Page 112

CEP template 2012

International approaches to governing ethnic diversity Jane Boulden and Will Kymlicka While decisions about the governance of ethnic diversity remain primarily in the hands of national governments, a wide range of international actors often seek to influence those decisions, or to shape their implementation. These ‘international actors’ include not only traditional intergovernmental organisations like the United Nations, but also international advocacy groups and philanthropic organisations as well as a range of third-party actors, such as the foreign aid programmes of Western states. The modern Commonwealth itself, based on inter-governmental consensus, has ‘respect and understanding’ among its peoples as a stated objective and principle. Although the influence of international actors is widely noted, there remains deep disagreement about their motivations and effects. Many critics charge that the international community is bent on imposing idealised versions of Western models of liberaldemocratic multiculturalism on parts of the world where they are inappropriate, while dismissing local modes of ethnic co-existence as backward or illiberal. Other critics argue, by contrast, that the international community is too willing to accept any settlement that avoids ethnic bloodshed, even at the expense of individual freedoms and democratic equality. Still other commentators argue that, on balance, the international community serves as an honest broker, gently nudging local actors towards more inclusive and democratic outcomes that are responsive to the needs of the local population. The reality, of course, is that the ‘international community’ is itself a heterogeneous collection of very different actors, each with its own distinctive motivations, beliefs and strategies. Yet remarkably few studies to date have attempted to unpack these different components and think about the important differences between them. We share the Commonwealth’s concern for looking at ethnic diversity not just as a factor in violent conflicts but as a dimension of peaceful and democratic (routine) governance, and in this article we sketch a few lines of enquiry that international actors need to consider if they are to have positive results. Given the diversity of types of international actors and ethnic relations around the world, we do not expect to find any universal laws or rigid formulas here. On the contrary, our aim is precisely to get a better sense of the range of possibilities, in terms of the motives, tactics and effects. International law: Conflict literatures Of the body of literature that relates to this topic, perhaps the most developed is that on the international law of minority rights, which includes studies of the United Nations’ regime of minority rights and indigenous rights, as well as studies of the regional regime of minority rights adopted by the Council of Europe and the European Union, and the more specialised studies of such issues as the international law principles regarding language rights or secession, This literature has exploded in part to keep up with the expansion of new international declarations and conventions on the topic, including, to name just a few: • UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) • UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) Governing diversity: Some key questions • To what extent, or under what conditions, are international actors attentive to the ethnic dimension of their activities? Do these actors have specific policies or guidelines that instruct them to be sensitive to ethnic issues (in the way that many actors have gender sensitivity as part of their mandate)? • Insofar as they are sensitive to ethnic issues, what assumptions do these actors make (implicitly or explicitly) about the appropriate models for governing ethnic diversity? Do they tend to favour more ‘multiculturalist’ models of democracy or more familiar (majoritarian and unitary) models of ‘nation-building’? • What are the main goals of international actors when making decisions about how to approach ethnic issues? Are they primarily governed by security considerations (peace and stability), or by democratisation and human rights, or by more economic considerations of development or profit? • What tools do international actors have available to promote their preferred models of governing ethnic diversity? We can imagine a continuum here from very gentle forms of persuasion (such as organising workshops to discuss ‘best practices’) through various forms of normsetting (for example international declarations on minority rights) to various diplomatic sticks and carrots or even coercive military intervention (as in Kosovo) • What are the intended and unintended effects of these international activities? What sorts of domestic ethnic politics do they legitimate or encourage, and what sorts do they delegitimise or marginalise? When do they contribute to the peaceful and democratic governance of ethnic diversity, and when do they exacerbate conflict and instability? Adapted from the introductory chapter to Boulden, J. and Kymlicka, W. eds. 2015. International Approaches to Governing Ethnic Diversity. Oxford: OUP. Commonwealth Governance 110 Handbook 2014/15


CEP template 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above