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