[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] [HMK Home] A Case Study on Trianon
Undoubtedly, the League System satisfied neither the interested nor neutral parties concerned with the general issue of minorities. That it was less than effective cannot be gainsaid. Nevertheless, the System does not deserve the harsh judgment passed by some commentators.59

From a practical viewpoint, the League System achieved indirect, modest yet positive successes. Although it is beyond dispute that most minorities in East Central Europe were maltreated and oppressed, one can merely speculate how they would have fared in the absence of the Minorities System. The existence of substantive minority provisions and the international machinery to supervise their implementation benefited the minorities because "the prospect of being held responsible before an international body served as a brake on chauvinist tendencies to oppress minorities."60 There were even instances where particular minorities tangibly benefited as a result of submitting petitions to the League.61

Not to be ignored was the League's role in diffusing conflicts arising out of minorities questions. Its mere existence guaranteed that such tensions would be partially diverted to the League. If left uncontrolled, these conflicts would have further poisoned the already poisoned atmosphere of the region and could have easily flared into frequent and serious incidents.62

But the most significant contribution of the System was the unparalleled elevation of the concept of minority protection, which was achieved by internationalizing the guarantees and thereby theoretically eliminating unilateral state intervention. Had the new international law of minority protection survived the catastrophe of the Second World War, it undoubtedly would have served as a core

to be expanded and refined to encompass the varied and complex conditions of minorities throughout the region, if not the world. Just as the law of human rights is ever accumulating, the potential existed for the evolution of minority rights laws which would have complemented and rounded out the protection extended to individuals. Admittedly, the League System was flawed. Yet that imperfect system was far better than the meager standards and machinery for the protection of minorities existing today. A great opportunity was squandered. Indeed, in East Central Europe there are many "who nostalgically view [the League System] a solution-a solution which seems almost an ideal today."63

The disintegration of the League unleashed the theretofore checked tendencies of certain states to homogenize their societies by eliminating their minorities. The attempts to "purify" societies ranged from the physical destruction of millions of Jews to the forced expulsions of Hungarians from Czechoslovakia and the severe repression of the Hungarians who were not expelled.

Despite these "solutions," minorities continue to exist in East-Central Europe and their fate makes the necessity for minority protection as acute as ever. Often states which readily acknowledge having minorities will ignore or adamantly deny the reality of the existence of minority problems which, however, are generally present whenever distinctive groups are found in a society.64 The problems manifest themselves in differing degrees depending on the extent to which a majority is committed to create a culturally and linguistically homogeneous state and on a smaller group's desire and ability to maintain its distinctiveness. Often such minorities lack the requisite political power or are denied the rights which would enable them to preserve fully their unique characteristics, historic traditions, institutions or in drastic cases their very existence.65 According to one expert, the ensuing attempts to achieve such homogeneity by policies aimed at forcibly assimilating "populations is remarkable both for its brutality and its ineffectiveness. The suppression of a people's language and religion and cultural institutions, the enforcement of severe discrimination against them and the offering of rewards for assimilation have brought about the most bitter suffering on the part of minority peoples for centuries, and it has continued up to the present date in spite of very clear evidence of its fruitlessness."66

It was these "problem situations" which, to a limited extent, were

addressed by the League of Nations and which today require greater attention by the international community.67 For instance, the present governments of Romania and Czechoslovakia, with all the instruments of 20th Century totalitarian states at their disposal, have intensified their efforts to discriminate against and forcibly assimilate their Hungarian minorities.68 These efforts continue without an international organization's braking or at least scrutinizing such nationalities policies (as was done by the League), because international concern today has focused almost exclusively on the protection of individuals as individuals and not also as members of a particular group or community. The United Nations has largely ignored the question of minorities, despite the prefatory language of Resolution 217 (c) adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 which states that the U.N. "cannot remain indifferent to the fate of minorities. Both the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are silent on the minorities issue. While a Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities was created by the Economic and Social Council in 1947, its work has centered on its mandate involving the prevention of discrimination.69 The fact remains that with the exception of a few weak initiatives, such as Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or Article 5 of the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the United Nations has not undertaken to develop a comprehensive scheme for the protection of minorities.70 Its glacial pace in addressing minority rights, when the issue is raised, is evident from the lack of progress on the draft declaration on the rights of "national, ethnic, religious and linguistic rights" proposed by Yugoslavia at the thirty-fourth session of the Commission of Human Rights.71 Three years after Yugoslavia submitted its proposal, one observer expressed his disappointment at the "Sub-Commission's inaction, despite the existence of an open-ended sessional working group, in the draft declaration on the rights of persons belonging to ... minorities, which had been the subject of much discussion at the Commission's 1980 session."72

Not even the post World War II Peace Treaties with Romania, Hungary, Italy, Finland and Bulgaria contain specific minority rights provisions, although they do contain human rights clauses which theoretically offer minorities a modicum of protection. Mention must be made of a few bilateral treaties which came into existence after the War, such as the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Aid of

March 10, 1947, between Poland and Czechoslovakia regarding their respective minorities. The reach of these treaties is limited, however, in that "of the millions of European members of minorities, only some 450,000 enjoy bilateral protection."73

The neglect of minority rights law has several root causes. Among the most salient is the conceptual problem presented by the lack of a generally accepted definition of the term "minority."74 Actually, the term was popularized during the League era; however, because the League was not concerned with a general concept of minority protection, but rather with specific minorities in a handful of states, it did not have to define the term with any precision. That task must be addressed today.

Another obstacle of greater import than the definitional one, at least as it applies to Western States, is rooted in the individualist conception of Western political thought. By emphasizing individualism to the extent that it does, liberal political theory, as developed by Rousseau, Locke and others, lacks an adequate theory of the state. Its centerpiece, the social contract, assumes the existence of an organized society preceding the compact, and since the compact exists between individuals, ethnic and other groups are neither represented by the parties nor do they have a place in society.75 Thus, Western political thought equates the state with the nation and accepts "as a 'nation' the people living under a particular government without asking why they were living under that government."76 Consequently, liberal political theory does not address directly the heterogeneity of humankind as it may exist within a state.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the adoption of effective minority protection measures is the fear and suspicion engendered by any international scheme for the welfare of distinct groups within a state. The maintenance of heterogeneity and pluralism is regarded by some states as a threat to their unity and stability, and any attempt to remedy the situation is denounced as an interference in their internal affairs in violation of the concept of sovereignty.77 However, states which discriminate and suppress their minorities may create tensions that truly endanger and undermine their stability. Instead of achieving the desired yet unattainable homogeneity, these oppressive policies may galvanize the groups' resolve to resist such pressures to the point of solidifying their opposition to the state. The ensuing tensions are then subject to exploitation by greater powers as was the case in inter-War Europe.

States expediently point to the difficulties in establishing an international regime for the protection of minorities arising out of the diverse and complex nature of each minority situation. Nevertheless, both the objections of interference in internal affairs and of "complexity" also have been raised in connection with the establishment of the standards for the promotion of and respect for fundamental human rights.78 Identical arguments have not paralyzed the international community's acceptance of the human rights regime, at least not in theory, even if it has in practice. Neither factors are insurmountable, assuming states are willing to accept a degree of plurality and the establishment of a minorities protection regime.

Despite formidable obstacles and the reluctance of the international community to embrace fully the vexing problem of minorities, it cannot altogether ignore the matter. For instance, the chairman of the U.S. delegation to the Helsinki follow-up conference in Madrid noted in plenary on December 10, 1980, that "the human rights provisions of the Final Act ... have in many instances not been implemented. ... We know that the rights of national minorities are often denied."79

An even more surprising development occurred in March, 1981, when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights heard a communication, i.e., complaint, filed by the non-governmental International Human Rights Law Group alleging that Japan violated the human rights of its Korean minority by enacting laws which discriminate and deny economic and other cultural benefits to members of the minority. The Commission dismissed the complaint after Japan assured the body that it would take steps to remedy the violations.80

Recently commentators have broadly interpreted the existing norms relating to human rights, including nondiscrimination, to embrace the needs of minorities.81 This exercise does not mitigate the urgency to protect minorities; rather it merely reveals the present void in the law.

In the final analysis, there is an acute need for the development and concretization of comprehensive norms as well as the machinery to implement minority protections. The effort to build a body of international law related to individual human rights is certainly one of the great achievements of twentieth century jurisprudence. However, since individual rights are often secure only if group rights are guaranteed, that body of human rights law is not sufficient by

itself to shield humankind from all manifestations of oppression, unless it is supplemented by norms to safeguard the unique characteristics of minorities. Minorities require more than protection from nondiscrimination.82 True equality cannot exist between a majority and a minority "if the latter [is] deprived of its own institutions, and [is] consequently compelled to renounce that which constitutes the very essence of its being a minority."83 Anatole France's comment on "the law which, in its majestic equality, forbids rich as well as poor to sleep under bridges or to beg in the streets"84 aptly applies to the inability of the present human rights law to protect minorities. Ironically, positive equality must be extended to groups to prevent inequality, discrimination and human misery.

The League's experience and accumulated knowledge can be of invaluable assistance in formulating a minorities protection scheme today. Given that minority problems do not necessarily lend themselves to a uniform solution because of each region's unique historical, economic, social and political development, a solely generalized approach is not advisable. A bifurcated system would perhaps be the most meaningful solution. First, a universal declaration of the rights of minorities could establish the broad parameters and the considerations common to most, if not all, minorities. Supplementing that declaration, regional protection systems could take into account the factors peculiar and relevant to a particular area and tailor the protections to those circumstances. Whatever the form, however, it can only be hoped that diverse groups will learn to live peaceably with one another and that minorities eventually will be free from the senseless suffering they have to endure solely because of their distinctiveness-a distinctiveness which serves to enrich humankind.

Notes

1. Josef L. Kunz, "The Present Status of the International Law for the Protection of Minorities." American Journal of International Law (hereafter cited as AJIL) 48 (1954). p. 282.

2. For instance, the United Nations Seminar on Multiethnic Societies (June 1965, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia), declared that, "Integration should never mean the suffocation of the minority concerned ... all Governments should promote and protect the rights of ethnic, religious, linguistic or national groups not only through the adoption of constitutional and legislative provisions,

but also through the promotion of all forms of activities consistent with political, economic and social conditions of the state or country concerned." UN Doc. ST/TAO/HR/23. See also, the United Nations Seminar on the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of National, Ethnic and Other Minorities (June-July, 1974, Ohrid, Yugoslavia), UN Doc. ST/TAO/HR/40; Francesca Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, "Study of the Rights Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities," UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/384 (1977); Rita F. Hauser, "International Protection of Minorities and the Right of Self-Determination." Israel Yearbook on Human Rights I (1971).

3. Helmer Rosting, "Protection of Minorities by the League of Nations." AJIL 17 (1923), pp. 641-2.

4. Ibid., pp. 642-43; Inis L. Claude, National Minorities: An International Problem (New York: Greenwood Press, 1955), p. 6; C. A. Macartney, National States and National Minorities (New York: Russel, 1968), pp. 157-75.

5. Article I of the Final Act provided: "The Polish subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall be given institutions which guarantee the preservation of their nationality and which shall assume such political form as each of the governments to which they are subject shall deem appropriate." Cited in Capotorti, p. 12.

6. Claude, p. 8.

7. Ibid., p. 13; Franjo Tudjman, Nationalism in Contemporary Europe (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1981), pp. 28-36.

8. C. A. Macartney and A. W. Palmer, Independent Eastern Europe: A History (London: MacMillan, 1966), p. 144. A most comprehensive treatment of the diplomatic history of how the borders of Hungary were drawn is Francis Deak, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference: The Diplomatic History of the Treaty of Trianon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942). See also, Harold Temperly, "How the Hungarian Frontiers Were Drawn." Foreign Affairs 6 (1928), p. 432.

9. Tennent H. Bagley, International Protection of National Minorities (Geneva: Georg & Co., 1950), p. 12.

10. Ibid., p. 40.

11. Cited in Adatci Report, League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement (hereafter cited as OISS) 73 (1929), p. 45.

12. Jacob Robinson, "International Protection of Minorities: A Global View." Israel Yearbook on Human Rights I(1971), pp. 65-66; Macartney, National States, pp. 212-15.

13. Claude, p. 15.

14. Cited in Adatci Report, p. 80.

15. Versailles Treaty with Poland of June 28, 1919, AJIL (Supp.) 13

(1919), p. 423; Saint Germain Treaty with Czechoslovakia of September 10, 1919, AJIL (Supp,) 14 (1920), p. 311; Paris Peace Treaty with Romania of December 9, 1919, ibid., p. 324; Saint Germain Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of September 10, 1919, ibid., p. 333; and Sevres Treaty with Greece of August 10, 1920, AIIL (Supp.) 15 (1921), p. 161.

16. Saint Germain Peace Treaty with Austria of September 10, 1919, AJIL (Supp.) 14 (1920), p. l; Neuilly Peace Treaty with Bulgaria of: November 26, 1919, ibid., p. 185; Trianon Peace Treaty with Hungary of June 4, 1920, AJIL (Supp.) 15(1921), p. 1; Lausanne Peace Treaty with Turkey of August 10,1920, ibid., p. 179.

17. Capotorti, add. 2, p. 9.

18. Adacti Report, p. 43.

19. Robinson, p. 66.

20. Minority schools in Albania, Series A/B, no. 64 (April 6, 1935). Permanent Court of International Justice (hereafter cited as PCIJ).

21. Yoram Dinstein, "Collective Human Rights of Peoples and Minorities." 25 International and Comparative Quarterly (January 1976), p. 115.

22. Claude, p. 19; Capotorti, add. 2, pp. 13-14.

23. P. De Azcarate, League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment, translated by Eileen E. Brooke (Washington, D.C.: Rumford Press, 1945), p. 14.

24. Bagley, p. 43; Adatci Report, pp. 44-47.

25. See letter by Clemenceau to Paderewski (June 24, 1919) cited in Adatci Report, p. 44; Rodolfo de Nova, "The International Protection of National Minorities and Human Rights." Howard Law Journal 11(1965), p. 278.

26. Azcarate, p. 99.

27. Ibid., p. 112.

28. The Council quickly began to refine the procedures it would follow in dealing with minority issues. The first and most crucial step was its adoption of the Tittoni Report in 1920 which breathed life into the League's Minority System by establishing the right to petition and by creating the Minorities Committee. In the words of the former Director of the Minorities Section of the League, the Report "served as a basis for everything achieved by the League regarding minorities." Ibid., p. 102.

29. Julius Stone, International Guarantees of Minority Rights: Procedures of the Council of the League of Nations in Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), pp. 38-39.

30. Azcarate, p. 104; Capotorti, add. 2, p. 24. The U.N.'s practice in this regard is mixed. Petitioners submitting communications, i.e., complaints alleging violations of human rights, to the Commission on Human Rights or the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities pursuant to Economic and Social Council Resolution 1503 (XVII)

are not informed about the fate of their communications (the proceeding itself is strictly confidential). On the other hand, the Director General of UNESCO is obligated by Section 14(b)(i) of UNESCO Document EX/Decision 3.3 to "acknowledge receipt of communications [alleging violations of human rights which fall within the competence of UNESCO] and inform the authors thereof of the ... conditions governing admissibility."

31. The criteria of receivability were established by the Council's Resolution of September 5,1923. It provided that the petition to be admissible had to have the protection of minorities in view; could not seek severance of political relations between the minority and the state; could not emanate from an anonymous or unauthenticated source; could not contain violent language; and had to contain facts or information which was not the subject of a recent petition. Resolution reproduced in Stone, appendix III, p. 276.

32. The negotiations were "informal" because the case took on a legal character only when the Council was seized with the matter. Ibid., p. 98.

33. Adatci Report, p. 59.

34. Azcarate, p. 117.

35. Ibid., p. 121.

36. Ibid., pp. 121-22.

37. Stone, p. 107.

38. OISS (1926), p. 741.

39. Article 4, paragraphs, and Article 5, paragraph I of the Covenant of the League formed the basis for this "rule." The former provided: "Any Member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send representatives to sit as a Member at any meeting of the Council during considerations of matters specially affecting the interests of that Member of the League." The latter provided: "Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meetings of the ... Council shall require agreement of all Members of the League represented at the meeting."

40. Stone, p. 187.

41. OISS (1925), p. 891.

42. Stone, pp. 205-06.

43. Ibid., p. 207.

44. Azcarate, p. 118.

45. Stone, pp. 228-31; 0155 (1925). p. 1348.

46. OISS (1926), p. 160.

47. OISS (1928). p. 798.

48. OISS (1932), pp. 492-93.

49. Wenzel Jaksch, Europe's Road to Potsdam, translated and edited by Kurt Glaser (New York: Praeger. 1967), p. 233.

50. OISS, spec. supp. 120(1933), p. 40.

51. Cited in Bagley, p. 75.

52. Robinson, p. 70.

53. Bagley, pp. 127-28; Claude, p. 40; Robinson, p. 70; Jacob Robinson, Were the Minorities Treaties a Failure? (New York: Austin Press, Inc., 1943), p. 153; Macartney, National States, p. 383.

54. For example, Poland persecuted several of its citizens for submitting petitions to the League, Bagley, p. 121; see also, Macartney, idem; Jaksch, p. 235.

55. Cited in Bagley, p. 98.

56. R. W. Seton-Watson, A History of the Roumanians (Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 549.

57. Macartney, National States, p. 383.

58. De Nova, p. 281.

59. For instance, Jaksch, pp. 232-38, judges the League's Minority System to have been an abject failure. Compare this view with Macartney's, National States, pp. 420-21, which formulates the difficulties which confronted the League in the minority protection area as follows: "The real root of the trouble lies in the philosophy of the national state as it is practiced in central and eastern Europe. So long as the majority nations which have assumed command of the different states persist in their theoretically absurd and practically unattainable endeavor to make of those states the exclusive instruments of their own national ideals and aspirations, so long will the minorities be placed in a position which no system of international protection can render tolerable."

60. Robinson, Were the Treaties a Failure, p, 261.

61. Supra, p. 12, ftn. 45-47.

62. Azcarate, pp. 66-67.

63. Robinson, "Protection of Minorities," p. 90.

64. Kurt Glaser and Stefan T. Possony, Victims of Politics: The State of Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 111; Claude, p. 1.

65. Claude, idem., defines the problem as follows: "The problem of national minorities arises out of the conflict between the ideal of the homogeneous national state and the reality of ethnic heterogeneity."

66. Bagley, p. 21.

67. An irony of the modern perception of the problem confronting groups, such as ethnic groups, is identified by Glaser and Possony, p. 208, who state that "it is a peculiar tendency of our times that the world community will witness without much emotion large-scale suppression if it is defined in an ethnic ideological context, but will condemn with passion a far milder case of suppression which is defined as racism." Indeed, "ethnic, religious, and language quarrels can also erupt into violence. In recent years they have cost more human lives than fighting between races." Idem., p. 161.

68. The Romanian governments pressures against its Hungarian minority

include: closing Hungarian-language educational institutions and eliminating Hungarian universities; dissolving compact Hungarian communities; suppressing Hungarian (and other minority) languages; confiscating archives of Hungarian churches; curtailing human contacts and cultural exchanges with Hungarians outside of Romania; and persecuting or condemning outspoken individuals to labor camps or psychiatric hospitals. See, Amnesty International, Romania (U.S., 1978); Tufton Beamish and Guy Hadley, The Kremlin's Dilemma: The Struggle for Human Rights in Eastern Europe (London: Collins & Harville, 1979); Committee for Human Rights in Rumania, Rumania's Violations of Helsinki Final Act Provisions Protecting the Rights of National, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (New York, 1980); Statement of Frank Koszorus, Jr., attorney, "The International Human Rights Law Group," Hearings on Waiver of Freedom of Immigration Requirement to the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Hungarian People's Republic before the Subcomm. on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C., 1980), p. 258; George Schopflin, The Hungarians of Rumania, Minority Rights Group, report no. 37 (1978); Richard F. Staar, The Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 2nd ed. (Stanford: Hoover Institution Publication, 1975). Regarding the situation of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia, see, Report of the Committee for the Protection of Rights of the Hungarian Minority in Czechoslovakia, Prepared for the Participants of the Czech Civil Rights Movement (Czechoslovakia: November 1979) (mimeographed); Report of the Committee for the Protection of the Rights of the Hungarian Minority in Czechoslovakia (Czechoslovakia: February 1980) (mimeographed); Report to the Congress of the United States by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, "Implementation of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Findings and Recommendations Five Years After Helsinki," 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. (August 1, 1980), p. 333.

69. For an excellent review of the origins and work of the Sub-Commission, see John P. Humphrey, "The U.N. Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities," AJIL 62 (1968). p. 869.

70. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: "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 other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language." Article 5, 1(c) of the Convention Against Discrimination in Education provides: "It is essential to recognize the rights of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of schools and, depending on the educational policy of each state, the use or teaching of their own language. ..."

71. E/CN.4/L.1367/Rev.1. See E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.754 for the revised and consolidated text of the draft declaration submitted on July 2, 1980.

72. Hurst Hannum, "The Thirty-Third Session of the U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities," AJIL 75 (1981), p. 178.

73. Robinson, International Protection of Minorities, p. 26.

74. Glaser and Possony, p. 105, define a minority as a "... group or category of persons within a specific political unit who are differentiated from a dominant group through one or more cultural or somatic factors such as lifestyle, language, religion, genealogy. physical characteristics, nationality, ethnicity, or historicity and who because of this differentiation are subjected to discrimination, disqualification's, limitations, inequalities, or disabilities in respect of opportunities, power, status, and prestige." Compare also, Dinstein. p. 112, "... the test for the existence of a minority entitled to protection under international law is not always numerical. Perhaps we can think of a minority in the sense that such a group plays a minor role in the affairs of the country." with Capotorti, E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Add.1, p. 10, who, in connection with the study on Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states, that "... an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority is a group numerically smaller than the rest of the population of the state to which it belongs and possessing cultural, physical or historical characteristics, a religion or language different from those of the rest of the population."

75. Vernon Van Dyke, "The Individual, the State, and Ethnic Communities in Political Theory." World Politics XXIX (April 1977), pp. 346-49; Vernon Van Dyke, "Human Rights and the Rights of Groups," American Journal of Political Science XVII (November 1974), p. 726.

76. Glaser and Possony, p. 115.

77. Capotorti, E/CN.4/Sub.2/384, pp. 4-5. An unarticulated yet undoubtedly real concern to many states is the right of self-determination as that right may apply to groups within their boundaries.

78. Idem.

79. Statement by Judge Bell at phase one plenary session of the Madrid meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on December 10, 1980, p. 2.

80. "Japan Promises to Increase Rights of Korean Minority." The Law Group Docket I (Spring. 1981), p. 4.

81. For example. see Myres S. McDougal. Harold D. Lasswell and Lung-Chu Chen, "Freedom From Discrimination in Choice of Language and International Human Rights," Southern Illinois University Law Journal 1 (1976), pp. 151-74; see also Capotorti, E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/add.5 who concludes his study on Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by stating "In order to give effect to the rights set forth in Article 27

of the Covenant, active and sustained measures are required from states. A purely passive attitude on their part would render these rights ineffective."

82. The inability of the principle of nondiscrimination, at least as that principle has been developed by the UN, fully to protect minorities is identified by Glaser and Possony, p. 25, as follows: "The principle of nondiscrimination must be concerned mainly with discriminatory treatment of groups. There is no way to prevent discrimination in relationships between individuals, all of whom discriminate between kin and stranger, friend and foe, persons they like and dislike, people with whom they enter into professional relationships and people they marry or jilt. ... The distinctions and discriminations which are to be eliminated are those between groups, such as races and religions, men and women, or persons who speak different languages. Yet the various rights proposed to eliminate discriminatory treatment refer mainly to treatment given to individuals, while problems related to group treatment are rarely taken up." (Emphasis added.)

83. Minority Schools in Albania, PCIJ Series A/B, no.64 (April 6, 1935), p. 17.

84. Cited in Bagley, p. 41; Glaser and Possony, p. 330, provide an example from the interwar period of the neglected truism that individual rights can often be fully protected only if group rights are protected by describing the situation in Czechoslovakia where "... all citizens were theoretically granted equal access to the public service on the basis of individual abilities. But a law passed in 1923 required all state employees to be proficient in the 'Czechoslovak language' even if employed in German speaking districts. The result was wholesale dismissal of public servants belonging to the German and Magyar ethnic groups, who had been included in the Czecho-Slovak state against their will in the first place. Apologists for the first Czecho-Slovak Republic have pointed out, quite correctly, that all citizens enjoyed equal individual rights. But they were denied the group right to participate in public functions in their own languages." (Emphasis included.) This situation was exacerbated by laws whereby "... members of the non-Czech nationalities were prevented from seeking a restructuring of the state permitting them further political expression. To create an artificial 'majority.' the myth of a 'Czechoslovak nation' became a theme of official propaganda, and the hyphen in Czecho-Slovakia, which had been retained until the Slovaks were firmly incorporated in the new state, was quietly dropped by the Prague government and later by most commentators. To the dismay of the Slovaks, the 'Czechoslovak language' turned out in many instances to be the Czech language used by Czech officials and teachers assigned to Slovakia." Ibid., p. 353. See also, Tudjman, p. 3l. But cf. with Macartney, National States, p. 414, who concludes with respect to inter-war Czechoslovakia that, "In her attitude towards her minorities Czechoslovakia has in many respects set an example to most of the Treaty States."

[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] [HMK Home] A Case Study on Trianon