In recent years, the attention is being increasingly drawn to the role of the European Union on the development of minority rights in the candidate countries. The adoption of the Copenhagen political criteria, which also require "respect for and protection of minorities," as preconditions that applicants must have met before they could join the Union has inevitably led to some policy changes to the minorities in Eastern Europe. This policy shift is particularly directed at minority language rights, because one of the most important aspects of the protection of minorities is the recognition of their linguistic identity. The aim of this study is to explore to what extent this development has influenced the situation of language rights of the Kurds in Turkey. In order to answer this question, it first examines the relationship between the Copenhagen criteria and international and European standards protecting minority language rights. Secondly, considering those standards, it assesses the achievements and failures of the recent legislative amendments which are directed to bring the language rights of the Kurds within the line of the Copenhagen criteria. The case of Turkey reveals the vast potential of the European enlargement process on the development of minority language rights, but also its limits in situations where there is a lack of political will to respect and protect diversity.

No description available.

No description available.

This study asks how national power capacity and state structures are reconfigured when faced simultaneously with the power diffusion impact of political globalization---defined as a consensus of ideas and subsequent pressure on states for further democratization and liberalization---and the power maximization demands of internal and external security dilemmas. Hypothesizing a resulting bifurcation of such state structures, this study identifies and explores the transformation dynamics of states being pressured by these two forces through an in-depth analysis of the Turkish case. First, the roots of the two pressures are explored from the late Ottoman and early Republican eras, and a pendulum period is observed, in which the incompatibility of the two drives becomes accepted. As the inevitability of the transformation from more authoritarian to more liberal regimes is realized, a resulting gradual development and institutionalization of a dual state structure into hard and soft agendas and, eventually, realms is shown. Within such a structure, a compromised governance system emerges, in which both a form of democracy and democratization is maintained for legitimacy purposes, and a strong power-holding mechanism, unaccountable to the public, is preserved as an ultimate guard to maintain control over the transformation process. An analysis of changes in the Turkish constitutions is used to reveal traceable reflections of the gradual expansion and consolidation of the hard realm. The actual workings of a dual state structure, revealing the realms' actors, their domestic and external allies, their positions, arguments and rhetoric, is provided by focusing on the clash in the Turkish case over the issue of minority rights in relation with the country's application process for European Union membership. The study identifies the new security dilemma of these countries as being the challenge of securing the inevitable transformation, including the

This thesis argues that to take into account only liberal interpretations of multicultural dilemmas would be insufficient and unrealistic in assessing the claims of justice for ethnocultural diversity. The current liberal approach as offered by Will Kymlicka is a good beginning for ethnic conflict management. However, his theory is marked by a number of limitations due to the fact that he operates only with the principles and norms of liberal institutions. In modern multiculturally constituted democracies, the presence and constant increase of cultural diversity challenges the self-understanding of liberal democracy. Kymlicka's liberal theory of multiculturalism has been challenged by several political theorists, who emphasize the insufficiency of his approach due its reliance on liberal readings of ethnic conflicts. [from Introduction, p. [1]]

My topic is an analysis of the various theories of multiculturalism and how they would respond to controversial issues concerning freedom of speech with regard to religious sensitivities. While Western nations have often concentrated on 'nation building', or the integration of citizens into public institutions, there has been the emerging trend of minority rights and 'multiculturalism' (Kymlicka, 2001, pp. 2-3). Groups with diverse interests and political agendas are resisting assimilation into wider society and are struggling for acceptence, respect and public affirmation of their differences (Parekh, 2000, p. 1). While the nation state has not become obselete, many of its traditional functions have lost their relevance and value and we therefore need to reconceptualize its nature and role (Parekh, 2000, pp. 193-194). Many nations have a new found interest in multicultural policies and Australia has declared itself multicultural in the early 1970's as did Canada; and the debate around multicultural policies has raged on in Britain, Germany and Israel since the 1960's (Parekh, 2000, p. 5). In Kymlicka's view, public opinion has shifted from seeing minority rights as a pragmatic compromise to a matter of fundamental justice (Kymlicka, 2001, p. 6). One controversy that multiculturalist policies have raised is issues of tolerance of cultural difference, including group rights. This is evident on a daily basis, from the storm around Muslim girls wearing headscarves in France, to the debate surrounding the use of French as a first language in Quebec; multiculturalism has been asked, what should be tolerated? In my dissertation I will look at the controversial topic of freedom of speech within liberal democratic systems. Freedom of speech is an integral part of a democratic system, and in democratic systems discussion is often cited as a means of reaching consensus and compromise. Free speech is also intended to explore new ways of thinking and to criticize ways of thinking and living. The difficulty comes when there are certain topics, such as the lampooning of Islam and the Prophet and denying the Holocaust, which are deemed to be off limits by certain groups. Different liberal philosophies however have differing views on what the limits of free speech are. I will be looking into these philosophies and whether the limits they set apply to the Danish cartoon controversy and to the David Irving case of Holocaust denialism. There are three broad theories of how liberal systems ought to deal with the demands of a plural society. These are 'classical liberalism', 'liberal nationalism' and 'multiculturalism'. In broad terms, classical liberal theory is intolerant of special group rights, liberal-nationalism affirms certain kinds of group rights within a liberal framework, and multiculturalism asserts the equality of cultures, and questions the primacy of liberalism. The question that I will be answering is how these theories deal with group rights when those groups ask for the limiting of speech that is deemed offensive to group culture or religion. In a more global society, different cultural and religious groups have differing levels of tolerance toward certain kinds of speech. Certain groups value freedom of speech with very few constraints, whilst others believe that that some speech is harmful and disrespectful to their culture or religion. Questions about the viability of these different cultural and religious groups co-existing have been highlighted by recent events. The two cases to be explored in my analysis will be, firstly, the outcry following the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in Denmark. Many of these cartoons were seen to be derogatory to Muslims and the depiction of the Prophet is also not allowed in many Islamic traditions. Much of Danish society felt that although these cartoons were offensive and in bad taste, they had to protect their right to freedom even though it may be offensive to others. This pits the Islamic culture against that of the Danish 'liberal' culture and asks the question of whether 'liberal' culture or 'multiculturalism' can assure religious tolerance? My second example is the controversial case involving the historian David Irving and his questioning of the Holocaust. This questioning led to his imprisonment in Austria for the crimes of Holocaust denial. This case involves someone expressing his freedom of speech, yet many liberal-democratic countries have laws expressly prohibiting this kind of Holocaust denial. The reasoning behind such laws is to protect the sentiments of Jewish community and the suffering they endured under the Holocaust. In both cases, the interests of religious groups are invoked as being sufficiently harmed, and the liberal right to free speech should therefore be limited. Hence the thesis looks to explore religious tolerance available in classical liberal, liberal-nationalist and multiculturalist systems at a theoretical level. I will also argue that certain kinds and manner of speech, such as speech that lampoons and offends group sensibilities, should be limited in certain cases and that liberal-nationalism provides the most fair way of adjudicating disputes. / Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)-University of KwaZulu-natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The Kurds, numbering somewhat 40 million, are the largest stateless nation worldwide. As smaller minorities, they are mainly spread in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey in the Middle East. The Kurdish claims for self-determination have been a century-long struggle, and at the moment only the Kurds in north-Iraq have achieved the establishment of the semi-autonomous territory of Kurdistan, and the Kurds in Syria have autonomous control over the Kurdish region. Iran and Turkey with their significant Kurdish communities have not been successful in addressing the Kurdish claims of selfdetermination in an efficient and structural manner. This thesis assessed the possibilities of a successful implementation of a federal model in Iran and Turkey in order to address the Kurdish claims for self-determination. The main finding of this thesis is that the current political atmosphere in each country is not ready to make the necessary accommodations, as the transition to a federal system requires, and consequently will not be successful in addressing the Kurdish claims of self-determination. In Iran, it is found that the union between religion and politics, and consequently, the controlled nature of the theocratic system, will not accommodate for a society along federalist principles in which rule is divided amongst groups in society. In Turkey, it is found that while the political rule in Turkey is different from that in Iran, it is however believed that not even a possible transition to a direct Presidential system will change the governments fears of separatism, or the constitutional constraints which further hinders a federal transition. As seen from the assessment of the case studies, a federal implementation is not foreseen in Iran and Turkey within the nearest future, and will subsequently fail in addressing the Kurdish claims of self-determination. A transition of this manner requires dedication and willingness, and this research presents recommendations for the road towards a federalist political arrangement and greater Kurdish self-determination in order to reach a peaceful solution to the century-long Kurdish issue. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die Koerde wat 40 miljoen lede het is die grootste staatlose nasie in die wêreld. Hulle word hoofsaaklik in Iran, Irak, Sirië en Turkye in die Midde-Ooste aangetref. Die Koerde se aanspraak vir selfbeskikking is ‘n eeue-lange stryd: op die oomblik het slegs die Koerde in Noord-Irak die vestiging van die semi-outonome gebied van Kurdistan terwyl die Koerde in Sirië outonome beheer het oor die Koerdiese gebied. Beide Iran en Turkye het aansienlike Koerdiese gemeenskappe, maar was onsuksesvol om die Koerdiese se aanspraak op selfbeskikking aan te spreek. Hierdie tesis assesseer die moontlikheid vir die suksesvolle implimentering van ‘n federale model in Iran en Irak om die Koerdiese aanspraak vir selfbeskikking aan te spreek. Die hoof bevinding van hierdie tesis is dat die huidige politieke klimaat in elkeen van hierdie lande ongunstig is: hierdie lande is nie gereed om die oorgang tot ‘n federale sisteem te maak nie, en sal gevolglik onsuksesvol wees in die aanspreek van Koerdiese aanspraak op selfbeskikking. In Iran is daar geen onderskeid tussen godsdiens en politiek nie: die streng beheerde teokratiese sisteem sal nie die ontwikkeling van ‘n samelewing langs federale beginsels toelaat waar mag tussen verskillende groepe in die samelewing verdeel is nie. In Turkye waar die politieke sisteem verskil van dié van Iran, sal ‘n moontlike oorgang na ‘n Presidensiële sisteem nie die vrese van separatisme verander of die grondwetlike beperkings verander wat ‘n federale oorgang verhinder nie. Soos uit die gevallestudies blyk kan ‘n federale sisteem nie in die nabye toekoms in Turkye en Iran voorsien word nie en sal hierdie lande gevolglik misluk in die aanspreek van die Koerdiese aanspraak op selfbeskikking. ‘n Politieke oorgang van hierdie soort benodig toewyding en bereidwilligheid, en hierdie navorsing stel aanbevelings voor vir die pad na ‘n federale politiese ooreenkoms en groter Koerdiese selfbeskikking. Dit is nodig indien ‘n vreedsame oplossing vir die eeuelange Koerdiese kwessie gevind moet word.

This thesis is concerned with two central questions. The first is theoretical and asks, "Can a direct appeal be made to the foundational principles of liberalism to support collective rights?" The second question is practical and asks: "Would such a defense serve the interests of contemporary Canadian Aboriginal claims to special constitutionally recognized collective rights known as the Aboriginal Right?" I utilize Will Kymlicka's defense of minority rights as the theoretical framework in assessing this first question and in assessing the latter, I refer to various reported Aboriginal conceptions of the so-called Aboriginal Right which have been formalized by Aboriginal people themselves through constitutional addresses, Royal Commission hearings, discussion papers and legal claims. Part I of the thesis involves an enquiry into the nature of the revisions that Kymlicka proposes to make to liberal theory, and asks whether, in making such changes, he is able to retain identification with the so-called "modern" liberals, with whom Kymlicka identifies himself, and consistently defend the kind of group minority rights of the sort actually being claimed in Canadian society today. I conclude that Kymlicka argument fails in two respects: it fails to do the work required of it by modern liberals and it ultimately fails to do the work required by the standards of Kymlicka own theory. In Part II, I argue that even if it were theoretically possible to protect the good of culture in the way that Kymlicka hopes, such a defense of collective rights fails in the most important respect: that is, it cannot do the work required of it by the Aboriginal people for whom it was designed.

This thesis is concerned with two central questions. The first is theoretical and asks, "Can a direct appeal be made to the foundational principles of liberalism to support collective rights?" The second question is practical and asks: "Would such a defense serve the interests of contemporary Canadian Aboriginal claims to special constitutionally recognized collective rights known as the Aboriginal Right?" I utilize Will Kymlicka's defense of minority rights as the theoretical framework in assessing this first question and in assessing the latter, I refer to various reported Aboriginal conceptions of the so-called Aboriginal Right which have been formalized by Aboriginal people themselves through constitutional addresses, Royal Commission hearings, discussion papers and legal claims. Part I of the thesis involves an enquiry into the nature of the revisions that Kymlicka proposes to make to liberal theory, and asks whether, in making such changes, he is able to retain identification with the so-called "modern" liberals, with whom Kymlicka identifies himself, and consistently defend the kind of group minority rights of the sort actually being claimed in Canadian society today. I conclude that Kymlicka argument fails in two respects: it fails to do the work required of it by modern liberals and it ultimately fails to do the work required by the standards of Kymlicka own theory. In Part II, I argue that even if it were theoretically possible to protect the good of culture in the way that Kymlicka hopes, such a defense of collective rights fails in the most important respect: that is, it cannot do the work required of it by the Aboriginal people for whom it was designed. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

No description available.