Policy Documentation Center

Where do the children come from: using policy to raise the birthrate in Ukraine

Political changes in Ukraine: new prospects of foreign policy

English

Political risks and political stability in Ukraine / UCIPR Document on Political Risk Assessment (May 2010) / Issue 5. The Format and dynamics of Ukraine\u2019s political regime after the 2010 presidential elections

Cipriani, Gabriele

The EU Budget: Responsibility without accountability?

Dovgopol, Yaroslav

The EU Reports on Progress on Implementing the "Neighborhood" Policy by Ukraine

Hungarian

Muslims in Hamburg

Pinkham, Sophie

Shapova, Anna

Making Harm Reduction Work for Women: The Ukrainian Experience

International Budget Partnership

Open Budget Survey 2010

Davey, Kenneth

The impact of the economic downturn on local government in Europe: what is happening and what can be done?

Eralp, Yalim

  
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
 POLICY BRIEF 
     GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT) 
 
 
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS 
by YALIM ERALP 
 
                                               August 2010 | GPoT PB no. 18 
ABSTRACT To what extent can the rights granted to minorities or ethnic 
groups lead those groups to integrate into the society they live in? Or do such 
rights lead to secession? Academicians alone do not debate such questions; 
politicians, too, are currently debating how to ensure both the rights of 
minorities and territorial integrity. 
 
The debate over individual rights 
versus collective rights has been 
going on for a long time. Is it better 
to recognize individual rights alone,  
or are collective rights also 
necessary? At the basis of the 
debate lie national minorities and 
ethnic groups. A national minority is 
dificult to define. What is the 
difference between a national 
minority and a minority? I once 
asked Max van der Stoel, the 
former High Commissioner of 
National Minorities at the 
Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe (OSCE), that 
question, and even he had trouble 
providing a solid definition. Perhaps 
this difficulty in definition lies in 
Europe’s past experience. As a 
result of wars borders in Europe 
used to change often and those 
who remained at the other side of 
the border were termed national 
minorities. In short, if a minority 
comunity in one country constitutes 
the majority community in 
a neighboring country then that 
minority community can be termed 
a national minority. Thus when 
Hungary adopted the first law on 
minority rights in 1849 that law was 
also applicable to Hungarians in 
some territories outside of Hungary.  
The definition of minority more 
generally is also  complicated. For 
some academicians anyone who 
considers himself a minority should 
be recognized as such. Some 
others have claimed that if a 
hundred people come together 
they may consider themselves a 
minority. However, these are 
somewhat radical definitions that 
belie the complexity of the issue. 
For example, when the Free City of 
Gdansk became part of Poland, 
2 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YALIM ERALP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
Germans in Gdansk became a 
minority within Poland; yet Poles in 
the city were a minority and their 
minority rights were ensured 
through the 1920 Gdansk-Poland 
Convention. The minority concept 
and the experience of Europe 
stems from such border changes. 
Another point of contention is the 
difference between minorities and 
ethnic groups. Generally minority 
rights are covered by bilateral or 
muitilateral conventions and 
documents. The Treaty of Lausanne 
is one example on this matter. The 
question of minority rights initially 
had nothing to do with democracy 
or human rights. It stemmed from 
the interventions of outside powers 
to protect the rights of their “kin” 
living in other countries. The foreign 
interventions that took place 
against the Ottoman Empire had 
nothing to do with the 
development of democracy; they 
aimed to reform the rights of non-
Muslims in the Empire. The Reform 
Edict of the Sublime Porte came 18 
days after the Crimean War cease-
fire on February 18, 1856. This reform 
widened the reforms of the 1839 
Tanzimat Act. Its aim was to remove 
the “nation-system” and grant 
equal  citizenship rights to all 
religious communities thus ensuring 
full equality among the Ottoman 
citizens irrespective of religious 
belief. Thus it opened the doors to 
all to become civil servants (with 
the exception of the Greek 
community.) Proseltyzing was made 
legal and the death penalty aginst 
Muslims who converted to another 
religion was terminated. Non-
Muslims could now go to military 
schools. Tax equality was 
established. In this way, the 
concept articulated in Article 15, 
“equal rights bring equal 
obligations, ” was instituted. 
Due to the Reforms, non-Muslims 
were required to do their military 
service and for those who chose 
not to do so they could exempt 
themselves  by paying a tax. Non-
Muslims were allowed to establish 
their own affairs councils (primarily 
administrative and religious) and 
make legally-binding stautes. Thus 
the Statute of the Greek 
Patriarchate of 1862, the Armenian 
Patriarchate Statute of 1863 and 
the Rabbinate Statute of 1865 were 
created. These statutes were 
considered by the western powers 
as constitutions. 
Articles 37-45 of the Lausanne 
Treaty, which established the 
Republic of Turkey,  deal with 
minority rights of non-Muslims in 
Turkey and establish reciprocal 
rights for Greek citizens of Turkish 
extraction living in the Western 
Thrace region of Greece. Article 44 
states that violations of these rights 
can be brought before the League 
of Nations thus making them a 
subject of international relations. 
Minority rights included in such 
treaties fal under the spectrum of 
collective rights. 
After World War II and in particular 
the fall of the Soviet Union,  minority 
and ethnic rights have become the 
focus of international relations. 
Article 27 of the International 
Covenant of Civil and Political 
Rights, which entered into force in 
1976, covers minority rights. The 
article deals with minority and 
3 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YALIM ERALP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
ethnic rights using the following 
language:  “such rights can be 
exercised and enjoyed individually 
as well as in community with other 
members of their group.“ This has 
opened the door  to collective 
rights. The Council of Europe’s 
“Framework Convention for the 
Protection of National Minorities” 
adopted the wording above and 
thus these rights attained the status 
of collective rights. OSCE’s 1990 
Copenhagen Document contains 
the same wording.  
The International Permanent Court 
of Justice in its advisory opinion on 
minority schools in Albania in 1935 
stated that nationals belonging to 
racial, religious or lingustic minorities 
shall be placed on equal footing 
with the majority  and that minority 
elements will have suitable means 
for the preservation of their 
peculiarities, their traditions and 
their national characteristics. In this 
carefully worded opinion, there 
seems no mention of collective or 
individual rights. 
On the question of ethnic and 
minority rights the Council of 
Europe, the OSCE, and the UN 
(United Nations) Conventions have 
made important contributions. The 
European Union (EU) also has dealt 
with the issue in particular in relation 
to Central and Eastern European 
countries’ membership 
negotiations. Some academicians 
have strongly argued in favor of 
collective rights while others have 
claimed that such rights prevent  
internal integration.The experiences 
of Western Europe differ from those 
of candidate countries. On the 
other hand, though current EU 
member countries have signed 
international conventions on 
minority rights, it is unclear to what 
degree they have taken note and 
applied the articles of the 
conventions to themselves. At the 
present time, France in particular 
has taken a negative attitude 
towards the Roman community 
and non-citizens. Hence, there is no 
EU model on minority rights to be 
exported to future members. 
Wherever full democracy exists 
minority issues do not generally 
pose a problem. The EU pressure on 
candidate countries on minority 
issues aims at preventing possible 
internal strifes in future members. It 
is precisely in light of this concern 
that OSCE’s former High 
Commissioner for National Minorities 
exerted pressure on Macedonia 
and as a result the Albanian 
minority in that country attained a 
high degree of collective rights. In 
Macedonia, there are schools, high 
schools and even a university which 
instruct in Albanian. Under Van der 
Stoel’s leadership, the LUND 
Recommendations on minority 
rights generally aim at creating 
different groups through minority 
rights. The EU, silent on Romans in 
the beginning of membership 
negotiations with Central and East 
European countries , later became 
vocal on the rights of Romans when 
troubles loomed and the EU even 
made membership almost 
conditional on Roman rights. The 
aim was to prevent possible internal 
troubles. 
It is clear that to  what  extent rights  
should be granted and their 
possible consequences continue to 
be debated. States, to various 
4 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YALIM ERALP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
degrees , show sensitivity on those 
rights; including  most advanced 
democracies. In 1999 at Bergen, 
Norway, I attended a cultural 
dialogue conference where a Sami 
person intervened during the then 
Norwegian Foreign Minister  Knut 
Vollabeck’s speech, saying that 
Norway prevented Sami people 
from using their mother tongue. 
States’ concern is clearly whether 
the rights granted could eventually 
lead to secessionist movements. 
It is generally recognized that if 
states grant minority rights and if 
the national wealth is high, 
secessionist movements do not 
take place. Yet, there are notable 
exceptions to this widely-accepted 
rule. For example, Belgium and 
Spain both provide vast rights for 
their minority comunities and have 
highly-developed economies, yet 
each country is host to separatist 
movements (among the Waloon 
and Flemmish groups in Belgium 
and the Catalans in Spain). It is 
equally clear that non-recognition 
of minorıty rights would probably 
lead to internal strifes. 
The former High Commissioner for 
National Minorities somewhat 
moved away from his strong 
defense of collective rights in 
“Integrating Diversity” seminar 
focused on integrating and 
reconciling diversities/differences 
with the main forces of the society 
in 1998 at Locarno, Switzerland. 
The rights of national minorities 
have a historical background  and 
are usually adopted by bilateral or 
multilateral agreements and are of 
a collective-rights nature. The 
situation differs somewhat 
regarding ethnic rights. Many states 
have not shown the capacity to 
apply equal citizenship and full 
democracy. In other words, states 
have not been able to remain 
equidistant to all religions, sects and 
ethnicity in their societies. If the 
modern state is able to be “blind” 
to sects and ethnicity and can 
practice democracy and equal 
citizenship, individual ethnic and 
cultural rights will suffice for internal 
harmony and satisfy its citizens. 
Unfortunately, states do not show 
this capability most of the time. 
Whenever an ethnic group or sect 
becomes predominant at the state 
level, the other groups feel “left 
out” and asks for collective rights 
and guarantees. Consequently, 
collective rights result in making 
those groups “the other.“ The 
United States has gradually 
become ethnically and religiously 
blind and has thus prevented the 
question of rights from becoming 
an issue. Another subject of interest 
is the situation of Jewish 
communities in various countries. In 
many countries, including Turkey, 
Jews have refused  to be 
considered as minority, but have 
been able to maintain their identity, 
language and traditions while 
being integrated to the mainstream 
of the country they live in. 
The Turkish state has not been able 
to remain equidistant to different 
ethnic groups and sects. It has 
instead been late in recognizing 
cultural rights  and thus faces 
problems today. The request of the 
Kurdish Peace and Democracy 
Party (BDP) for constitutional 
guarantees of Kurdish identity and 
5 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YALIM ERALP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
collective rights should be seen 
against this background. The best 
solution for Turkey is to apply full 
individual rights and for the state to 
remain equidistant to all ethnicities, 
religions and sects. This requires 
political acumen and consensus. 
Other solutions would lead to 
separatism over time. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
YALIM ERALP 
Ambassador Yalım Eralp (ret.) is a 
member of the High Advisory Board 
at the Global Political Trends 
Center (GPoT), a faculty member in 
the Department of International 
Relations of Istanbul Kültür 
University, and a diplomatic 
commentator at CNN TÜRK. In 1962 
he received his bachelor’s degree 
from the Faculty of Political 
Sciences at Ankara University. His 
career at the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs spanned from 1962 to 2000, 
during which time he worked in 
New York, Brussels, Washington, 
D.C., Rome, Vienna, and India, 
where he served as ambassador. 
 
The opinions and conclusion 
expressed herein are those of the 
individual author(s) and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of 
GPoT or Istanbul Kültür University. 
6 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YALIM ERALP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
G
L
O
B
A
L
 
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
 
T
R
E
N
D
S
 
C
E
N
T
E
R
 
(
G
P
o
T
)
 
 ABOUT GPoT 
 
 
 
 
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research 
institution established under the auspices of Istanbul Kültür University in 2008.  
Our mission is to conduct high quality, independent and innovative research 
and education, acting as a link between policy-making institutions, 
academia, civil society and the media. 
The Center aims to achieve this by routinely bringing together opinion leaders, 
government officials and other policy-makers, analysts and members of the 
media from Turkey, the region and elsewhere. Our activities range from 
conducting projects and research that analyze the contemporary social, 
political and economic trends in regional and international politics and 
producing policy recommendations, contributing to public debate through 
roundtable discussions and international conferences to publishing policy 
briefs and monographs, among others. 
In accordance with its mission, GPoT Center has been active in virtually all 
fronts concerning not only Turkish foreign policy but the current regional and 
international agenda, including Turkey’s European Union accession process, 
the Cyprus issue, NATO, the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, issues in 
the Middle East and North Africa, national and regional democratization, the 
Arab-Israeli Conflict and, most recently, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. 
 
 
CONTACT DETAILS 
 
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT) 
Istanbul Kültür University 
Atakoy Campus, Bakirkoy 
34 156 Istanbul, Turkey 
 
www.gpotcenter.org 
info@gpotcenter.org 
Tel: +90 212 498 44 65 
Fax: +90 212 498 44 05 
GLOBAL POLITCAL TRENDS CENTER  


Individual rights versus collective rights