to

be

sought

within

the ethnic

groups

themselves,

but rather

within the contradictions

of the wider

society

in which ethnies may or may

not

happen

to

be

significant

actors,

as

a

result

of other forces with little if

anything

to

do

with

ethnicity

as

such.

Few

of

the

theoretical

approaches

men-

tioned

here, however,

pay

much

attention

to

the

nature

of the

ethnic State

and

its

re-

lations with ethnic groups.

Why

so

many

theories

on

ethnicity

and

ethnic

relations

simply

ignore

the State is

not

quite

clear,

but this may be due

to

the characteristics of

the

two

major

traditions

in

political

science

which have dealt with

questions

of the

State. On

the

one

hand,

the liberal tradition

regards

the

State

as

the

confluence of indi-

vidual

wills,

and

places

it

above

the

particu-

lar

interest of any

specific

group. In

a

rationally organized polity,

ethnic affili-

ations,

when

not

based

on

objectively

measurable

interests,

are

dysfunctional

to

the

tasks

of

the

State

and

therefore of little

concern

to

the theorist. On the other

hand,

the

political

economy

approach

to

the

study

of the

State

sees

in it

a

reflection of the

economic power of different social

classes;

again,

the ethnic factor

seems

of little

con-

cern

here.

If

theories

of

the

State

have

not

dealt much with

problems

of

ethnic

conflict,

the

theorists of ethnic relations have

tended

to

deal with their

subject

matter

mostly

outside of the

sphere

of the State.

Yet it

is

precisely

the State-ethnie

relationship

which

must

be

explored

if

we are

to

gain

a

better

understanding

of the

nature,

causes

and

dynamic

of ethnic conflict

around the

world.

Ethnic conflict

occasionally

takes

the

form of so-called communal

or

tribal viol-

ence.

Here,

the

conflict

occurs

between

two

relatively

self-contained

communities within

the

wider

society,

communities which ident-

ify

themselves and each other in ethnic

terms -

that

is,

according

to

racial,

re-

ligious, linguistic

or

so-called tribal criteria.

Such

confrontations may or may

not

involve

the State

directly,

except

as a

keeper

of the

peace.

When disorders between communi-

ties

occur,

the State

may

step

in

to

reestab-

lish

order,

to

arbitrate between the

parties

in

conflict

or

to

right

torts

which may have

been inflicted

on

one

of the communities

by

the other.

However,

in

most

cases

of open ethnic

conflict in the world

today,

the

State is

not

an

impartial

onlooker

or

arbiter,

but rather

a

party

to

the

conflict itself.

Indeed,

in

multiethnic

societies,

the State

is

frequently

either

controlled

by,

or

identifies

strongly

with,

a

dominant

or

majority

ethnie.

If,

under

such

circumstances,

ethnic conflict

involves

an

ethnic

minotiry

or an

oppressed

ethnic

majority,

then

the

ensuing

confron-

tation

may

take

place

between

this

group

and the State

itself. This is

in fact the

situ-

ation

we

find in the four

cases

analyzed

in

this

volume:

Northern

Ireland,

South

Africa,

Sri Lanka

and

Nicaragua.

3. A

struggle.

over

rights

Ethnic conflicts

generally

involve

a

clash

of

interests

or

a

struggle

over

rights: rights

to

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

510

land,

to

education,

to

the

use

of

language,

to

political representation,

to

freedom of

religion,

to

the

preservation

of ethnic

ident-

ity,

to

autonomy

or

self-determination,

and

so

forth.

At

times,

an

economically

or

cul-

turally

privileged minority

may find

its

traditional

interests

suddenly

called into

question

by

an

ethnically

distinct

politically

powerful

majority.

When this

occurs,

the

minority

may

organize

to

maintain its

privi-

leges

and

interests. while the

majority

will

speak

in

terms

of

rights,

the collective

good

and the national

interest.

A

number of

cases

in

our

study

may

be

perceived

by

members

of the

majority

as

falling

into

this

category.

Here

we

encounter

a

not

uncom-

mon

situation:

the

minority

group

will

defend

what it

considers

legitimate rights

which

are

being

denied,

whereas the

domi-

nant

majority

will

argue

against

undue

privileges by

the

minority

which

must

be

subordinated

to

the

common

good

and the

national

interest.

Of

course,

these

are

usually

defined

by

the

majority

or

dominant

ethnie in

terms

of its

own

interests:

and that

is

why

ethnic conflict

in these

cases

appears

irreducible. In

this

volume,

perhaps

Ni-

caragua

and

Sri Lanka

are

examples

of this.

Observers

tend

to

agree

that

most

sys-

tems

of interethnic relations

in which

con-

flicts may arise

are

stratified,

hierarchical

systems.

Ethnies do

not

usually

face

or

compete

with each

other

on

perfectly

equal

terms.

They generally enjoy

differential

ac-

cess

to

a

society’s

wealth,

privilege,

power

and other

goods

and

benefits,

as a

result of

complex

historical

processes

which will vary

from

one

case

to

another.

Ethnic

minorities

are

frequently -

but

not

always -

the vic-

tims of

discrimination,

the

underprivileged,

subordinate

segments

of

these

asymmetrical

stratified

systems.

Or

at

least

they

perceive

this

to

be the

case,

even

if

the

majority

maintains

a

contrary posture.

Conflicts

between

ethnies arise from

a

number

of

causes.

A

subordinate

minority

(or

majority)

may

react to

years,

decades

or

centuries

of discrimination

and

oppression,

and stand up

to

say

’enough!’.

Or it may

demand

rights

which

it

has been

denied

by

others

who

enjoy

them. Or

else,

a

dominant

ethnie

(whether

majority

or

minority)

may

attempt

to

impose

its

own

norms

and

stan-

dards,

or

its

own

model

of

society,

on a

weaker,

underprivileged

minority

(or

ma-

jority)

and

encounter

resistance

when

it

does

so.

Or

the

dominant

majority

may feel

that the

minority

has ’been

granted’

or

is

demanding

’too

much’

and

must

be

kept

in

its

place.

No

matter

what the

apparent

ex-

pressions

of ethnic conflict may

be,

and

the

underlying

causes

are

usually

much

more

complex,

the issues of

group

interests and

group

rights

are

always

at

the

center

of

the

debate.

This is

where the

question

of

human

rights

often

enters

into the

picture.

Unlike

most

forms of

labor

conflict,

for

example,

which

are

legally

and

institutionally

regulated

in

most

countries

(and

through

international

legislation

by

the

International

Labor

Organization

as

well),

and

unlike

most

forms of non-violent

political activity

which

are

generally regulated by

law in

democratic

countries,

ethnic conflict is

not

legally regulated.

In

fact,

it is

not

legally

recognized.

By

modern

standards of the

nation-state,

it is

not

even

supposed

to

exist.

Thus,

when ethnic tension

or

contra-

diction

which

may lie latent in

many

coun-

tries for

many years bursts into

open

conflict,

not

only

are

most

societies

and

polities

ill

equipped

to

deal with

it,

as

was

stated

at

the

outset,

but

governments

usually

tend

to

deny

its

very existence. Con-

sequently,

when

governments

act to

deal

with such

conflict

they

sometimes

adopt

re-

pressive

measures

against

one or

the other

of

the

opposing

ethnies. And when

this

oc-

curs,

human

rights

abuses take

place.

4.

‘The diabolic circle

of

violence’

Human

rights

abuses committed within the

framework of

ethnic

conflicts

are

qualita-

tively

different

from human

rights

abuses

against

persons in

general,

because

they

tend

to

be directed

not

only

at

individuals

but

also

at

collectivities

singled

out

in

terms

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

511

of

ethnic

identification. These

violations

have

run

across

the whole

spectrum

from

mass

killings

(genocide),

to

razzias,

illegal

and

arbitrary

detention,

torture,

mass

population

removals,

deportations

and

se-

gregation,

to

lack of due

process of

law,

discrimination in

public

and

private

in-

stitutions

and

other

forms of

open

or

subtle

antagonism.

When

such violations of hu-

man

rights

are

committed

by

private

indi-

viduals

or

groups,

then

generally

the

existing

legal

system

should be able

to

pro-

vide

a

remedy,

if the

government

in

power

is

willing

and

able

to

do

so.

This

is of

course

not

always

the

case.

One

example

might

be

when

human

rights

abuses

are

committed

by economically

or

politically powerful

groups

against

a

weak,

marginalized

ethnie,

as

happens

to

hill

tribes

or

aborginals

in

a

number

of countries.

When, however,

it is the State

apparatus

itself

which

engages

in

human

rights

abuses

(as

is

frequently

the

case

in

situations of

serious ethnic

conflict),

then the ethnic

vic-

tims

of such

abuses

may find that

recourse

to

existing legal safeguards

is

less than satis-

factory.

This is

precisely

one

of the

burning

human

rights

issues

in many ethnic conflicts

in the

world

today,

an

issue which has be-

come

the

subject

of

increasing

international

concern.

On

the

other

hand,

when ethnic

conflict

has turned into

organized

violence,

and when

certain radical

organizations

of

one

of

the

ethnies

have

adopted

terrorism

as a

tactic,

they

become

just

as

guilty

of

hu-

man

rights

violations

as

any

repressive

state

-

no

matter

how

just

and

legitimate

their

cause

may

be. Not

only

that,

but the

’dia-

bolical

circle of

violence’ which

esca-

lates

on

both sides

generates

increasing

hu-

man

rights

abuses

by

both

opposing parties.

It

is often asserted that

ethnic

conflict

could be avoided if

only

governments

would

ensure

that

all individual

human

rights

set

forth

in the Universal Declaration of Hu-

man

Rights, adopted

by

the General

Assembly

of the

United

Nations in

1948,

were

adequately respected.

Article

2

of this

famed Declaration

states

clearly:

everyone is

entitled

to

all the

rights

and

free-

doms

set

forth in this

Declaration,

without

distinction

of any

kind,

such

as

race,

color,

sex,

language, religion, political

or

other

opinion,

national

or

social

origin,

property,

birth

or

other

status.

Thus

established,

the

principle

of

non-

discrimination

has

become

a

fundamental

element of

the International Bill of

Rights.

If

all

persons,

regardless

of their ethnic

identity,

were

to

enjoy

their

human

rights

and

fundamental freedoms in full

equality

with

everybody

else,

so

the

argument

goes,

then

there would be little

justification

for

ethnic

conflict

anywhere.

To the

extent

that

certain

ethnies

in certain

countries

do

not

at

present

fully enjoy

these

rights,

there is

a

reason

for ethnic

mobilization

which

may

lead

to

inter-ethnic

conflict. But

this

is

a

question

of

implementing existing rights

al-

ready

recognized

by

the international

community,

and

certainly

States

have

a ma-

jor

resonsibility

in

ensuring

that all

their

citizens

and

subjects

will

effectively

be

covered

by

the human

rights

guarantees

which

everybody

may

legitimately

claim.

5.

Collective

rights

If the

argument

briefly

outlined in the pre-

vious

paragraph adequately

reflected

the

problematique

of ethnic conflicts in

the

world,

these would

probably disappear

as

soon as

individual

human

rights

were

firmly

implanted

and

implemented

in

a

country.

This

is

not,

however,

the

case.

Human

rights

abuses

involving

ethnies

relate

not

only

to

universal,

individual human

rights,

but

also

to

collective

group

rights.

In

fact,

the

major

issues

involving

conflicts

between

ethnies

or

between

an

ethnie

and

a

State

have

to

do with

collective

rights.

What

these

rights

are

and

whether

indeed such

rights

exist

at

all,

has

become

an

important

question

in the

human

rights

debate in

re-

cent

years.

For many years after

the

adoption

of the

Universal

Declaration of Human

Rights

it

was

generally

accepted

that

only

individuals

were

subjects

of human

rights,

the

only

rec-

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

512

ognized collectivity being

the

State,

against

which

these

individual

rights

could be

in-

voked. And

only

the

State,

representing

the

national interest

and

the total

society,

had

collective

rights

of its

own,

implying

certain

duties and

responsibilities by

individuals.

Increasingly,

however,

this liberal

perspec-

tive has been

questioned by

collectives

which

are

organized

groups of

individuals

but do

not

wield State

power:

namely,

eth-

nic

groups

or

ethnies.

Ethnic,

religious, linguistic

or

national

minorities have

long

been

the

object

of

con-

cern

by

the

international

community.

Between the

two

World

Wars,

the

League

of Nations

made

rather

unsuccessful efforts

to

deal

with

this

question, particularly

in

Central

Europe.

But the

League

did

so

for

the

purpose of

maintaining

peace

between

States,

rather than

out

of human

rights

con-

cerns.

The United Nations, in

turn,

did

not

at

first consider

that

the

question

of ethnic

minorities within

national States

had

any

place

in

a

universal

declaration of human

rights.

In the late

1940s,

the

General

Assembly charged

the

Economic

and

Social

Council

to

deal

with this issue

and

present

an

acceptable proposal.

The

question

of

ethnic

group

rights

was

dealt

with

by

the

UN

Sub-Commission

on

the

Prevention of

Discrimination

and

the Protection

of

Min-

orities,

a

subordinate

organ

of the Human

Rights

Commission. To

date,

the

Sub-

Commission has still

not

managed

to

produce

a

satisfactory

definition of

ethnic

minorities

and

a

declaration of the

rights

of

such minorities. The fact that

after

forty

years of work

it has been

unable

to

do

so

is

a

testimony

to

the

complexity

of the issues

involved.

At

present,

the

only

direct reference

to

the

rights

of

ethnic

minorities in

the

UN

Bill of

Rights

is Article 27

of

the Inter-

national

Covenant of Civil

and

Political

Rights.

This

was

adopted by

the General

Assembly

in

1966,

and

came

into force

ten

years

later,

after the necessary

number

of

ratifications

had been obtained.

Article

27

states:

In those States in which

ethnic,

religious

or

linguistic

minorities

exist,

persons

belonging

to

such minorities shall

not

be denied the

right,

in

community

with the other members

of

their

group,

to

enjoy

their

own

culture,

to

profess

and

practise

their

own

religion,

or

to

use

their

own

language.

6. ’Minorities’

and

peoples’

While

recognizing

certain

collective

rights

of ethnic

minorities,

Article

27

stops

short

of

acknowledging

group

rights

as

such,

and

this is the

principal

criticism which

has

been

levelled

at

it. One

critic

declares:

Concerning

the holders of the

rights

under

Art.

27.

no

doubts

can

exist. Protection is

not

afforded

to

minority

groups

as

such,

but rather

to

’persons’

belonging

to

minorities. This for-

mulation

cannot

be viewed

just

as

an

accident

of

drafting.

To conceive of

minority protection

in

individualistic

terms

fits well into the gen-

eral

pattern

of the International

Covenant

on

Civil

and Political

Rights...’

1

The collective

rights

of minorities

usually

recognized

in

international instruments such

as

Article

27 of

CCPR,

quoted

above,

and

similar resolutions

and

declarations of the

UN and

UNESCO

as

well

as

various

re-

gional inter-governmental

organizations,

refer

mainly

to

culture, education,

religion

and

language.

These

are

indeed

issues that

tend

to

mobilize

ethnies and

often

become

the

subject

of

ethnic conflicts.

There

are,

however,

other

group

rights

not

accorded

to

ethnic minorities in

inter-

national

law,

rights

which

have

been the

subject

of

much

controversy

in

recent

years.

The

right

to

self-determination

is

now con-

sidered

a

fundamental

human

right

without

which

all other

human

rights

cannot

be

en-

joyed.

Article

1

of both

the

International

Covenant

on

Civil and

Political

Rights

and

the

International Covenant

on

Economic,

Social and

Cultural

Rights, proclaims:

All

peoples

have the

right

to

self-determi-

nation.

By

virtue of that

right they freely

determine their

political

status

and

freely

pursue their

economic,

social and cultural de-

velopment.

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

513

But

to

whom does the

right

of self-determi-

nation

apply?

Within the

practice

of the

UN,

it

applies only

to

colonial

territories,

and

it has been

used

to

justify

the

process

of decolonization. The UN has

been

careful

to

declare that the

right

of self-determi-

nation

of

peoples

should

not

be construed

as

authorizing

or

encouraging

any action which would dismember

or

impair,

totally

or

in

part,

the territorial

integrity

or

political unity

of

sovereign

and

independent

States

conducting

themselves in

compliance

with the

principle

of

equal rights

and self-

determination of

peoples

as

described above

and thus

possessed

of

a

government

represent-

ing

the whole

belonging

to

the

territory

without distinction

as

to race,

creed

or

colour.

(UN

Res. 22625

(XXV) 1970.)

Furthermore,

the

term

’peoples’,

while it

remains undefined in

UN

instruments,

is

not

to

be confused with

’minorities’,

accord-

ing

to

several scholars who have

studied this

question.2

2

Ethnic

groups

in

conflict,

who

struggle

for

their

collective

rights,

are

not

usually

deterred

by

the

legal

niceties of UN Resol-

utions

and

Declarations. While

some

eth-

nies

are

conscious of their

minority

status

within the wider

society

and demand

no

more

than

’equal rights’

with the

majority

or

the

recognition

of

special minority rights

as

set out

in

Article 27

of

CCPR,

others

re-

gard

themselves

as

’peoples’

and claim

the

right

to

self-determination.

Some

states

fear

that the

recognition

of the

right

to

self-

determination may lead

to

secession

and

political independence by

the ethnie

claim-

ing

it.

Recent

scholarship distinguishes

between

’external’

and ’internal’

self-

determination,

the latter

including

different

forms of

political

autonomy.

When claimed

by

ethnies,

the

right

to

self-determination

includes

a

certain

amout

of

group control

over

political

institutions

and

the

political

decision-making

process

whereby

the

lives

and

livelihoods of the group

are

affected.

A

case

in

point

concerns

indigenous

and

aboriginal peoples

in

many

parts

of the

world. A

special

international

instrument

concerning

these

peoples

is

Convention

107

of the International

Labor

Organization,

adopted

in

1957.

It

is

currently (1987)

under

extensive revision

by

the

ILO

itself,

pre-

cisely

because the

original

convention

did

not

pay

enough

attention

to

the group

rights

of the

indigenous

(and

because,

in

tune

with

the

prevailing

ideology,

it

was

too

paternal-

istic and

assimilationist,

which made it

odious

to

indigenous

peoples).

Among

the

collective

rights

which

are

claimed

by indigenous peoples

but which

many

states

refuge

to

acknowledge,

is

the

right

to

land

and

territory,

perhaps

the

key

element

in

the very

survival of

indigenous

peoples

as

such. This

question

has been

widely

debated in

the

Working

Group

on

Indigenous Populations

of the UN Sub-

Commission,

which

since 1981 has

met

to

draft

a

Declaration of

Rights

of

Indigenous

Peoples (a

task

not

yet

completed

as

of this

writing

in

1987).

While

some

indigenous

or

aboriginal

group

might

be defined

as

’ethnic

minorities’

in the

sense

of article

27

of

the

CCPR,

others refuse

to

be

considered

as

minorities and claim the

right

to

be treated

as

’peoples’.

This is

no mere

academic exercise in

ter-

minology,

for

if the

term

’people’

can

be

applied

to

indigenous

ethnies,

then there

is

no reason

why they

should

not

enjoy

the

right

of self-determination

which

the UN

has

granted

to

all

peoples.

And

this is

pre-

cisely

what

indigenous peoples

are

demand-

ing.

(Incidentally,

the

discussion

on

the

use

of

adequate terminology

has taken

place

within the UN

Working Group

as

well

as

an

ILO

expert

meeting

on

the

revision of Con-

vention

107,

held in

1986.)

7.

Individual and

group

rights

What

we

term

ethnic

rights,

then,

consist of

two

major

elements: universal individual

rights

as

applied

to

specific

ethnies,

and spe-

cific

group

rights of

ethnies

as

distinct from

the

former,

including

the

right

to

language,

religion,

culture, education, land,

territory,

political

institutions and self-determination.

World

public

opinion

has been

justifiably

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

514

aroused

when

massive violations of the indi-

vidual human

rights

of

an

ethnie take

place.

It

is much less

concerned,

or

perhaps

less

informed,

about

violations

of ethnic group

rights.

Yet

frequently

the

violation of ethnic

group

rights

is

the

cause

of individual hu-

man

rights

abuses,

and

the

struggle by

ethnies for

their

group

rights

may

lead

to

ethnic conflicts

involving

individual human

rights

abuses

by

all

parties

involved.

In

my

opinion,

if national and inter-

national law would

recognize

ethnic group

rights,

this would

mean an

important

con-

tribution

to

lessening

human

rights

abuses

in

situations of ethnic conflict. Further-

more,

it

would

help

to

render ethnic conflict

itself less

likely

and less violent.

REFERENCES

1.

Christian

Tomuschat,

’Status of Minorities

under

Article 27 of the UN Covenant of

Civil

and

Political

Rights’,

in Satish Chandra

(Ed.),

Minorities in National and Inter-

national Law. New Delhi:

Deep

&

Deep

Publications,

1985.

2. Hector

Gros

Espiel,

El derecho

a

la

libre de-

terminacion,

United

Nations,

1979;

and

Aurelio

Cristeschu,

The

Right

to

Self-

Determination,

United

Nations,

1981.

distribution.

© 1987 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Natalia Spychalska on November 22, 2007

http://sdi.sagepub.com

Downloaded from