Considerations on the International Reaction to the 1999 Kosovo Crisis

I. THE KOSOVO QUESTION : BETWEEN SELF-DETERMINATION AND MINORITY PROTECTION A. A QUESTION OF MINORITY ? 1. The Views of the Parties to the Conflict 2. Minority/People : Two Sides of the Same Coin ? B. INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS : NEITHER SELF-DETERMINATION, NOR MINORITY PROTECTION 1. The International Involvement in the Crisis 2. The International Response to the Crisis II. AUTONOMY, MINORITIES AND SECESSIONIST CONFLICTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW INTRODUCTION : THE SIGINIFICANCE OF AUTONOMOUS REGIMES FOR MINORIITES A. IS THERE A RIGHT TO AUTONOMY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW ? 1. Autonomy as a Form of Self-Setermination ? 2. Autonomy as a Means to Ensure Minority Protection B. INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS TOWARDS SECESSIONIST CONFLICTS IN THE OSCE AREA 1. Autonomy as a Means to Resolve Secessionist Conflicts 2. An Obligation to Negotiate ? III. THE POLITICAL WAY OUT OF THE CONFLICT : NEITHER MERE AUTONOMY, NOR FULL INDEPENDENCE A. The Rambouillet Plan 1. Political Aspects 2. Implementation System : the International Military Presence B. Kosovo Under International Protection 1. The Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) 2. The Present Status of Kosovo : a New Form of ‘Internationalised Territory’ or the Path to Independence

The Others in Europe

This edited volume addresses the construction of identity classifications underlying the new forms of inclusion and exclusion that are to be found in contemporary Europe. Its scope covers practices of categorization and of resistance, both by majority groups

Diversity and equality: an ambiguous relationship; reflections on the US case law on affirmative action in higher education. EDAP papers, 4/2006

The concept of diversity has become increasingly salient in equality discourse. In the EU and in many of its member states, the term ‘diversity’ is now often used in place of ‘equality’ by advocates of voluntarist antidiscrimination policies. This trend echoes a phenomenon observable in the United States, where the notion of diversity has acquired a major place in discussions over affirmative action. Interestingly, the US Supreme Court has played an important role in this evolution: ‘promotion of diversity’ has progressively become almost the sole justification admitted for affirmative action programmes in higher education. This paper critically explores the use of diversity argument in US legal discourse on antidiscrimination. It argues that while the notion of diversity may valuably contribute to the promotion of equal opportunities, it is not without ambiguities. A first ambiguity results from the vagueness of the term “diversity.” Considered in the abstract, it may encompass all kind of differences and particularities. Absent further explanation, it is not self-evident that “achieving diversity” requires a special focus on disadvantaged racial or ethnic minorities. The second ambiguity lies with the fact that the diversity argument, as constructed in the US case law, tends to justify efforts to promote the inclusion of disadvantaged groups on the basis of its utility for the dominant majority. This line of argument may obfuscate more principled justifications and makes equality discourse more vulnerable to attacks based on claims that combating discrimination is in fact not “efficient” and thus not in the interest of the dominant majority

Between Identity Transmission and Equal Opportunities. The Multiple Dimensions of Minorities' Right to Education

The relation between minority protection and access to education raises some thorny questions: how to promote equal education while attending to minorities' special needs,whether cultural or socio-economic needs? This paper seeks to explore how international law deals with this issue. It looks at the dialectic between separate and integrated education from the perspective of both aspects of minorities' right to education: identity transmission and equal opportunities. Based on an exploration of the practice of various international bodies, the paper argues that while international human rights law does not impose a unique educational model, it does favour integrated over separate education. Yet, at the same time, it points towards a transformation of the content and modalities of the education provided in common institutions in order to respond to three types of concerns: fostering mutual knowledge and understanding between the various communities, promoting equal opportunities and allowing minorities to transmit their cultural identity

Chapitre 12. Du voile au crucifix : la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

Le cheminement du concept de neutralité confessionnelle de l’État dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme est révélateur des interrogations et des controverses que l’interprétation de cette notion génère dans de nombreux pays. Le terme « neutralité de l’État » n’apparaît nulle part dans la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme dont cette Cour a pour mission d’assurer le respect. Conclue en 1950 dans le cadre de l’organisation du Conseil de l’Europe, cette Conve..

L’appréhension juridique de l’identité culturelle. Entre auto-définition et objectivation

Comment un Etat peut-il appréhender une notion aussi complexe que l’identité, lorsque déterminer si un individu ou un groupe présente ou non une certaine identité ethnique, culturelle ou religieuse, est requise pour assurer la garantie de certains droits ? Peut-on dégager du droit international des droits de l’homme des normes indiquant quels critères ou quelles méthodes il est légitime d’utiliser pour déterminer l’identité ou l’appartenance ethnique, culturelle ou religieuse, d’un individu ? L'article examine l'évolution du droit international sur ce plan et pointes les difficultés et controverses persistantes en la matière

L’Europe en quête d’égalité. Genèse de la première directive prohibant la discrimination raciale et ethnique

Cette contribution retrace les antécédents et l'histoire du processus d'adoption, par la Communauté européenne, de la première directive européenne prohibant la discrimination raciale et ethnique, la directive 2000/43/CE