Reshaping the Global Order

The scientific article examines the theoretical and legal aspects of the rights of national minorities and indigenous peoples through the prism of political and legal thought, with a special emphasis on the concept of multiculturalism developed by V. Kymlicka. It is established that the rights of national communities occupy a special place in the system of human rights, as they combine individual and collective dimensions of legal status and reflect the historically formed need of societies to preserve cultural identity. It is found that the development of political and legal ideas regarding minority rights originates in the philosophical works of J.G. Herder, J.S. Mill, O. Bauer and other thinkers, who emphasized the importance of cultural diversity and the need to form mechanisms for its protection within the state. It is summarized that these concepts became the theoretical basis for further doctrinal approaches of the 20th century, for the development of provisions of international law regarding minority rights and the gradual recognition of collective rights as a component of the system of fundamental human rights. It is substantiated that the political and legal thought of V. Kymlicka is of decisive importance for the modern understanding of the rights of national minorities and indigenous peoples, since it integrated the categories of cultural autonomy, equality and democratic pluralism into the framework of the liberal theory of law. It emphasized that V. Kymlicka did not limit himself to stating the need for respect for cultural rights, but proposed a model of their institutional provision, which combines the recognition of the rights of communities with the preservation of general democratic standards. It is proved that his concept of multiculturalism became a qualitative shift in the theoretical and legal understanding of the legal status of minorities, as it laid the idea of their inseparability from the system of human rights, which was previously dominantly interpreted through the individualistic dimension. The article traces the evolution of political and legal ideas about the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples in the context of the development of the general theory of law, reveals the main patterns of their formation and finds out that the modern stage is characterized by a combination of globalization trends with the requirement to preserve cultural identity. In summary, the ideas of V. Kymlicka and his predecessors create a holistic theoretical and legal platform for further scientific research in the field of realizing the rights of national minorities and indigenous peoples, which has not only historical and doctrinal, but also practical significance for lawmaking and law enforcement in democratic states.

Los derechos humanos han evolucionado hasta el punto de reconocer derechos de naturaleza colectiva como los derechos de las minorías étnicas. Este artículo explica cómo pueden categorizarse los derechos de las minorías étnicas como derechos humanos. La investigación es de corte analítico-conceptual, utiliza el método de investigación deductivo y los de interpretación jurídica: histórico, sistemático, sociológico y teleológico o finalista, para concluir con la identificación de algunos criterios que pueden servir de base para incluir derechos colectivos como los de las minorías étnicas, en el discurso contemporáneo de los derechos humanos

In this chapter we employ the “diversity regime” theory recently developed by Reus-Smit to investigate how international minority rights norms that have evolved since the League of Nations period have structured, legitimised and stabilised the international order via diversity regimes. We also show how minorities, the subjects of these norms, have contributed to this norm evolution. Our analysis shows that, rather than “clear break” theories, changes in diversity regimes are better understood through a focus on continuities and potentials for recalibration along with emerging political opportunities. We argue that diversity regimes are not binary along collective or individual rights but instead are characterised by hybridity. While minority rights norms have become more universal since the League of Nations period, groups that do not fit easily into the national, ethnic, religious or linguistic categories are not well protected. The use of these recognised categories also denotes that the “authorised forms of cultural difference” are strictly controlled and limited. The right to self-determination of peoples has been used conversely to create formal equality between recognised units of political authority (e.g., empires, states) and to create hierarchy within territorial borders. While the creation of minority rights protection in international law has forged a recognition contract with ethno-cultural minorities that helps to legitimise political authority, the same law has also served to control the aspirations of these groups.

The article starts with an analysis of minority protection in Tito's Yugoslavia, and points out the merits and the shortcomings of this system. It has been suggested that after the collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia the standard was lost, and there were no more confines halting the escalation of ethnic hatred and violence. In this situation, setting new standards deserves an utmost priority. The article suggests some starting points for new standards. In doing so, an endeavour has been made to define the notion of minorities on the territories of the former Yugoslavia. The article also pleads for the recognition of collective minority rights in addition to individual human rights. Suggestions are made regarding appropriate internal and international legal mechanisms for the protection of minority rights.

The problem of minorities is one of the challenges that have emerged recently, though it does exist throughout history. People belonging to national, religious or linguistic minorities cannot be denied. The concern for the rights of minorities is a reflection of international awareness of individual or collective human rights. The minority enjoys all the rights stipulated in international conventions and treaties concerning human rights and addressing any violation of these rights of minorities. This international response is launched for the purpose of conformity with the international legal reference of the United Nations on one hand. On the other hand, imposing the organizational development of the principles of human rights and its fundamental freedoms and committing an international obligations to protect all elements of human rights, in particular the right to self-determination within the international system framework from one point of view and by means of international intervention to protect those rights as well. Thus, we find that international intervention to protect those rights; on the other hand, recognition of the rights of minorities is growing as an integral part of the work of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights, sustainable human development and peace and security.

Ethnic Conflicts- Case Study: Kosovo

The European Common Commercial Policy is both a raison d’etre of the EC/EU since the Treaty of Rome and the way to become in 60 years a global civilian power. However, the highly problematic development of the TTIP and CETA trade arrangements may represent a turning point. Not only do domestic pressures and decentralized democratic demands for legitimacy challenge the capacity of the EU institutions to maintain exclusive competence in trade negotiations, but the role of Europe as champion of the global multilateral order established under the hegemony of the USA in 1944-47 is in trouble. Simultaneously, a different but convergent destabilizing process is occurring in US trade policy after the election of a protectionist and anti-multilateralist president. The paper invites the reader to take serious account of the risks of a dramatic change as far as global trade and the world order are concerned.

In this paper, we briefly discuss the variety of topics and methods of Comparative Economics and how it evolved over time, not only based on new interpretations and paradigms, but also due to new historical facts as well as a rapidly changing economic, institutional, and geopolitical context in the world. Great transformations have occurred in the last decades, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union and the supposed “end of history.” However, history never ends, and we are witnessing profound changes not only in individual countries but also in the international economic order, accompanied by attacks on multilateralism and an evident “slowbalization” in international trade, not to mention the innovations and developments – still largely unpredictable – related to Artificial Intelligence and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. We analyze in particular the delicate position of the European Union, in consideration of its long-run decline as an economic power and its recent failures in acting as a protagonist in a turbulent world; yet its actuality and perspectives should be preserved, also by rediscovering and strengthening its initial values.

The Introduction explains the focus, approach and structure of this collection, which offers insights into how “unsettled orders” in the transatlantic region affect minority rights. Internationally recognised minority rights have historically helped to stabilise the international order, but various orders are now in flux. Phenomena in the 21st century like terrorism in Western states, the global financial crisis, migration, pandemic and the rise of illiberalism and populism have raised new questions. An interdisciplinary scholarly engagement contextualised in a historic perspective, this collection considers the potentially destabilising questions that the global governance of minority rights faces in our era at the global, regional and local levels. Each author examines some “unstable order” affecting the emergence, interpretation and implementation of minority rights norms. The book is structured in four parts. Part I offers interdisciplinary perspectives on minority rights within the changing international order. Part II focuses on migration, new threats to minority identities and complexities of religious identities. Part III addresses issues related to Indigenous peoples and Roma. Part IV rounds out the collection with a discussion of American citizenship in the context of denials for select minority identities and a discussion of how the COVID pandemic has contributed to policies amplifying instabilities in minority relations in some European settings.

Human and civil rights organizations have long used litigation in an attempt to advance a particular cause, to bolster a certain right, or to bring about social change. A prominent example is strategic litigation filed on behalf of minority groups–including national and indigenous minorities. Such cases typically seek remedies from the government or public institutions due to discrimination or neglect experienced by minorities, or stemming from limitations on their ability to express or enjoy their culture and practices. In many cases, however, litigation fails or only partially succeeds in creating the kind of sustainable, widespread, and group-based change that the petitioners seek. Focusing on Israel and the Palestinian-Arab minority, which constitutes nearly one-fifth of the country’s population, this Article explores the limitations and shortcomings of litigation as a strategy for obtaining collective rights. The Article examines three different kinds of collective rights that Palestinian-Arab petitioners have attempted to achieve through legal action in Israel: the right to political representation (in decision-making bodies); linguistic rights (in public accommodation); and equitable (group-based) allocation of public resources. The significance of these rights for national minorities is explored, along with the specifics of each of the cases highlighted and their outcomes. This Article demonstrates that while the outcome of each legal case was a ‘success’–on a technical level–the judgments failed to achieve the substantive equality and group-based rights that the petitioners sought. Worse still, some of the judgments actually may have led to setbacks. Accordingly, this article argues that litigation has thus far been an insufficient tool for protecting the collective rights of the Palestinian-Arab minority, as the courts have failed to draft meaningful and sustainable frameworks for action and enforcement into their judgments. The article concludes by suggesting that given the challenges and political and social constraints faced by national minorities in legal and other public spheres, the law is dependent on the will of the courts. Thus, the courts must view their role more broadly and take a more expansive–and perhaps even activist–approach in rendering its rulings.

The article discusses debatable theoretical and complex practical problems associated with the implementation of the “right of peoples to self-determination”: the absence of a generally accepted definition of a “national minority”; a way to identify the “will of the people” to self-determination; the relationship between the borders of the state and the borders of nations; national self-determination and democracy; the right to national self-determination and the right to popular sovereignty; the compatibility of individual rights, the rights of national minorities to self-determination and the principle of the inviolability of state borders. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that there is no one “only true” form of solving these problems, ideally, the people make the choice (in practice, their political elite) based on a large number of (sometimes not completely rational and even random) factors. However, the most important issue is to solve the problem of effective representation of ethnic groups’ / national minorities’ interests, since ethnic groups and other minorities are alienated when their access to power is limited. Author considers that for to solve this problem in states, that respect human rights, ethnicity must have only cultural, not political importance, because the subject of political sovereignty in these states is not “ethnos” but “demos”, so that is, all citizens of the state who may belong to different ethnic and cultural communities. That’s why the organic combination of collective rights of ethnic communities and minorities in multi-ethnical and polycultural society with the rights of individuals guaranteed and protected by the state is the most suitable way to provide democratic policy. This policy doesn’t lead to the formation of new ethnic nations and the emergence of new ethnocratic states. In that situation, inter-ethnic relations must not be based on an ideal model but on existing ethnopolitical reality and using the existing potential of existing imperfect political institutions.

The modern understanding of representative democracy includes not only the rule of the majority, but also the protection of the rights of minorities. One such minority is indigenous peoples, including the Sámi population that lives in four European countries, namely in the northern territories of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. In these countries, the Sámi, as a minority, find it difficult to achieve an adequate level of representation in traditional political structures that are responsible for articulating interests (parties, parliaments), therefore special mechanisms were found that allowed this indigenous people to participate in political decision-making processes more actively. The purpose of the article is to study the evolution and features of the political representation of the Sámi in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The choice of countries is dictated by the cross-border nature of the Sámi settlement and the practice of diffusion of institutions of political representation. The methodology is based on neo-institutionalism and constructivism theories. It is concluded that after World War II, global transformations of the institutional environment took place in developed countries, and they were expressed in the rejection of the racial paradigm, the establishment of the supremacy of democracy and human rights. In the countries of Northern Europe at the end of the XX — beginning of the XXI centuries, the concept of “Arctic identity” was formed instead of identity through the construct of the “Nordic race”, which was characteristic of the first half of the XX century. At the center of it is the concept of indigeneity. From the beginning of the XX century, the Sámi that were subjected to forced assimilation in all three countries (discriminatory policies of “swedification”, “norwegianization” and “finnization”) and that were forced to fight for their rights with minimal chances of winning over the dominant discourse of racial inferiority, became beneficiaries of the changes, received special status, collective rights, and opportunities for political representation in modern conditions. However, several problems and discriminatory practices against the Sámi remain relevant and require solutions at the level of public policy.

This article presents the policy of the united Germany towards Russia, its underpinnings and its positive and negative effects on Europe and the world in the twenty-first century. The author questions the objectives and consequences of this policy for Germany, Russia and Europe. He tries to answer the questions of whether there will be another Rapallo and whether Russia and Germany will try to play a dominant role in Europe. Does the cooperation of Germany and Russia contribute to peace in Europe and Euro-Atlantic relations? Will the position of Germany in the EU increase after Brexit? This is not an easy task, given the complex and dynamic situation in the world and the difficult socio-political and economic situation of contemporary Russia, as well as the enormity of the tasks that the country needs to perform to become a modern, strong, well-managed, democratic and peaceful power. Russia has long been assisted by Germany in this process, a country which today is the undisputed leader in Europe and plays an increasingly important role in the world.The main thesis of this article is that the way to a new democratic and multipolar global order is still very long and that Germany – mindful of history and the tragic experience – will not return to the policy of cooperation with Russia, which would lead to a new division of Europe and the world. According to the author, Germany remembers the past and will therefore remain a democratic country and an important link in the Euro-Atlantic system. Furthermore, Russia will also become a democratic, peaceful state and an important actor in a new, multipolar global order. This will happen after it liberates itself from the rule of Vladimir Putin. This will not happen quickly unless Russia faces an economic disaster and the eruption of social discontent (Euromaidan on the Red Square), which forces Vladimir Putin to leave the political scene.

This concluding chapter summarizes the insights from the different contributions to the volumes and provides an outlook for future research. Different from the introduction, we focus here on the substantial contributions of each chapter for an emerging research agenda on geoeconomics in a changing global order. We do so in three steps. First, we identify four cross-cutting themes by comparing and contrasting various contributions to this volume: the historicization of geoeconomic phenomena, geoeconomics as a multi-layered phenomenon, the relational aspects of global geoeconomic dynamics, and the relationship between geoeconomics and state transformations, drawing out cross-cutting themes. Second, we formulate an emerging research agenda out of each of the described themes, which seeks to push scholarship on geoeconomics forward in an interdisciplinary manner. Third, we make this research agenda more concrete by extracting a core proposition from each chapter that contributes a building block for future research on geoeconomics and the role of Europe in a change global order. We end by formulating three key insights form this book for policy-and decision-makers.KeywordsGeoeconomicsGlobalizationState TransformationGeopoliticsEuropean UnionInternational Political Economy

Introduction: The Outlook for the Protection of Minorities in the Wider Europe M.Weller PART I: THE EVOLUTION OF MINORITY GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE The Evolving Basis of European Norms of Minority Rights: Rights to Culture, Participation and Autonomy W.Kymlicka Collective Rights in the Context of EU Accession H-J.Heintze Forging Territorial Cohesion in Diversity: Are National Minorities Promoting Fourth Level Integration? T.H.Malloy PART II: EUROPEAN MECHANISMS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MINORITY-MAJORITY RELATIONS A Remaining Share or a New Part? The Union's Role Vis-A-Vis Minorities after the Enlargement Decade G.Von Toggenburg The EU and the Management of Ethnic Conflict S.Wolff and A.P.Rodt The Enlargement of the EU and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities K.Drzewicki The Future of Minority Issues in the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe R.Hofmann PART III: MINORITY-MAJORITY RELATIONS IN PRACTICE IN AN ENLARGED EU Minority Protection in Central Europe and Accession to the EU W.Sadurski Enlargement and Interethnic Power-Sharing Arrangements in Central and Eastern Europe M.Brusis The Europeanization of Majority-Minority Relations in the Greece-Turkey-Cyprus Triangle N.Tocci Conclusion: The Effective Protection of Minorities in the Wider Europe: Counterbalancing the Security Track K.Nobbs