Lausanne, 25-27 April 1996 CDL-STD(1996)016 Or. Engl. Science and technique of democracy, No. 16 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities Lausanne, 25-27 April 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS a.. Minority rights: a remedy for international conflict - Opening statement by Mr Jean-Marc BOULGARIS 2 b..Welcoming message by Mr Pierre WIDMER 6 c. Opening speech by Mr Gianni BUQUICCHIO, Secretary, European Commission for democracy through Law, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 8 First working session - The situation in certain Western countries - Chaired by Mr Giorgio MALINVERNI 10 a. The Åland Islands in Finland by Mr Markku SUKSI 11 b. The situation in Italy by Mr Sergio BARTOLE 34 c. The situation in Spain by Mr Miquel ROCA JUNYENT 41 d. The situation in Belgium by Mr Jean-Claude SCHOLSEM 45 e. The situation in Switzerland by Mr Joseph VOYAME 52 f. The situation in Canada by Mr Gérald A. BEAUDOIN 59 g. A note on the Faroe Islands home rule caseby Mr Árni OLAFSSON, 70 Second working session - The Situation in certain Central and Eastern European countries chaired by Mr Ergun ÖZBUDUN 113 a. The Russian Federation and Autonomy:, a preliminary perspective by Mr Nikolai VITRUK 114 b. Territorial autonomy in Ukraine - The Case Of Crimea by Mr Serhiy HOLOVATY 129 c. The Rights and autonomy of the national minorities in Slovenia by Mr Anton BEBLER 140 d. The situation in Moldova by Mr Alexei BARBANEAGRA 156 e. The ethno-national effects of Territorial delimitation in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Mr Joseph MARKO 167 f. Local and national minority self-government in Hungary by Mr János BÁTHORY 185 g. Autonomy, human rights and protection of minorities in Central and Eastern Europe by Mr Fernand DE VARENNES 187 Third working session - Which international guarantees of local self-government? - chaired by Mr Heinrich KOLLER 211 a. The Osce and international guarantees of Local Self-Government by Mr John PACKER 211 b. Territorial integrity of states, minority protection, and guarantees for autonomy arrangements: approaches and roles of the United Nations by Mr Asbjørn EIDE 227 c. Which international guarantees of local self-government ? Council of Europe work by Mr Ferdinando ALBANESE 247 Final Report 254 Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities by Mr Giorgio MALINVERNI 254 List of participants 266 OPENING SESSION a. Minority rights: A remedy for international conflict by Mr Jean-Marc BOULGARIS b. Welcoming message by Mr Pierre WIDMER c. Opening speech by Mr Gianni BUQUICCHIO a.. Minority rights: a remedy for international conflict - Opening statement by Mr Jean-Marc BOULGARIS Ambassador, Bern Ladies and gentlemen, It is my pleasure and honour to welcome you here on behalf of the Swiss authorities on the occasion of the opening of this symposium. The theme of the seminar is a highly topical one. I would like first of all to thank the Venice Commission. I am particularly pleased to be able to welcome the President of the Commission, Professor La Pergola. It is thanks to him and Professor Giorgio Malinverni, the Vice-President of the Commission, that it has been possible to organise this colloquy. I would also like to thank the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law in Lausanne for agreeing to host the seminar. The Director of the Institute, Mr Pierre Widmer, and his deputy, Mr Bertil Cottier, have shown a great deal of commitment in the way they have devoted themselves to this task. I believe that the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law is a venue which is particularly suited to discussing this specific aspect of protecting minorities in complete objectivity. In recent years, we have frequently been reminded how tricky the subject of minorities can be. After the end of the Cold War, there emerged in various parts of the world a feverish form of nationalism which was devoid of common sense, blind to all understanding, and which frequently had terrifying repercussions. The 31 wars which the Peace Research Institute in Stockholm identified in its latest statistics were all civil wars. More than half of them (17 to be precise) stemmed from ethnic problems. The number of conflicts of this type has increased significantly in recent years, particularly in Europe. The Stockholm statistics only cover wars in which more than 1 000 people have died. Below this threshold there are other conflicts involving minorities. You will all be aware of Ted Gurr's detailed study, conducted in 1990, in which he identified 233 minorities throughout the world which had become politically active in order to fight against proven or alleged discrimination. There are thousands of minorities in the world and obviously not all of them can set up their own State. Twenty new States have been constituted in recent years in central and eastern Europe; yet there has been hardly any reduction in the number of minorities. More than half of these States contain minorities in proportions varying between 20 and 50%. The ethnic diversity of the peoples who make up these States is as great if not greater than that of Switzerland. The repercussions of ethnic conflicts extend well beyond the frontiers of the States directly concerned. They threaten the security of whole regions. The floods of refugees and the humanitarian problems which result represent a major challenge to international solidarity. But the international community should not just be concerned with the symptoms; it should also be helping to remedy the causes of the problem. International protection of minorities has a long tradition which, in Europe, goes back to the time of the Reformation. Over the last centuries it has even influenced the development of human rights. In spite of this, no miracle solution has been found so far. After numerous attempts to reach bilateral agreements on religious freedom and, much later, on the protection of languages, a large-scale multilateral system for the protection of minorities was finally devised under the auspices of the League of Nations. That system, however, was only concluded with the new central and eastern European States in mind and did not remain in force for long. In practice it was unable to withstand the upsurge of nationalism or an excessive attachment to the sovereignty of the State. It was for this reason that, after the second world war, the United Nations sought to guarantee the protection of minorities through the universal recognition of human rights. However, it was soon realised that it would be difficult to achieve this goal by such means alone. It is worth noting in this connection that it was primarily the socialist States emerging from the former Communist bloc who repeatedly drew attention to the need to secure special rights for minorities. There can be no doubt that respect for human rights is a prerequisite for the protection of minorities. International standards in this respect have undergone encouraging changes in recent years. It is true that there are still major shortcomings as far as monitoring their implementation is concerned. One of the most effective means of tackling this problem is to set up machinery enabling individuals to bring their cases before international courts. This is particularly important for those members of national minorities who no longer trust the judicial authorities in their own country. However, not even the proper observance of human rights can resolve all minority problems. To enable minorities to preserve their identity, special steps need to be taken in areas such as education, the media and culture. It is much more difficult and arduous to devise international standards in these areas. The CSCE had its first success in this area in 1990 with the document adopted at the Copenhagen meeting. It took the United Nations nearly twenty years of effort to get a declaration on minorities approved, in December 1992. The Council of Europe needed even more time: not until 1994 did it manage to get a framework convention on the rights of persons belonging to minorities signed. However, the obligations arising from these documents are only very general in scope. None of them, for example, specifies the number of school-age children needed in order to open a school for a minority, or what conditions have to be met for the members of a minority to use their own language in dealing with the authorities. Incorporating these commitments into domestic law is a very tricky business and a third party has often proved useful as an intermediary. In recent years the OSCE High Commissioner for minorities has done some outstanding work in this area. If we succeed in securing effective protection for the rights of minorities as well as promoting their cultural well-being, then we will have already achieved an important goal. Naturally there will be still further goals to be attained, because some minorities want much more than this. Many of them have precise demands regarding rights and guarantees of greater independence in running their own affairs. We must show understanding for such demands, especially when they come from numerically strong minorities which are long-established in a particular region. Generally speaking, most of the States concerned and the international community are relieved if the demands go no further than this. Today's symposium is devoted to this aspect of the protection of minorities. I should not need to stress that this is a delicate matter, albeit one of major importance. It is indeed a complex issue, because it impinges on a sensitive area of national sovereignty. It is revealing that, in spite of several attempts, there has still been no success in devising international standards for the territorial autonomy of minorities.