Definitions and Descriptions of ‘Minority’ in UN Entities

1. Decision of the Drafting Committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Scope
of the Terminology regarding Prevention of Discrimination and Prevention of
Discrimination’, in Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, First Session (24 November - 6 December
1947), Report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/52, 6 December 1947:
2. Protection of minorities is the protection of non-dominant groups which, while
wishing in general for equality of treatment with the majority, wish for a measure of
differential treatment in order to preserve basic characteristics which they possess and
which distinguish them from the majority of the population. The protection applies
equally to individuals belonging to such groups and wishing the same protection, it
follows that differential treatment of such groups or of individuals belonging to such
groups is justified when it is exercised in the interest of their contentment and the
welfare of the community as a whole. The characteristics meriting such protection are
race, religion and language. In order to qualify for protection a minority must owe
undivided allegiance to the Government of the State in which it lives. Its members
must also be nationals of that State. If a minority wishes for assimilation and is
debarred, the question is one of discrimination and should be treated as such.
2. 1949, Commission on Human Rights, Definition and Classification of Minorities:
Memorandum Submitted by the Secretary-General, E/CN.4/Sub.2/85, 27 December 1949:
A. Groups to be Studied
4. As a provisional orientation, it will be recalled that in modern times the term
"minority" has been applied to more or less distinct groups, living within a State,
which are dominated by other groups.
5. A fundamental distinction may be drawn between (a) minorities whose members
desire equality with dominant groups in the sense of non-discrimination alone, and (b)
those whose members desire equality with dominant groups in the sense of non-
discrimination plus the recognition of certain special rights and the rendering of
certain positive services.
6. The minorities in category (a) on the whole do not wish to preserve their
characteristics which distinguish them from the dominant group, but prefer to be
assimilated fully or in part by the dominant group. They are therefore primarily
concerned that no discrimination of any kind shall be made between various groups,
particularly in respect of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. (See Article 2 of the Declaration).
7. The minorities in category (b) are equally concerned with the principle of non-
discrimination. They feel, however, that even full realization of this principle would
not place their group in a position of real equality - but only of formal equality - with
respect to the dominant group.
8. The "positive services" and "special rights," which such minorities feel they must
have if their equality within the State is to be real, vary greatly, but usually include
one or more of the following:
 (1) provision of adequate primary and secondary education for the minority in
its own language and its cultural traditions;
(2) provision for maintenance of' the culture of the minority through the
establishment and operation of schools, libraries, museums, media of
information, and other cultural and educational institutions;
(3) provision of adequate facilities to the minority for the use of, its language,
either orally or in writing, in the legislature, before the courts, and in
administration, and the granting of the right to use that language in private
intercourse;
(4) provision for respect of the family law and personal status of the minority
and their religious practices and interests; and
(5) provision of a certain degree of autonomy.
9. The rendering of "positive services" may take either of two forms:
(1) provisions effected at the expense of the minority, or
(2) provisions effected out of public funds and facilities.
10. The task of protecting the minorities which fall into category (a), as outline above,
coincides largely with the prevention of discrimination (see the Memorandum on the
Main Types and Causes of Discrimination, submitted to the Sub-Commission by the
Secretary-General, document E/CN.4/Sub.2/40).
11. The task of protecting the minorities which fall into category (b), as outlined
above, also coincides to a certain extent with the prevention of discrimination, but it
has additional aspects, such as those enumerated in paragraph 8 above. The aspects
may vary widely in the case of each minority.
12. This study is devoted largely to the minorities which fall into category (b), as it is
not essential to define or to classify "minorities" before providing for the realization
of the principle of non-discrimination.
…
37. It follows from the analysis of the community, the nation and the State outlined
above that the term "minority" cannot for practical purposes be defined simply by
interpreting the word in its literal sense. If this were the case, nearly all the
communities existing within a State would be styled minorities, 'including families,
social classes, cultural groups, speakers of dialects, etc. Such, a definition would be
useless.
38. As a matter of fact, the term "minority" is frequently used at present in a more
restricted sense; it has come to refer mainly to a particular kind of community, and
especially to a national or similar community, which differs from the predominant
group in the State. Such a minority may have originated in any of the following ways:
(a) it may formerly have constituted an independent nation with its own State, (or a
more or less independent tribal organization);
(b) it may formerly have been part of a nation living under its own State, which was
later segregated from this jurisdiction and annexed to another State
or
(c) it may have been, or may still be, a regional or scattered group which although
bound to the predominant group by certain feelings of solidarity, not reached even a
minimum degree of real assimilation with the predominant group.
39. Bearing in mind the difficulties of giving a clear-cut definition of the term
minority from a scientific point of view, since the term includes so many elemental
which are changeable both in content and in degree of intensity, (it is safe to say that
at least within the field of political science this term is most frequently used to apply
to communities with certain characteristics (ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religions
groups, etc.), and almost always to communities of a national type. The members of
such a minority feel that they constitute a nation, group, or sub-group, which is
different from the predominant one. Members of purely religious minorities may feel
however that they belong to the predominant national group. The fact that the
members of a minority normally feel that they differ from the predominant group does
not necessarily imply that no larger nation exists, constituted both by the minority (or
minorities) and by the predominant, group, under the jurisdiction of the State. Indeed
it is possible that, despite the difference between the minority and the predominant
group, the two are held together by a sense of nationality which is larger, though
thinner, in national consciousness, than that of either of the separate groups.
I. The Categories of Minorities
43. The Secretary-General has already drawn the attention of the Sub-Commission (in
document E/CN.4/Sub.2/6) to the fact that under the League of Nations Minorities
System only "racial, religious and linguistic" minorities were protected, these
minorities being considered of a more or less objective and stable nature. The formula
"racial, religious and linguistic minorities" was considered to refer to all such groups,
regardless of their numerical size.
In some instruments certain categories of minorities were referred to by name,
especially when it was desired to guarantee specifically to such minorities certain
traditional practices or privileges of particular interest to them; this however did not
mean that such groups were not covered by the general formula, "racial, religious and
linguistic minorities", or that they were not subject to the same system of protection.
In this connexion it should be noted that in a very recent instrument relating ty the
protection of minorities, the Austro-Italian Agreement of 9 September 1946, the
following terms are used: "German-speaking inhabitants", "German-speaking
citizens," and "German-speaking elements".
44. In general the formula "racial, religious and linguistic minorities" was used
because these characteristics were considered (with the possible exception of
"religious") to constitute the principal outward manifestations of the national
community. However, the concept of the term minority was neither then nor now
confined to groups which constitute national communities; it was and still is extended
to include also groups who either by a common religion, a common language, or a
common ethnic origin, or by any two or all three of these characteristics, even when
such groups do not form national communities. Such groups are not concerned so
much with preserving their national existence apart from that of the predominant
group as with keeping alive their own language, culture, religion or traditions.
45. Thus in a general way, insofar as the rendering of positive services and the
recognition of special rights is concerned - as distinguished from the realization of the
principle of non-discrimination, it may be said that the term minority should normally
be applied to groups whose members share a common ethnic origin, language,
culture, or religion, and are interested in preserving either their existence as a national
community or their particular distinguishing characteristics. In this connexion it
should be borne in mind that the terms of reference of the Sub-Commission provide
that it shall undertake studies and make recommendations concerning "the protection
of racial, national, religion and linguistic minorities".
M. The Question of Citizenship
46. According to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone
is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without
distinction of any kind ...". It will be noted however that Article 21 of the Declaration
refers to the right of everyone to take part in the government of his country and the
right of everyone of equal access to public service in his country - a recognition that
certain political rights legitimately may be granted only to citizens.
47. In the case of minorities which desire equality only in the sense of non-
discrimination, therefore, the question of citizenship is not a relevant one with the
exception noted in the paragraph above. However, in the case of minorities desiring to
obtain special positive services or the recognition of special rights in order to preserve
their particular distinguishing characteristics, the question of citizenship is most
important, for it is hardly conceivable that such special positive services or special
rights would be granted by any State to groups of foreigners except when required by
a rule of international law. At the same time it should be remembered that one of the
rights for which minorities have most persistently struggled is the right to citizenship
in the country of which they are inhabitants.
N. The Minority as a Social Reality
48. The definition of the term minority is particularly difficult because of the fact that
minorities are social realities which are dynamic rather than static, and which change
under the influence of varying circumstances. For example, many sociologists and
political scientists have pointed out that a minority group which becomes satisfied
with its relationship toward the predominant group tends to become more and more
assimilated by the latter. On the other hand, they have also remarked that if the
members of, a minority group feel that the rule imposed by the predominant group
prevents them from maintaining their particular distinctive characteristics or inhibits
the development of their aspirations for the future, this group's relationship toward the
predominant group tends to become more and more strained.
49. The degree of self-contentment of the minority may, but does not necessarily,
depend on the amount of autonomy or protection granted by the State. Some States
have succeeded in promoting the progressive voluntary assimilation of the minority
by arousing in its members a sincere enthusiasm for, and feeling of solidarity with, the
destiny and forms of life embodied in the State. Others have achieved precisely
contrary results when they tried to assimilate the minority. Still others have, by
granting the minority the protection it desired, so increased the solidarity of the
minority with the predominant group that as a result a national state was engendered
in spite of the existing differences in traditions, language, culture, etc. The fair
treatment and the freedoms accorded to a minority may soften its hostility towards the
dominant group and further its assimilation by causing it to have closer relations with
the latter. If the predominant group possesses ideals which are capable of winning the
support of the minority an assimilation often results.
O. The Question of Size
50. From a purely theoretical point of view, even the smallest group which meets the
various qualifications set forth above should be considered a minority. However, for
practical purposes, only those groups which represent a considerable proportion of the
population of a State are usually referred to as minorities. This does not preclude,
however, the extension to every individual member of such a group of the principle of
non-discrimination.
51. Also from a purely theoretical point of view, even those groups which are
principally interested in assimilation with the predominant group should be
considered as minorities. However, since the problems which they pose are entire
within the realm of the prevention of discrimination, they need not in practice be
considered as falling within the meaning of the term "minorities".
P. The Question of the Conditions Under Which the Minority Was Incorporated
Within the State
52. Enjoyment of human rights must be assured to all the inhabitants of a State;
territory, irrespective of any condition. But it is widely accepted that whether or not a
minority is entitled to special positive services or special rights depends in some
degree on the conditions under which the minority was included within the State.
Q. Some Remaining Problems
53. Among other problems closely related to the definition of minorities, there are two
which merit special consideration in this study.
54. The first is the question of individual membership in a minority. Should individual
who is not religious be considered as a member of a religious minority? What of the
person who speaks several languages as mother-tongues? What of the individual who
stems from a mixed ethnic origin? The answer given by most students of the subject is
that the subjective decision of the individual in question is the governing factor; that
each individual should be able to decide voluntarily whether or not he belongs to a
specific minority. Indeed, this conclusion is reinforced by a provision appearing in an
international instrument, the German-Polish Convention of Geneva of 15 May 1922,
of which Article 74 reads
 "The question whether a person does or does not belong to a racial, linguistic,
or religious minority may not be verified or disputed by the authorities."
The meaning of this article was interpreted by the Permanent Court of International
Justice, in its judgment of 26 April 1928, in the following words:
"The Court holds that the prohibition as regards any verification or dispute
does not cease to apply in cases where it appears that the declaration is not in
accord with the facts.... if a declaration has been made, it must always be
respected...."
55. The second problem is the question whether the special measures of protection
provided to a minority are individual or collective rights. The answer depends upon
whether or not the State in question has recognized the minority as a juridical
personality. If it has, two kinds of rights exist: the rights which the minority as a legal
person – represented by its legal organs – may claim before the State; and the rights
which individual members of the minority may claim by virtue of such membership.
If, on the other hand, the State has not recognized the minority as a juridical
personality, but has only granted facilities for the preservation of its particular
distinctive characteristics, the related rights may be claimed only by individuals on
the basis of their membership in the minority, and not by the minority as such.
56. A final problem is the question whether use of the special facilities provided for
the maintenance of the particular distinctive characteristics of the minority is optional
or compulsory. The consensus of opinion is that the use of such facilities is optional,
involving no obligation. Thus if an individual member of a minority prefers to attend
the school of the predominant group, he should be free to do so without
discrimination of any kind. However, it will be recalled that there are certain
exceptions to this general rule. To cite a single example: in the then Austrian and later
Czechoslovak province of Moravia, a provincial statute was enacted in 1906
providing that a child of obligatory school age must go to a school of which the
medium of education corresponded to his nationality. It was provided therefore that
the children of the Czech ethnic group must attend Czech schools and must not attend
German schools, and vice versa.
57. Opinions differ regarding the best solution of the problem created by the existence
of minorities. This variety of opinion stems from the widely varying characteristics of
different States and from varying conceptions of the goal to be aimed at: assimilation
on the one hand, or the preservation of the distinguishing characteristics of particular
groups on the other. The variety of attitudes and opinions is clearly evident in the
summary records of the Commission on Human Rights (see especially documents
E/CN.4/AC2/SR.9 and E/CN.4/SR.73) and of the Third Committee of the General
Assembly (documents A/C.SR.161, 162 and 163).
R. Summary
58. It would seem that minorities entitled, to special positive services and, special
rights are restricted to groups of citizens held together by ties of common descent,
language, culture, of religious faith, etc., who feel that they differ in these respects
 from the rest of the population, and who desire to preserve their special characteristics
and to develop them further.
59. On the basis of this consciousness of difference, minorities will possibly make
certain political claims. In every case the desire the enjoyment of all human rights
without discrimination. In addition, they may desire positive support from the State in
the preservation of their distinctive characteristics or partial or full autonomy, or even
separation from the State. These desires are usually based upon the conditions and
arrangements under which the minority was included in the State. The claim of any
minority, to application of the principle of non-discrimination cannot be questioned,
since this principle is proclaimed unequivocally in the Charter of the United Nations
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The validity of the claim of specific
minorities to additional protective measures is, however, a political question normally
to be decided on the basis of the conditions and arrangements under which the
minority was included in the State, and of all other relevant circumstances.
Hence it would seem that each such claim must be examined and passed upon
separately.

3. 1950, Report of the Third Session of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of

Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities to the Commission on Human Rights (30
January 1950), E/CN.4/358 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/119:
Resolution on measures for the protection of minorities to be included in the
International Covenant on Human Rights
The Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
Having considered the problem of the fate of minorities referred to it by the General
Assembly in its resolution 217 (III) C,
Having adopted, in resolution C of its third session, a definition of minorities for
purposes of protection by the United Nations,
Is of the opinion that the most effective means of securing such protection would be
the inclusion in the International Covenant on Human Rights of the following article:
"Persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities shall not he
denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy
their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their
own language,"

4. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

submitted to the Commission on Human Rights a draft resolution with a definition,
E/CN. 4/641, Annex I, resolution II:
(i) the term minority includes only those non-dominant groups in a population
which possess and wish to preserve stable ethnic, religious or linguistic
 traditions or characteristics markedly different from those of the rest of the
population;
(ii) such minorities should properly include a number of persons sufficient by
themselves to preserve such traditions or characteristics; and
(iii) such minorities must be loyal to the State of which they are nationals.

5. 1954, Sub-Commission resolution F, Study of the Present Position as Regards

Minorities Throughout the World, E/CN.4/703; E/CN.4/Sub.2/157, pp. 71-74:
Considering that minorities differ vastly in origin, composition and character, and that it
is therefore extremely difficult to arrive at a single general definition that is universally
applicable,
2. Decides that for the purpose of such a study, and with no intention of determining
which groups should receive special protection, the term minority shall include only those
non-dominant groups in a population which possess and wish to preserve ethnic, religious
or linguistic traditions or characteristics markedly different from those of the rest of the
population and that no further work on the problem of definition can serve any useful
purpose at present.
3. Decides further that in carrying out the study the following considerations shall be
borne in mind:
(i) there are among the nationals of many States distinctive population groups
possessing ethnic, religious, or linguistic traditions or characteristics different from
those of the rest of the population, and among these are groups that need to be
protected by special measures, national and international, so that they can preserve
and develop their traditions or characteristics;
(ii) among minority groups not requiring protection are those seeking complete
identity of treatment with the rest of the population, in which case their problems are
covered by those articles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the draft international covenants on human rights
that are directed towards the prevention of discrimination;
(iii) it is most undesirable to hinder by any action spontaneous development of
minority groups towards integration with the rest of the population of the country in
which they live, which takes place when impacts such as those of a new environment,
or that of modem civilization, produce a state of rapid racial, social, cultural, or
linguistic evolution;
(iv) it is highly desirable that minorities should settle down happily as citizens of the
country in which they live, and therefore in any measures that may be taken for the
protection of their special traditions and characteristics, including the study, nothing
should be done that is likely to stimulate their consciousness of difference from the
rest of the population;
 (v) minorities must include a sufficient number of persons to preserve by themselves
their traditions and characteristics;
(vi) account should be taken of the circumstances under which each minority group
bas come into existence, for example whether it owes its existence to a peace treaty or
to voluntary immigration;

6. Definition in the report of Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti, Study on the

Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, E/CN.
4/Sub.2/ 384:
A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant
position, whose members - being nationals of the State - possess ethnic, religious or
linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if
only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions,
religion or language.

7. Definition in ‘Proposal concerning a definition of the term ‘minority’: Jules

Deschênes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/31 and Corr.1, para. 181, 14 May 1985:
A group of citizens of a State, constituting a numerical minority and in a non-dominant
position in that State, endowed with ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which
differ from those of the majority of the population, having a sense of solidarity with one
another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to
achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law.

8. Asbjørn Eide, Working definition of minorities, Possible ways and means of

facilitating the peaceful and constructive solution of problems involving minorities,
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/34, 10 August 1993, Sub-Commission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, para. 29:
A minority is any group of persons resident within a sovereign State which constitutes
less than half of the population of the national society and whose members share
common characteristics of an ethnic, religious or linguistic nature that distinguish
them from the rest of the population.

9. CCPR General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities), 8 April 1994,
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, General Comment No. 23. (General Comments):

5.1. The terms used in article 27 indicate that the persons designed to be protected are
those who belong to a group and who share in common a culture, a religion and/or a
language. Those terms also indicate that the individuals designed to be protected need
not be citizens of the State party. In this regard, the obligations deriving from article
2.1 are also relevant, since a State party is required under that article to ensure that the
 rights protected under the Covenant are available to all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction, except rights which are expressly made to apply to
citizens, for example, political rights under article 25. A State party may not,
therefore, restrict the rights under article 27 to its citizens alone.
5.2. Article 27 confers rights on persons belonging to minorities which “exist” in a
State party. Given the nature and scope of the rights envisaged under that article, it is
not relevant to determine the degree of permanence that the term “exist” connotes.
Those rights simply are that individuals belonging to those minorities should not be
denied the right, in community with members of their group, to enjoy their own
culture, to practise their religion and speak their language. Just as they need not be
nationals or citizens, they need not be permanent residents. Thus, migrant workers or
even visitors in a State party constituting such minorities are entitled not to be denied
the exercise of those rights. As any other individual in the territory of the State party,
they would, also for this purpose, have the general rights, for example, to freedom of
association, of assembly, and of expression. The existence of an ethnic, religious or
linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that
State party but requires to be established by objective criteria.

10. Definition of Minorities, Second working paper by Mr. Stanislav Chernichenko,

E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC5/1997/WP.1, 2 April 1997, annex: Minorities – a working
definition.
‘Minority’ denotes a group of persons in principle permanently resident in the territory of
a state, numerically fewer than the remaining population of that state, in other words
constituting less than half of its population, endowed with national or ethnic, religious
and linguistic and other related characteristics (culture, traditions and so forth) distinct
from similar characteristics of the rest of the population, and displaying a will to preserve
the existence of the identity of the group. This shall not be interpreted as authorizing or
encouraging any action aiming at depriving anyone of the status of citizen or permanent
resident.

11. Working paper on the relationship and distinction between the rights of persons
belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples: Erika-Irene Daes and
Asbjørn Eide, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/10, 19 July 2000, pp. 10-11.
II. Paper by Erica-Irene Daes
27. In accepting the task to prepare a working paper with Mr. Eide on the relationship and
distinction between the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous
peoples, I am conscious, first of all, of the excellent and very comprehensive paper by Mr.
Eide which constitutes Part I of the present working paper and of the work of a number of
other legal scholars and competent bodies of the United Nations system that have preceded
me and dealt with the subject matter or failed to resolve the complex question of the terms
“minorities” and “indigenous” to the satisfaction of Governments and the groups concerned.
My experience tells me that there is no simple solution in logic or in law concerning these
terms. I do believe, however, that it is possible to simplify the argument over definition by
presenting the relationship and distinction between the rights of persons belonging to
minorities and those of indigenous peoples, identifying certain basic factors, reviewing a
number of important characteristics and eliminating many misconceptions.
28. It might be useful to begin by identifying the factors which, singly or in some
combination, have repeatedly been asserted as characteristics of either minorities or
indigenous peoples:(a) Numerical inferiority; (b) Social isolation, exclusion, or persistent
discrimination; (c) Cultural, linguistic or religious distinctiveness; (d) Geographical
concentration (territoriality); (e) Aboriginality (i.e., being autochthonous).
29. The term “minority” has sometimes been applied to any group that constitutes less than
50 per cent of the population of a State. It has been assumed that numerical inferiority places
the group at risk, thus justifying special measures of protection. This may often be true, as in
the example of African-Americans in the United States. However, a numerically small group
may also be a dominant elite, as was the case of the Afrikaners during the apartheid regime in
South Africa. The numerical superiority of indigenous peoples in countries such as Bolivia
or Guatemala has likewise been no guarantee of their enjoyment of basic human rights.
30. For these reasons, most previous attempts to define “minorities” and “indigenous
peoples” have emphasized their non-dominant status in national society, either as a sufficient
criterion, or in conjunction with the criterion of numerical inferiority. This solution poses
both methodological and logical problems. The measurement of dominance can be
challenging. A group may nominally control the State apparatus yet be subordinate to
another group that controls, for example, the lands, finances or military institutions of the
country. De jure dominance may be de facto subordination. More seriously, applying non-
dominance as a key characteristic of minorities or indigenous peoples results in the paradox
that a group ceases to be a minority or an indigenous people when it realizes its human rights,
or attains social and political equality. We are faced with a logical dilemma. Either we admit
that the goal of equality will never be achieved fully, or we accept terms such as “minority”
as purely situational and transitory. No minority or indigenous people has admitted that its
legal status exists only at certain times, and in certain situations.
31. Is this merely a problem of language? A group asserts its rights when it feels that its
rights are being violated. The problem for the international community is first to ascertain
what rights a particular group may legitimately assert, as a matter of law, so that we can then
determine whether legitimately claimed rights are being violated as a matter of fact. The
question of whether a group is subordinate may be impossible to resolve until we agree on
what kind of group it is. For example, if Afrikaners argue that they are entitled to special
rights to their lands and autonomy, we must first determine whether they have a legitimate
claim to being “indigenous”. The fact that they lack any special rights to land cannot be a
factor in deciding whether they are indigenous because that would make the exercise
logically circular.
32. The existence of subordination is the reason why we need to have international
instruments such as the 1992 Minority Declaration.
33.Cultural distinctiveness - whether it is linguistic, religious or ethnic - is widely assumed to
be characteristic of both minorities and indigenous peoples, and is generally asserted by both
kinds of groups. Indeed, indigenous peoples worldwide contend that they share a special
kind of culture that distinguishes all of them from other peoples and cultures. The leaders of
minorities and indigenous peoples frequently assert that the enjoyment of their distinctive
cultures is the reason they are seeking collective legal recognition and self-determination.
34. It is very challenging to evaluate culture and agree on the extent to which cultures differ.
To a greater or lesser extent, all groups and cultures overlap and change over time,
particularly in this age of global communications. Does a group gradually lose its rights as
its culture changes? Or lose its rights when it exceeds a certain threshold of cultural similarity
to other groups?
35. National minorities and “racial” groups pose additional problems of relationship and
distinction of their rights. They may be distinguishable from other segments of the national
society only with respect to their historical origins, names, or physical appearance. These
distinguishing features may expose them to discrimination, but a group’s visibility or
identifiability may not be associated with the existence of a distinctive group culture. Skin
colour prejudice may have nothing to do with the existence of cultural differences, for
example. Likewise, a group may struggle against skin colour prejudice without aspiring to the
perpetuation of a distinctive culture, but simply because its members wish to escape
discrimination. It is probably safest to conclude that while cultural distinctiveness may often
be the objective of groups that assert rights as minorities or indigenous peoples, it should not
be a threshold criterion for the legitimacy of group claims.
36.In this regard, it should be appreciated that a “minority” can be created either by the
actions of the State and its citizens, or by the group itself. Some groups choose to perpetuate
a distinct collective identify, while others are satisfied to assimilate into national life but are
prevented from doing so by official or unofficial prejudices. Both kinds of situations may
result in abuses of human rights, serious violence, and threats to international peace and
stability.
47. On the basis of the above-mentioned analysis, the most helpful approach we can take is to
clarify our understanding of the “ideal types” of each group (that is, “minorities” and
“indigenous peoples”), rather than attempt to define a sharp conceptual boundary between the
two groups.
48. Bearing the conceptual problem in mind, I should like to suggest that the ideal type of an
“indigenous people” is a group that is aboriginal (autochthonous) to the territory where it
resides today and chooses to perpetuate a distinct cultural identity and distinct collective
social and political organization within the territory. The ideal type of a “minority” is a
group that has experienced exclusion or discrimination by the State or its citizens because of
its ethnic, national, racial, religious or linguistic characteristics or ancestry.
49. From a purposive perspective, then, the ideal type of “minority” focuses on the group’s
experience of discrimination because the intent of existing international standards has been to
combat discrimination, against the group as a whole as well as its individual members, and to
provide for them the opportunity to integrate themselves freely into national life to the degree
they choose. Likewise, the ideal type of “indigenous peoples” focuses on aboriginality,
territoriality, and the desire to remain collectively distinct, all elements which are tied
logically to the exercise of the right to internal self-determination, self-government, or
autonomy.
50. Obviously there will be cases which satisfy both ideal types of “minorities” and
“indigenous peoples” and which merit both kinds of protection. Thus, a group can be
“indigenous” yet demand not only some degree of self-determination, but also the right to
integrate freely into national society for some purposes. A group that is best characterized as
a “minority” may nevertheless possess a limited degree of aboriginality and territoriality, and
demand some form of autonomy as a reasonable means of protecting itself from
discrimination. The inevitability of overlaps does not invalidate the approach that I am
proposing or render it useless in practice. On the contrary, in my view, being practical and
realistic necessitates an approach that is purposive, and links the characteristics of groups to
their aspirations and to the rights they are entitled to and realistically can exercise.

12. Existence and Recognition of Minorities, Working paper by Mr. José Bengoa,
E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2000/WP.2.
40. The term ‘minorities’ designates a very diverse and motley range of human groups.
According to the working definition drafted in the Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, now called the Sub-Commission on the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which has been gaining ground in
international politics, a minority is primarily a ‘non-dominant’ group in society and,
secondly, one that possesses some distinguishing feature of an ‘ethnic, linguistic or
religious’ nature or pertaining to national origin, which differentiates it in one or several
ways from the rest of the population, that is assumed to be in the majority or dominant.
To study the existence of minorities, one needs to take account of the complexity of the
subject. The earliest definitions and descriptions, which we have called those of the ‘first
generation’, chiefly highlighted the substantive aspects of the existence of minorities.
41. According to practical, working definitions, a minority is a demographically smaller
segment of the population which has some distinctive feature. Traditionally this feature
has been linguistic, religious or ethnic. In the first debates in the Sub-Commission,
starting in 1950, it was suggested that what should define a minority should be a set of
characteristics ‘markedly different’ from those of the rest of the population. That was at
the time an attempt to define minorities in a principally ‘objective’ manner. In
subsequent debates on the subject, the ‘substantive’ argument grew weaker and a
combination of objective and subjective factors gained ground.
42. Among the factors which have always been taken into account in determining
‘marked differences’, language and religion have without doubt been the most
‘objective’.
43. In many societies there are human groups that differentiate themselves from the rest
of the population chiefly by the language they speak. In many parts of the world, the
local dialect or language used every day in private and family life is a distinctive feature,
which may be said to be objective. In many places, it does not give rise to any degree of
overt discrimination, though in others it does. These groups are considered to be
linguistic minorities. The right to speak one’s own language is clearly established
throughout virtually the whole world and, except in very special, objectionable cases, is
not disputed. But the exercise of that right in schools, the principle of bilingual and
intercultural education and the development in practice of these linguistic rights are
another matter altogether.
44. The second objective factor is mainly centred on worship: a group whose collective
religious conduct is different from that of the majority would be considered a religious
minority and there is an international consensus to the effect that such groups have the
right to practise their beliefs. The right to religious freedom, both individual and
collective, is nowadays not in dispute, despite the fact that in many parts of the world it is
contested in practice and violated. In all the cases where religious freedom is curtailed or
simply violated, political and factual arguments are put forward to explain the repression
of a given cult or religious group. Generally such arguments point to the cult as being a
danger to State security or a threat to the morals of society or maintain that the banned
practices are in conflict with local custom. The international community has a long
tradition of upholding the freedom of religion and the rights of religious minorities are
clearly established, though not always implemented.
45. The third element, that of ethnicity, is much more awkward to handle. Except in
extreme cases, it is often not easy to make ethnic differentiations between human groups,
which may in addition have lived together for a long time and in some cases have a
lengthy shared history. In anthropology, ethnic values come somewhere between purely
racial and entirely cultural values, between the physical, genetic features of human
populations and characteristics derived from cultural activity, history and the imaginative
and constructive behaviour of human beings. Ethnic values, then, comprise a set of
customs, traditions, cultural expressions and collective history that forms a network of
links conferring a special identity on a particular human group. Usually those values are
accompanied by a specific language and religion. Not infrequently there are also physical
features, even if these are not merely racial. That is why this supposedly ‘objective’
element is extremely variable and only workable when linked with subjective aspects.
46. In many parts of the world ethnic differences are dealt with peacefully and there are
traditional systems of coexistence among interrelated groups separated by different
customs and traditions. The ‘re-ethnification’ that can be observed in many places is a
process whereby distinguishing traits are emphasized to the detriment of those that are
shared. Although there are ‘objective’ elements that can typify ethnic differences, most
often this ‘objectivity’ also requires a subjective process by which the new identity can be
‘constructed’.
47. The most important aspect of these working definitions is, therefore, the subjective
aspect which gives rise to the existence of a minority. As Capotorti says, the group must
show, even if only implicitly, a certain sense of solidarity with a view to preserving its
culture, tradition, religion or language. This is what nowadays is referred to as the
awareness of its own identity.
The subjective aspects of minorities
48. Traditionally it has been accepted that the existence of a minority depends on a
combination of one or more objective elements with one subjective element, namely the
members’ awareness of belonging to a minority. However, the subjective aspect is
increasingly seen as complex and independent. The existence of a minority is not ‘static’,
since it always depends on the will of its members, on their will to continue to form a
group distinct from the majority, and on their capacity to recreate their own identity.
There are many minorities where the so-called ‘objective’ aspects are insignificant and
where subjective aspects, such as the awareness of belonging, are the determining factors.
49. The awareness of belonging derives fundamentally from the type of relationship that
the human group established historically or aims to establish in the present and future
with the rest of society. Its view of ‘the others’ and the view that ‘the others’ have of it
are crucial for the minority’s awareness of itself. The fact that there may have been
discrimination or persecution at some time in ancient or recent history will undoubtedly
be crucial, regardless of the distinctive features of the different communities.
50. This means that the existence of minorities depends almost entirely on the minorities
themselves and the relations they have established with the majority or with other groups
of the population. There may be groups of people with many ‘objective’ characteristics
which, because they had no desire to preserve their minority status, have been integrated
or even assimilated into the majority without any problem. That is the case with many
European migrant populations in both North and South America, which differ nowadays
only in minor aspects from the local population and obviously suffer no sort of
discrimination. On the other hand there are groups with very few distinct ‘objective’
traits, indigenous groups for example that are indistinguishable from the peasant
population among whom they live, but that are highly conscious of forming a distinct
group.
51. This mainly subjective aspect of the definition of minorities and their existence sheds
light on the dynamic of minorities. The disappearance, affirmation, constitution or
reorganization of a minority is always a sociocultural process: a process by which a
group of people differentiates itself from the rest, maintains and perpetuates that
difference and gives it cultural, organizational and political expression.
52. In order to exist, minorities must constantly redefine their relations. If they do not do
so, they cease to exist and become assimilated. They may retain distinctive features, the
so-called ‘objective’ traits, but they lose their awareness of otherness, of separateness and
difference. That is why we consider that the existence of modern minorities depends on
the presence of intellectuals, cultural leaders, creative people and artists, whose main
purpose is to continue redefining the characteristics of the group in accordance with the
relations it has and the situations it meets with. Cultural redefinition is an essential
activity of minorities.
53. On the other hand, human groups can reconstruct lost or partially lost ties. This is the
process of ethnogenesis, which is occurring in many parts of the world nowadays and
which amazes observers. The forceful presence of the nation State, for example, had
transformed many ethnic, indigenous or other minority groups into ordinary, common
citizens. In many cases they had lost their language and even their ancient customs had
been forgotten or been reduced to mere folklore. It is a surprising fact, of which there are
countless examples, that when such groups reconstitute themselves, they reinterpret their
past and recreate the distinctive features that make them a minority group. Often to the
surprise of the political authorities and the rest of the citizenry, they gather their members
and proclaim themselves different from the rest of the population.
54. The processes of ethnogenesis today challenge our understanding of the phenomenon
of the existence of minorities. This is true of the relationship between assimilated or
apparently assimilated populations and the processes of ethnogenesis. There has been
much discussion as to whether ‘voluntary assimilation’ is a valid concept or whether there
is not invariably an element of ‘forced assimilation’. It may be pointed out that very
many groups of Europeans who emigrated to America became assimilated voluntarily
into the new social and cultural environment, to which they had come precisely in order
to escape discrimination. The idea of ‘making America’ and ‘the New World’ was
doubtless so potent that it caused them to leave the ‘motherland’ behind as a mere
nostalgic memory. A case-by-case study would be needed to see whether voluntary
assimilation is possible in situations where there is discrimination. And great care should
be taken with cases where the relationship of power and dependency has been extreme
and assimilation has taken place under compulsion, with a prohibition on the teaching of
the language, obstacles to worship, etc. Such cases give rise, we believe, to concealment,
resistance and clandestinity or, simply, with the passage of time, to the process of
syncretism, but not to loss and simple acceptance of the new culture.
55. In the last decade, as new identities have emerged, cultures that seemed totally
destroyed, lost and assimilated have appeared miraculously reborn. Of course, the new
culture is the result of cultural recreation, often based on single surviving elements or
simply recreating what is thought to have been the ancient culture. These processes of
cultural appropriation are what are known as processes of ethnogenesis.
8. The new minorities: migrations, displaced persons, refugees and migrant workers
69. One of the principal aspects of the question of minorities today is the high level of
socio-cultural value attached to membership of a minority. For reasons which are outside
the scope of this working document, but which have been analysed in academic studies,
contemporary, globalized society attaches a high value to diversity. Unlike a State, civil
society sees a source of social riches in diversity of identities. In every continent the
young are leading the way in this regard. They perceive that possession of something
more than ordinary citizenship of society offers a different quality of outlook on life and
on the relationships which come into being. It is no coincidence that in the greater part of
the continents young people are enthusiastically taking up causes relating to minors,
indigenous peoples, urban tribes, sexual minorities, groups of conscientious objectors and
other identity-strengthening structures; among these, there is no lack of esoteric or similar
bodies.
70. We are looking here at a change at the cultural level, set off by the crisis of nation
States as sources of cultural hegemony, formal ties and homogenization. The major
movements of the twentieth century unquestionably sought to produce those mass mega-
identities, the most outstanding expressions of which have been National Socialism, third-
world nationalisms, populisms and the different variants of Marxist socialism. Little by
little, the change of mentality has been gaining ground, and trends during the last 10 years
indicate that cultural dispersal, support for diversity of cultures and the search for new
identities are becoming characteristic features of the world today. Although there is an
awareness that on the cultural and social planes reality is as described here, there is not
the same awareness of the implications of these changes with regard to political systems,
the rights of minorities and the construction of multicultural societies.
(a) Citizens and non-citizens
71. Historical minorities generally enjoy a continued and relatively stable existence.
There are some minority groups which have a long history of conflict with the majority
societies with which they have had to co-exist. This is the history of Central Europe and
many other parts of the world. However, there are also ‘new minorities’, that is, minority
groups which have gradually constituted themselves as such during a relatively recent
period. It would seem that the ‘minority dynamic’ has gained momentum in recent years
and may well accelerate in the near future.
72. The most commonly used definitions of minorities can be divided into two groups.
First, there are those according to which minorities are exclusively citizens of the country
but in a minority situation; and secondly, there are those which assert that citizenship is
not a prerequisite for the constitution of a minority in a given country.
73. The difference is of considerable significance. The principal cause of the emergence
of minorities today is the major population movements currently taking place. These
movements can be divided into two groups: enforced and voluntary.
74. The first group is made up of enforced migrations, displacements caused by wars,
persecutions which give rise to the setting up of refugee camps and, generally speaking,
all the types of situations which are well known in the world of today; nobody can predict
whether migrations of this type will stop or, conversely, increase in future years. In most
cases the reversal of the situations which gave rise to the enforced displacements does not
offer the populations concerned adequate grounds for returning to their places of origin;
they have established themselves in a new host territory and are not prepared to return to
their earlier allegiances, with the risks attendant on such a return. New groups of
individuals, different from the majority groups in the country concerned, emerge, and
interethnic and intercultural conflicts frequently erupt.
75. Economic migrations, which are generally voluntary inasmuch as decisions to migrate
are taken by the individuals or the families concerned, constitute another of the large-
scale sources of new minorities in the world today. The pressure on the populations of
underdeveloped areas to seek residence in developed areas is a consequence of the
unequal globalization which was analysed earlier. As the years pass by, the huge
populations of ‘migrant workers’ become workers within the host country, ordinary
immigrants and, eventually, citizens. Depending on the legislation in force, at least the
children born in the host country are granted citizenship, except where the law stipulates
that nationality is only granted to persons who previously enjoyed it. In the course of
time stable colonies of ‘foreigners’ form; they are often discriminated against and are
now beginning to demand special treatment as if they constituted an established national
minority. The first demand is often for multilingual and multicultural schools. This is a
first step towards a cultural reflowering in the form of a ‘diaspora’ culture, which
frequently produces works containing strong expressions of identity. It has not been easy
to establish a line of instruction between themes, relating respectively to ‘migrant
workers’ and ‘national minorities’; but unquestionably this subject will increase in
importance during the coming years and decades.
(b) Reinvention and cultural creation: the creation of new identities
76. The reinvention of identities is one of the most visible of contemporary phenomena
and is of major social and political interest. The globalization of communications entails
the reinvention of cultures.
77. Most of the old minorities (including in this group indigenous peoples) maintained
their cultural roots in a situation of isolation and marginality, as a consequence of
segregation and discrimination. These cultures were absorbed in themselves, inward-
looking, repeating their ceremonies without a watching public, and speaking their
languages without either hindrance or interest on the part of the major languages and
universities. The three concepts of discrimination, segregation and isolation were closely
linked, until the process of large-scale globalization began in recent decades. With the
opening up of communications, isolated cultures had to define themselves openly in
relation to others, in response to visits, television channels, anthropologists and above all,
in recent years, tourists interested in cultural tourism. These minority cultures were not
prepared for self-presentation in front of foreigners. They did not reflect overmuch on
their own tasks and problems. A need suddenly developed for articulate leaders who
were able to explain to persons of other cultures what the community was doing. The
term used to describe them was ‘performance cultures’, a name emerging in particular
from studies on the impact of tourism on minority and isolated indigenous cultures.
78. A substantial restoration of the minority culture occurs, creating an obvious need to
explain it to outsiders, who, in good faith and often with the intention of cooperating with
and supporting the minority cause, ask for explanations. The differentiating cultural traits
- which may be very few in number - have to be highlighted and explained. In that
process of cultural transcription, identities change and certainly become modernized.
Video, film and music are often used as modern elements for the reconstruction of an
identity. In those processes new cultural identities develop, and the old minority cultures
are re-examined in the light of present-day globalized modernity. This phenomenon of
cultural reinvention is of the utmost importance and demonstrates that the question of
minorities is not a matter for the past but a central aspect of globalization.

13. UN Working Group on Minorities, Commentary on the UN Declaration on the Rights

of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2005/2, 4 April 2005:
6. The beneficiaries of the rights under article 27 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which has inspired the Declaration, are persons belonging
to “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities”. The Declaration on Minorities adds the
term “national minorities”. That addition does not extend the overall scope of
application beyond the groups already covered by article 27. There is hardly any
national minority, however defined, that is not also an ethnic or linguistic minority. A
relevant question, however, would be whether the title indicates that the Declaration
covers four different categories of minorities, whose rights have somewhat different
content and strength. Persons belonging to groups defined solely as religious
minorities might be held to have only those special minority rights which relate to the
profession and practice of their religion. Persons belonging to groups solely defined
as linguistic minorities might similarly be held to have only those special minority
rights which are related to education and use of their language. Persons who belong to
groups defined as ethnic would have more extensive rights relating to the preservation
and development of other aspects of their culture also, since ethnicity is generally
defined by a broad conception of culture, including a way of life. The category of
national minority would then have still stronger rights relating not only to their culture
but to the preservation and development of their national identity.

7. The Declaration does not, in its substantive provisions, make such distinctions. This
does not exclude the possibility that the needs of the different categories of minorities
could be taken into account in the interpretation and application of the various
provisions.

8. Regional European instruments on minority rights use only the concept “national
minorities” and do not refer to “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities”. The most
important among them are the instruments and documents of the Council of Europe
and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. When applying those
instruments it is important to define “national minority”, but the same problem does
not arise for the United Nations Declaration on Minorities: even if a group is held not
to constitute a national minority, it can still be an ethnic, religious or linguistic
minority and therefore be covered by the Declaration.

9. This can be important in several respects. In relation to the European regional

instruments, some States argue that “national minorities” only comprise groups
composed of citizens of the State. Even if that is accepted (at present it is a matter of
some controversy), it would not apply to the United Nations Declaration on
Minorities because it has a much wider scope than “national minorities”. As the
Declaration is inspired by article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, it may be assumed that the Declaration has at least as wide a scope as
that article. In conformity with article 2 of the Covenant, States parties are under an
obligation to respect and ensure the application of article 27 to everyone within its
territory and under its jurisdiction, whether the person - or group of persons - are
citizens of the country or not. This is also the view expressed by the Human Rights
Committee in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of its general comment No. 23 (fiftieth session,
1994). Persons who are not (yet) citizens of the country in which they reside can form
part of or belong to a minority in that country.

10. While citizenship as such should not be a distinguishing criterion that excludes
some persons or groups from enjoying minority rights under the Declaration, other
factors can be relevant in distinguishing between the rights that can be demanded by
different minorities. Those who live compactly together in a part of the State territory
may be entitled to rights regarding the use of language, and street and place names
which are different from those who are dispersed, and may in some circumstances be
entitled to some kind of autonomy. Those who have been established for a long time
on the territory may have stronger rights than those who have recently arrived.
 11. The best approach appears to be to avoid making an absolute distinction between
“new” and “old” minorities by excluding the former and including the latter, but to
recognize that in the application of the Declaration the “old” minorities have stronger
entitlements than the “new”.

12. The word “minority” can sometimes be misleading in itself. Outside Europe, and
particularly in Africa, countries are often composed of a large number of groups, none
of which make up a majority.

13. The relevant factors differ significantly between States. What is required is to
ensure appropriate rights for members of all groups and to develop good governance
in heterogeneous societies. By good governance is here understood legal,
administrative and territorial arrangements which allow for peaceful and constructive
group accommodation based on equality in dignity and rights for all and which allows
for the necessary pluralism to enable the persons belonging to the different groups to
preserve and develop their identity.

14. Gay McDougall, Marginalised Minorities in Development Programming: A UNDP

Resource Guide and Toolkit: Chapter 2: Conceptual Issues, UNDP, May 2010:
In the absence of a formal definition, the existence of a minority group can be
assessed using objective and subjective criteria; these criteria have been elaborated by
various UN independent experts drawing from international standards.
Objective criteria focus on the shared characteristics of the group such as ethnicity,
national origin, culture, language or religion. These categories derive from the only
global standard on minorities, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging
to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (UNDM) (see Annex 1)
and article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
concerning the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities.
The term ‘race’ is sometimes used alongside ‘ethnicity’ in legislation on non-
discrimination; this is not considered an endorsement of the notion of distinct races
but is recognition that practices of racism and racial discrimination nevertheless
persist and need to be combated.
Subjective criteria focus on two key points: the principle of self-identification and the
desire to preserve the group identity. According to the principle of self-identification,
individuals belonging to minority groups have the right to self-identify as a minority
or to not self-identify as a minority (see UNDM article 3.2). A minority community
has the right to assert its status as a minority and thereby to claim minority rights.
Individuals can claim their membership in a minority community on the basis of
objective criteria, including shared ethnicity, culture, language and religion. The
preservation of the minority group identity depends on the expressed will of the
minority community.
Recognition of minority status in some countries is limited by the domestic legal
framework and/or local social constructions. Many constitutions legally recognise
certain groups as minorities but frequently apply restrictive definitions. For example,
in parts of Europe, the Roma have historically been denied recognition as national
minorities because they lacked a defined territorial homeland. In some countries, the
concept of ‘minority’ is not socially or politically accepted. In some cases, the term
‘minority’ might not exist in local languages. In such cases, alternative terms like
excluded groups, marginalised communities or vulnerable groups can be used
provided that due attention is still given to the distinct ethnic, cultural, religious or
linguistic identity of the minority group.
There are potential divergences between how countries define minorities, how
international standards define minorities and how minorities define themselves.
Groups that self-identify as minorities with a view to accessing minority protection
offered at the international level may be confronted with difficulties when claiming
rights as minorities per se domestically.
NUMERICAL SIZE AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Demographics and power distribution both play a role in determining which groups
are in need of protection as minorities. The size of the group matters but it is not the
main factor in determining whether minority protection is required. The main factors
in determining the need for minority protection are access to power and vulnerability
to exclusion. In most countries, the largest ethnic, religious or linguistic group is the
most powerful, necessitating specific measures of protection for numerically smaller
groups. In other countries, numerically small group(s) may be the most powerful and
therefore do not require any additional measures of minority protection. There are
also cases where there is no clear numerical majority or minority group; in such
countries, it is important to take account of the distribution of power among groups in
determining which groups may require protection. For example, the Fulani pastoralist
people are present in several countries of West Africa, sometimes migrating across
borders, and may have a different status in each country. It is possible that the ethnic,
religious or linguistic group with the least access to power is numerically the largest
group in the country and, consequently, entitled to special protection measures.
These dynamics of power distribution can change over time and may differ in the
political, economic and social spheres. For example, numerical minorities in a
dominant position might quickly become non-dominant when a regime changes and
they find themselves subject to discrimination. Economically dominant minorities
could be simultaneously politically or socially excluded. Therefore, access to power
must be assessed in a disaggregated manner to identify non-dominance and
vulnerability in different spheres.
Geography can also influence minority status. A group could constitute a majority
within the country but become a numerical minority within a sub-region. Minority
rights protection for groups in this situation can be determined on a case-by-case
basis. There are reasons why such groups may need minority rights protection,
especially where regional autonomy arrangements exist. For example, majority
linguistic groups living in minority regions are still entitled to learn their mother
tongue and to form peaceful associations.
OLD’ AND ‘NEW’ MINORITIES, CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS:
Minorities need not be citizens to claim respect for and protection of their identities.
However, their residency status may impact on the policy measures taken by the
country to fulfill minority rights. Minority rights are human rights and cannot be
restricted to citizens only. The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has stated that
minority rights protection, pursuant to article 27 of the ICCPR, must be applied to all
individuals within the jurisdiction of a State party, including, inter alia, non-
permanent residents, migrant workers and even visitors. The former UN Working
Group on Minorities (replaced in 2007 by the UN Forum on Minority Issues) noted
that provisions of the UNDM were inspired by article 27 and thus may apply to non-
citizens as well (Eide 2001, paragraph 9).
Countries have some justification for taking greater positive measures for certain
minority groups rather than others. This is typically measured by the length of
residency of the minority group. Some minority groups have been historically resident
in a country, while others may have arrived more recently as immigrants, migrant
workers or refugees. More recently arrived groups are entitled, at a minimum, to non-
discrimination and to practice freely their culture, language or religion. For example,
immigrant groups may form their own community organisations and speak their own
language without interference. Historically resident minorities often make further
claims for positive measures, such as additional resources for education or for
political participation. A State should provide access to primary education for all
children, including migrants and refugees.
However, historically resident minorities may have stronger claims for positive
measures by the State, such as public funds for education in the child’s mother
tongue. The former UN Working Group on Minorities has suggested:
The best approach appears to be to avoid making an absolute distinction
between “new” and “old” minorities by excluding the former and including
the latter, but to recognize that in the application of the Declaration [on
Minorities] the ‘old’ minorities have stronger entitlements than the ‘new’.
(Eide 2001, paragraph 11)
A key question is at what point the ‘new’ minority becomes entitled to increased
positive measures? In considering this transition, it is important to determine whether
a group’s lack of full ‘minority’ status is due to provisions that are unduly restrictive
and discriminatory. Other relevant factors include the population size of the minority
community and their corresponding entitlement to public resources; and the
practicalities of providing positive measures (e.g. if the community is territorially
concentrated this may facilitate measures or if the costs are low the State may be more
willing to take further steps in fulfilling rights even for newly arrived groups).
At the regional level, the Advisory Committee of the Council of Europe Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) takes the approach that
the FCNM does not necessarily apply in its entirety to all ‘new’ minorities, but that
certain provisions (e.g. article 6)3 should be applied on an article-by-article basis,
where appropriate.
MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES:
In many countries where UNDP works there are both indigenous peoples and
minorities. Indigenous peoples have distinct rights in international law, but minority
and indigenous identities can exist along a continuum and might overlap in some
cases. In recognizing these identities, UNDP could – with minorities and indigenous
peoples themselves – consider objective and subjective criteria to determine which
relevant rights and principles apply.
The UN Development Group (UNDG) Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues,
2008, will apply in situations where communities self-identify as indigenous peoples
(subjective criteria) and have specific issues that need protection (objective criteria),
such as their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs,
beliefs, their traditional way of life, and a special connection with the land and natural
resources that is essential to their social and cultural survival.
It is paramount that UNDP take account of each country context and gain a good
understanding of the relationship between indigenous peoples and minorities. Often
both communities will have similar concerns, particularly from an economic, social
and cultural rights perspective, and may be vying for the same government resources
or land. A “do no harm” approach could be used to ensure that UNDP initiatives do
not create or exacerbate conflict between communities by unfairly privileging some
over others without a justification that is based on objective criteria and consideration
of the human rights of all people and peoples affected. Creating opportunities for
dialogue between communities and with government on shared issues of concern may
present an effective way forward for inclusion.
[…]
The rights of minorities, by contrast, are expressed in international law as individual
rights of persons belonging to minorities. Some of these rights are exercised in
parallel with others, for example, speaking a language or practicing a religion.
Minorities often seek autonomy over their cultural, linguistic or religious lives. This
may come in the form of non-territorial autonomy where minorities are dispersed or
territorial autonomy if they are concentrated in a particular region. In addition, some
minority groups (typically national minorities) may seek self-determination as
‘peoples’.
There are factors that influence self-identification as a minority or indigenous,
including group cultures and interests, and State policies. It will be important to
remember that identities are instrumental for groups, providing access to rights,
opportunities and mechanisms. Some minority groups may identify as indigenous
peoples with a view to accessing, inter alia, collective rights to land. Other
communities that are perceived to be minorities may live with issues that have strong
parallels with those of indigenous peoples. Consequently, such communities may
deserve protection emanating from human rights standards for indigenous peoples.
The Garífuna Afro-descendant people in Central America, for example, have
collective land ownership in their culture, and are legally recognized by several States
as indigenous peoples (e.g. Guatemala and Nicaragua). The Inter-American Court of
Human Rights held, in two cases involving Afro-descendant groups in Suriname, that
their cultural practices vis-à-vis land use and ownership, and their historical residency
on their lands, entitled them to similar land rights protection afforded to indigenous
peoples.
Groups may be pragmatic regarding which mechanisms to use in order to maximize
the protection of their rights. For example, indigenous peoples in Canada and Nordic
States have sought protection under article 27 of the ICCPR, relevant for minorities,
before the UN Human Rights Committee and many Afro-descendant groups in Latin
America have used ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
to claim land rights.
In many States, governments use the term ‘ethnic minorities’ for communities that
identify as indigenous peoples. Factors such as historical categories, colonialism and
State interests impact upon the acceptance of the ‘indigenous’ identity. In such cases,
communities may use the term ethnic minorities domestically but self-identify in
international fora as indigenous peoples.
There are also many communities for whom the boundaries between minority and
indigenous status are blurred. They often respond by identifying as ‘indigenous
minorities’ or by using different identity labels depending on the context.
Although in many cases indigenous peoples are also numerical minorities, in some
countries they constitute large majorities of the population despite their relatively low
political power. In some regions, indigenous peoples reject the ‘minority label’
altogether because it does not fit the numerical reality, their self-perception or the
status they seek in society at large. Any groups that self-identify both as minorities
and indigenous peoples, and fit relevant objective criteria, could claim rights of both
groups.
The highest standard of rights will apply.
DIVERSITY WITHIN MINORITY GROUPS:
Minorities are not internally homogenous communities. Several groups may be
marginalised within minority communities including women, children, the elderly,
persons with disabilities, sexual minorities and persons living with HIV. These groups
will experience multiple forms of exclusion and intersecting discrimination. In some
cases, discrimination against these groups may be culturally entrenched. The exercise
of minority rights is not a justification for the practice of discrimination and the rights
of such groups must be respected fully and equally.
According to the UN Human Rights Committee, “none of the rights protected under
article 27 of the [ICCPR] may be legitimately exercised in a manner or to an extent
inconsistent with the other provisions of the [ICCPR]”.
It is important to recall that individuals have the right not to self-identify with a
minority group to avoid discrimination. For some, internal discrimination within the
minority community may involuntarily push them out. For others, the social stigma
and discrimination that comes with being a minority may prompt them to disassociate
from this community. In the latter case, it is important to respect the right of self-
identification of the individual while simultaneously working against social and
political factors that devalue the minority identity.
Women and girls from minority groups experience multiple and intersectional forms
of discrimination based on both their minority status and their gender. Such
multidimensional discrimination may make them particularly vulnerable to violations
and a denial of their rights in both public and private life. Minority women often find
themselves marginalised and face exclusion within their own communities and in the
society alike. They might have unequal opportunities for political participation and
frequently lack adequate employment and income-generating opportunities, social and
financial capital, and basic social services.
Women are also commonly discriminated against with respect to ownership and
inheritance of property. In situations of armed conflict, the vulnerability of women to
exploitation and abuse is greatly increased and minority women are often
disproportionately affected. For this reason, a gender perspective is of particular
relevance while addressing the situation of minorities in a given country, including in
their own communities.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) includes special protection for
minority children (article 30). In its General Comment No. 6, the Committee on the
Rights of the Child noted:
“State obligations under the Convention apply to each child within the State’s
territory and to all children subject to its jurisdiction (article 2)”. The CRC
rights are not limited to children who are citizens of a State party and must be
available to all children - including asylum-seeking, refugee and migrant
children - irrespective of their nationality, immigration status or statelessness.
This is of particular relevance to minority children who may be stateless or
lack registration documents, which can increase their vulnerability to abuse,
trafficking, child labour and other forms of exploitation. The Committee has
also recommended that States parties take steps to ensure the development and
implementation of culturally sensitive health, social and education services,
including the provision of education in minority languages.
MINORITIES EXIST ACROSS BORDERS:
Not all minority communities are contained within a single State. In many cases,
ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities have kin groups in neighbouring States or in a
wider diaspora with which they maintain ties. Some groups, such as pastoralists, also
migrate periodically across borders of one or more States.
Neighbouring States may also be ‘kin states’, namely, a State where the majority or
dominant group shares ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics with minorities in
neighbouring countries. The interest of kin states in minorities can have both a
positive and a negative impact. Kin states are commonly accused of interfering with
state sovereignty in attempting to protect the interests of kin minorities. On the other
hand, the interests of kin states in kin minorities may create positive cooperation, in
the form of cross-border associations, cultural exchanges, educational support and
stronger bilateral ties, all contributing to greater stability and participation.
Minorities have also created transnational ties, for example, through cooperation on
advocacy, education or cultural exchange.