Direkte Demokratie und Sprachminderheiten in der Schweiz und in Sudtirol - Ein Vergleich = Direct democracy and minority language in Switzerland and South Tyrol - a comparison. EDAP 2/2010
Do procedures of direct democracy involve fundamental dangers with regard to social, ethno-linguistic and religious minorities? Is there even a conflict between popular decision-making by initiative and referendum and the requirement of interethnic consociational democratic procedures? The article focuses on the existing tension and supposed contradictions between procedures of direct democracy (initiative and referendum) and the protection of rights and interests of minorities in multilingual areas. Drawing upon some recent examples of such kind in four Swiss bi- or multilingual cantons and in South Tyrol the author compares these experiences and discusses the crucial issue whether such a conflict can be solved and which special precautions should be established when it comes to apply direct democracy in multilingual areas. Eventually he presents a new approach about how civil rights to direct political participation, enshrined in Italy's constitution and South Tyrol's autonomy statute, could be brought into concordance with the need to respect the equality of fundamental rights of linguistic groups within a multilingual polity, which is currently debated in South Tyrol's politics.
The headscarf as a symbol of non-integration?: integration of Muslims in Austria. EDAP paper, 3/2006
A debate is raging in Europe about what kind of policies states should adopt regarding the integration of Muslims. On one hand, policies are pursued which ask Muslims to “assimilate” and give up features of their (religious) traditions, on the other hand policies are promoted which encourage minorities to celebrate their “difference”. In Austria, the debate heated up again at the occasion of the widely debated study titled “Perspectives and Challenges Regarding the Integration of Muslims in Austria” in May 2006. This paper investigates the headscarf as a religious symbol in a Western state. Although there has not been a case before the Austrian courts on religious neutrality of public schools with regard to the limits of religious freedom evident in the headscarf cases all over Europe, the debate on religious practices in the public realm has also reached Austria, which makes a glance at the debate in Germany even more interesting. In Germany, a vibrant debate has been going on for years. Only recently, on the 7th of July 2006, a decision by the VG Stuttgart turned the debate into a different direction. To give an overview, the main strands of the German discussion will be outlined. This debate will be described against the background of the recent decisions of the ECtHR, which have set the guiding posts of the debate.
Collective Minority Rights and Problems in Their Legal Protection: the Example of Yugoslavia
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.