The theory of liberal multiculturalism is based on a normative concept of liberalism leading to the implication of recognized cultural minority rights. However, there is no clear depiction of how liberal multiculturalism responds to the case of different cultural groups placing claims over one same excludable resource. In this thesis I analyze if there are any viable solutions to the uncertainties of conflicting cultural group claims within liberal multiculturalism. I use the practical case of Kven and Sami land claims to illustrate the consequences of the theory. Finding that legitimate claims to rights cannot be simply retracted, I provide two solutions involving sharing the resource in question. Both solutions resonate differently with the definition of culture and principles of liberal multiculturalism. The solutions involve cultural ownership. As we will see, this comes with certain infringements on the concept of the liberal self. I find that there is no unequivocal solution to the dilemmas described, however, I argue that collective ownership is the solution most consistent with liberal multiculturalism.

Yes / This paper examines the conceptual origins of individual rights that shaped the UN and UNESCO model of human rights and the origins of group rights as they emerged in the post–colonial era to challenge inequality. It argues that the idea of rights to self determination, associated initially with decolonization in Africa based on equal statehood status in international relations, has, since decolonization, reinvigorated the promotion of group or peoples’ rights as a framework for challenging poverty and inequality, including access or rights to development.

La présente étude se concentre sur le travail de Nancy Fraser sur la justice sociale, lequel a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt dans la littérature au cours des dernières années. La reconnaissance et la redistribution sont les deux piliers originaux de son approche: les désavantages dont souffrent les gens dus au dénigrement culturel ou à la privation économique. Ces deux concepts servent à diagnostiquer et fournir le soutien moral aux multiples luttes que les victimes d’injustice entreprennent avec l’objectif d’établir une participation plus égalitaire à la société. Cependant, que peut-elle dire cette approche des groupes qui sont marginalisés et cherchent l’autogouvernance (ou la séparation même) plutôt que l’intégration dans la société? Le travail de Fraser manifeste une résistance envers les droits du groupe, et un silence quant à l’autodétermination. Mon intervention prend comme objectif d’inclure ces formes d’injustice dans son approche, la rendant plus sensible aux dynamiques des groupes et capable de répondre à leurs revendications trop souvent négligées sous prétexte de l’égalité. La question est, l’égalité de qui? / The focus of this study is Nancy Fraser’s work on social justice, which has gained prominence in the literature over the past few years. The two original pillars of her approach are redistribution and recognition – the injustices that individuals face as a result of economic hardship or cultural denigration. These two concepts serve to diagnose and provide moral backing to the multiple struggles that individuals undertake with the aim of a more equitable way of participating in society. But what does this approach have to say about marginalized groups who seek greater autonomy, or perhaps even separation, rather than further participation in society? Fraser’s work has manifested resistance to sanctioning group difference, and silence on the issue of self-determination. I aim to build these claims into her approach, ultimately to render it more sensible to group dynamics and more capable to respond to their demands all too often neglected under the pretext of equality. The question is, equality of whom?

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

La présente étude se concentre sur le travail de Nancy Fraser sur la justice sociale, lequel a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt dans la littérature au cours des dernières années. La reconnaissance et la redistribution sont les deux piliers originaux de son approche: les désavantages dont souffrent les gens dus au dénigrement culturel ou à la privation économique. Ces deux concepts servent à diagnostiquer et fournir le soutien moral aux multiples luttes que les victimes d’injustice entreprennent avec l’objectif d’établir une participation plus égalitaire à la société. Cependant, que peut-elle dire cette approche des groupes qui sont marginalisés et cherchent l’autogouvernance (ou la séparation même) plutôt que l’intégration dans la société? Le travail de Fraser manifeste une résistance envers les droits du groupe, et un silence quant à l’autodétermination. Mon intervention prend comme objectif d’inclure ces formes d’injustice dans son approche, la rendant plus sensible aux dynamiques des groupes et capable de répondre à leurs revendications trop souvent négligées sous prétexte de l’égalité. La question est, l’égalité de qui? / The focus of this study is Nancy Fraser’s work on social justice, which has gained prominence in the literature over the past few years. The two original pillars of her approach are redistribution and recognition – the injustices that individuals face as a result of economic hardship or cultural denigration. These two concepts serve to diagnose and provide moral backing to the multiple struggles that individuals undertake with the aim of a more equitable way of participating in society. But what does this approach have to say about marginalized groups who seek greater autonomy, or perhaps even separation, rather than further participation in society? Fraser’s work has manifested resistance to sanctioning group difference, and silence on the issue of self-determination. I aim to build these claims into her approach, ultimately to render it more sensible to group dynamics and more capable to respond to their demands all too often neglected under the pretext of equality. The question is, equality of whom?

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

"This paper relies on the belief that amelioratoin of the ethnic porblem requires the recognition and entrenchment of ethnic claims as part of a constitutional settlement in Africa not only as a matter of practical expediency but also a human rights necessity. It is expected that institutionalising group rights in a way to allow political participation and self-administraton by the sub-state groups contains ethnic conflict and necessitates collaboration and national cohesion. It is, thus, submitted that self-determination as a human right is an overriding norm and institution in the contemporary African situation. It vindicates group rights and captures some of the fundamental tensions in the politico-legal set-ups of states in Africa. As such, the potential of the right to self-determination in the realization of such objectives is closely considered. The focus of this study is, therefore, to wrestle with the query of whether institutionalising the right to self-determinaton would address inter-ethnic tension in the context of Africa. Such questions as how the right to self-determinaton is related to ethnicity and group rights and what institutional and normative solutions are present in the right to self-determination are also examined. This is done by way of examining the elements and various institutional dimensions of the right to self-determination and the experience of Ethiopia and South Africa. ... The study is divided into four chapters. Chapter one outlines the context of the study, objectives and significance of the study as well as the hypothesis and literature review. It is sought in the second chapter to explore the ethnicity problem and the right to self-determination in Africa. Chapter three deals with analysing the elements of the right to self-determination, its potentials to address the ethnicity dilemma of African and the modalities of institutionalising it. Chapter four examines the recognition of the right to self-determination under the Federal Constitution of Ethiopia and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the manner in which it is entrenched and institutionalised in the set-ups of the two states and the lessons, good or ill, to be drawn from their experience. Finally, the study seeks to draw some conclusions that involve recommended suggestions." -- Chapter 1. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)University of Pretoria, 2003. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

A tutela dos interesses metaindividuais em juízo e a busca de mecanismos que assegurem que o processo seja instrumento para o acesso substancial à justiça inserem-se no contexto das ondas renovatórias do processo civil. Embora o movimento em questão situe-se cronologicamente na década de 1960, o ordenamento jurídico pátrio ainda não fez fluir simultaneamente as três ondas. Os denominados interesses metaindividuais abrangem tanto os interesses essencialmente coletivos, nos quais se incluem os difusos e coletivos, quanto os interesses doutrinariamente denominados de acidentalmente coletivos, correspondentes, nos termos do microssistema processual coletivo, ao conceito de interesse individual homogêneo. No Brasil, a tutela jurisdicional de interesses metaindividuais pode se dar através do processo coletivo e, também, por meio do processo civil tradicional, caso apresentem viés estritamente individual. A dificuldade de enquadramento de determinados interesses dentro dos conceitos legais dados pelo microssistema processual coletivo é recorrente no cotidiano jurisprudencial. O processo civil vigente não apresenta mecanismo normativo apto a evitar a concomitância entre ações individuais e coletivas sobre uma mesma questão jurídica, razão pela qual o sistema convive com demandas de massa repetitivamente levadas ao Poder Judiciário. O processo coletivo, no entanto, não é a única alternativa processual existente para o manejo racional de processos repetitivos: as denominadas ações de grupo prestam-se à resolução isonômica de tais demandas sem que, para tanto, sejam necessárias ficções representativas e grandes debates acerca da legitimidade. O presente trabalho presta-se à análise de tais possibilidades, tendo por norte a otimização do alcance subjetivo da decisão judicial que trate de interesse metaindividual. Encontra-se em trâmite na Câmara dos Deputados o projeto do Novo Código de Processo Civil, que traz, dentre as inovações destinadas ao tratamento de demandas de massa, o incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas, a centralização de processos repetitivos e a conversão da ação individual em coletiva, mecanismos estes que integrarão o objeto do presente estudo. / The judicial protection of group rights and the search for mechanisms that ensure that civil procedure is actually an instrument for substantial access to justice fall into the context of the waves of reform. Although such motion is chronologically situated in the 1960s, Brazilian Law has not yet fulfilled the task of simultaneously flowing the three waves. The so called group rights refer, in Brazilian Law, both essencially and occasionally group rights. The latter refers, in Brazilian Civil Procedure, to the concept of homogeneous individual rights. In Brazil, the judicial protection of group rights can be led through class actions or individual suits, as long as the right involved has a strictly individual aspect. The difficulty of framing some rights into the legal concepts is iterant in Brazilian Courts daily routine. The current Civil Procedure does not have tools able to avoid the concomitance between individual suits and class actions that refer to the same legal issue. For that reason, the judiciary deals with repetitive suits. Class actions, however, are not the only procedural alternative to rationally dealing with repetitive suits: group actions also aim to adequately resolving suits, but without involving issues as adequacy of representation or further concerns related to standing to sue. This research is dedicated to the analysis of such possibilities, having in mind the optimization of the subjective range of judicial decisions that refer to group rights. The Project of the new Brazilian Civil Procedure Code, currently at the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, brings, among the innovations that intend to deal with repetitive suits, the incident of resolution of repetitive suits, the centralization of repetitive suits and the possibility of convertion of individual suits into class actions. All of these innovations will also be analised.

I studien undersöks individers olika behandling i det svenska skolsystemet utifrån etnisk, kulturell och religiös härkomst. Fokus ligger på skolans styrdokument och den teoretiska utgångspunkten är den universalistiska och mångkulturalistiska perspektiven på hur en individ ska behandlas och vilka fri- och rättigheter den ska kunna åtnjuta. Studien belyser de olika perspetiven och eventuella spänningar dem emellan. Slutsaten är att båda perspektiven finns representerade i styrdokumenten och att spänningar faktiskt existerar. Där till konstateras det att det universalistiska perspektivet alltid har ett övertag gentemot det mångkulturalistiska. Det redogörs vidare för hur riksdag och regering gjort det omöjligt för rektorer att bevilja befrielse från undervisning på etnisk, kulturell och/eller religiös grund. Avslutningsvis förs en diskussion om möjliga orsaker till den problematik som existerar i de svenska skolorna och vad vidare forskning inom området skulle kunna fokusera på för att lösa dessa problem. / The study examines differences in treatment on grounds of ethnic, cultural and/ or religious group affiliation in the Swedish school system. The aim is to highlight these issues from perspectives of universalism and multiculturalism, focusing on the school's policy documents. The study is carried out by highlighting the representation of the perspectives and the tensions that may arise between them. The conclusion is that there are representations of both perspectives and that tensions do exist. In addition, it is concluded that the universalist approach has a clear advantage and that differences in treatment based on the above reasons do not find support in the school’s policy documents. Finally, possible causes for the situation found in the Swedish school system where differences in treatment do exist are discussed.

This dissertation evaluates the recent academic consensus on liberal multiculturalism. I argue that this apparent consensus, by subsuming religious experience under the general category of culture, has rested upon undefended and contestable conceptions of modern religious life. In the liberal multicultural literature, cultures are primarily identified as sharing certain ethnic, linguistic, or geographic attributes, which is to say morally arbitrary particulars that can be defended without raising the possibility of conflict over metaphysical beliefs. In such theories, the possibility of conflict due to diverse religious principles or claims to the transcendent is either steadfastly ignored or, more typically, explained away as the expression of perverted religious faith. I argue that this conception of the relation between culture and religion fails to provide an account of liberal multiculturalism that is persuasive to religious believers on their own terms. To illustrate this failing, I begin with an examination of the Canadian policy of official multiculturalism and the constitutional design of Pierre Trudeau. I argue that the resistance of Québécois nationalists to liberal multiculturalism, as well as the conflict between the Québécois and minority religious groups within Quebec, has been animated by religious and quasi-religious claims to the transcendent. I maintain that to truly confront this basic problem of religious difference, one must articulate and defend the substantive visions of religious life that are implicit in liberal multicultural theory. To this end, I contrast the portrait of religious life and secularization that is implicit in Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights with the recent account of modern religious life presented by Charles Taylor. I conclude by suggesting that Kymlicka’s and Taylor’s contrasting conceptions of religious difference—which are fundamentally at odds regarding the relation of the right to the good, and the diversity and nature of genuine religious belief—underline the extent to which liberal multicultural theory has reached an academic consensus only by ignoring the reality of religious diversity. / text