CULTURAL TRAITS

AS DEFINING ELEMENTS OF MINORITY GROUPS

EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ 1

Abstract: Integration policies are intended to have the dual aim of providing immigrants with the means
to function in the society where they live and develop their potential, while preserving their cultural and
ethnic identity, and familiarising the non-immigrant population with the rights of immigrants, their
culture, traditions and needs. Integration also appears in documents specifically directed at the protection
of traditional national minorities. This paper looks to identify the main cultural traits that define
minorities in the institutional language and that are relevant for these integration policies. Language and
religion emerge as a widely recognised identity factors in this respect. Other possible cultural identity
factors gather around the idea of ethnicity, being more difficult to determine.

Keywords: Culture, Human Rights, International Law, Integration, Language, Religion, Ethnicity,
Minorities

Summary: I. INTRODUCTION. THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF INTEGRATION; II. CULTURAL DIVERSITY

AND MINORITIES; III. DISTINCTIVE CULTURAL TRAITS OF MINORITIES; IV. CULTURAL TRAITS AND THEIR
DYNAMICS; IV.1. Linguistic traits; IV.2. Religious traits; IV.3. Ethnic traits. The third (cultural) space;
IV.4. Dynamic cultural traits: evolution and interaction; V. CONCLUSION.

I. INTRODUCTION. THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF INTEGRATION

The aim of this paper is to identify the main cultural traits that define minorities
in the institutional language and that are relevant for integration policies. The
assumption is that there are several cohesive cultural elements that bring together
collective identities and have an impact on integration processes. Two of these
elements, language and religion, are widely recognised as such, while other similarly
relevant cultural traits are more difficult to determine. In any case, the various dynamics
that give rise to these cultural traits make their public governance extremely complex
and their social impact varies, as can be seen in later papers in this volume.

All European societies have gone through profound social transformations in the
last decades. Among the main factors characterising the new social paradigm is the
increasing level of cultural diversity, caused mainly by recent population movements. In
this context, integration is understood as a two-sided process and as the capacity of
1
Human Rights Institute. University of Deusto, Bilbao ([email protected])

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
6
people to live together with full respect for the dignity of everyone, the common good,
pluralism and diversity, non-violence and solidarity, as well as their ability to
participate in social, cultural, economic and political life (Council of Europe, 2008: 11).
As for Integration policies, these are intended to have “the dual aim of providing
immigrants with the means to function in the society where they live and develop their
potential, while preserving their cultural and ethnic identity, and familiarising the non-
immigrant population with the rights of immigrants, their culture, traditions and needs”
(Council of Europe, 2003: para.7) (OSCE, 2012). It should be noted that the aim of
integration also appears in documents specifically directed at the protection of national
minorities, such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
(hereinafter, FCNM) 2.

Managing cultural diversity is recognised as a horizontal task that involves a

variety of players and contexts and includes both legal standards (human rights law) and
policy measures. Indeed, the relevance of this dimension is that the cultural elements
that shape collective identities determine the ownership and enjoyment of human rights.
It is not possible to build a framework that respects human rights without considering
the cultural identity of individuals and groups, especially if they are a minority in their
respective policy fields 3. In this regard, the nation-state has been a powerful factor in
cultural and identity homogenisation. Any European state which has enjoyed a
relatively long period of independence for many decades is now much more
linguistically, religiously and nationally homogenous than a century ago, such that the
map of collective identities in Europe is now much closer to the political boundaries of
states than ever before (Magosci, 1995: 130-148). In any of the European democratic
societies there are dominant cultural parameters, as they are widespread or traditional. This
usually leads to the temptation to understand "integration” using these dominant
parameters rather than making mainstream society itself aware of its diversity. The current
trend to provide a cultural dimension to integration that is being explicitly or implicitly
adopted by several countries around us falls within this line. As De Lucas points out, States
are replacing enforceable legal and political conditions to access citizenship through the
priority of the socio-cultural dimension (De Lucas, 2010: 12).

The very idea of respect and guarantee of basic human rights, which is the basis
of any democratic system today, is precisely to set limits to this numerical rule. A
democracy understood solely as a rule of majorities does not resolve issues related to
respecting the identity of minorities. Democracy does not simply mean that the views of
the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved (Council of Europe, 2008:
25). Already in the nineteenth century, De Tocqueville warned of the risk of formal

2
FCNM refers to Integration in arts 5 and 6 and its explanatory report). (All this is in line with the EU
2005 Common Agenda for Integration: framework developed by the European Commission for the
integration of third-country nationals in the EU based on the so-called Common Basic Principles on
Integration (CBPs, 2004).
3
This is accurately expressed in the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 3 March 2001, Article
4.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
7
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

democracy becoming a “tyranny of the majority” (De Tocqueville 1863, 330-335) 4. All
this justifies an analysis that takes into consideration the cultural variables that make up
collective identities and the political tension always existing between majorities and
minorities. This requires defining the concept of minority itself based on the cultural
traits that can help to determine it.

II. CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MINORITIES

The idea of cultural diversity evidently leads us to the notion of culture, a

complex and polysemic concept that is difficult to understand (Prieto De Pedro, 2006:
23-36). Culture is often defined by referring to such various attributes as history,
language, religion, traditions, the economic system, the arts, the governance model or
the laws. Indeed, there are myriad definitions of "culture" in social sciences, sometimes
so broad that they make the concept useless because it is identified with society as a
whole, blurring any distinction between culture, institutions or social structure
(Polavieja, 2015: 167). Polavieja distinguishes two major conceptualisations of culture;
one understands culture as a repository of preferences, values, beliefs and identities that
influence and determine individuals’ behaviour (culture as motivation); the other
approach sees culture as a repertoire of justifications, competences and practices that
individuals use to make sense of their actions (Polavieja, 2015: 167).

However, our focus here is not on all the possible dimensions of the concept of
culture, but only on those that directly lead to the construction of collective identities
that in turn result in a political game between majority and minorities. My aim is
therefore to identify the cultural elements that provide the basis for building these
identities that give rise to an asymmetric and politically relevant diversity. In practice,
cultural diversity involves the coexistence of majorities and minorities, which implies
the need to define these cultural-based minorities whose integration we wish to ensure.

As mentioned above, the level of cultural diversity in Europe over the last
hundred years has decreased. Whereas a century ago most Europeans lived in a
culturally diverse context, the nation state has since emerged as a powerful agent of
national homogenisation of its citizens, thus reducing the demographic impact of
traditional minorities. However, population movements and the emergence of new
technologies have worked in the opposite direction, increasing the cultural diversity in
our societies. Today the debate on diversity management occurs within the framework
of a Europe divided into state societies with a clearly dominant national, linguistic or
religious identity, which in turn have created supranational structures on the protection
of rights. Within this framework, much more homogeneous than one hundred years ago,
the debates on the protection of traditional minorities converge with the demands for the
accommodation of new identities without a historical tradition on the continent – but
comprising a large number of people – which are often referred to as new minorities.
4
Previously, John Adams (A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,
1788), and Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790) had already referred to this
same concept.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
8
Both realities are and should be considered in our analysis as a means of expressing
cultural diversity, even if state or international practice pays still very limited attention
to the fate of new minorities 5.

The concept of minority refers to a relative idea that is built through comparison.
A legal definition in this sense must be constructed from political compromises and on
very diverse social experiences (Koubi, 1995: 251). Defining minorities has proved to
be one of the most complicated legal tasks for both international and domestic
institutions. Given the variety of situations that may affect minorities, it is not possible
to establish a common definition (Palermo and Woelk, 2008: 16). The lack of a legally
binding definition causes significant problems in the identification of the potential
minorities and in the implementation of protection measures when they are needed.

A high number of authors from the legal and political doctrine have tried to
define the concept of minority from very different contexts and angles (Ruiz Vieytez,
2014a: 14-17), including systematic feedback to the European Charter for Regional and
Minority Languages (hereinafter, ECHRML) and the FCNM.

From a literal point of view, the term minority can be used to designate any group
of people identified around a specific characteristic that would account for less than half of
the individuals within a given field of reference. In this regard, we can discuss many
different types of social minorities. However, in terms of International Law and Politics,
the expression “Protection of Minorities” traditionally refers to a well-defined subject area
that is directly related to several cultural expressions that lead or may lead to strong
collective identities. For instance, “the EU touches on many different situations of
persons belonging to minorities. Persons belonging to linguistic, ethnic or national
minorities, third-country nationals who immigrate to the EU, or immigrants who are
long-term residents, may all perceive that they belong to a minority group” (EU Agency
for Fundamental Rights, 2011: 17). Therefore, certain objective elements that are the
basis of the implicit definition of minorities converge.

Limiting the scope of the term “minority” to the field of culture and identity is
not only operationally useful to delimit the playing field. It also has a substantive
explanation and its raison d’ȇtre. Drawing a distinction between what are here referred
to as cultural elements and other factors eventually leading to discrimination is,
therefore, more than justified.

In fact, a clear distinction should be made between the concepts of “national

identity” and “prevailing/dominant (social) reality”. Starting from the premise of the
division of Europe into States (basically nation-States), we use the term minorities to
refer to those groups that differ from most of the population of the State due to

5
For instance, UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also makes a clear distinction
between “minorities” and “migrants” in its General Comment No. 21, “Right of everyone to take part in
cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)”
(doc. E/C.12/GC/21, of 21 December 2009). Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/
However, an opposite view is that of the UN Human Rights Committee: see footnote 24.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
9
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

“cultural” traits that are precisely those that shape a (majority) national identity. This
does not mean that we cannot talk about minorities in a broader profane sense, since any
group representing less than half of the population, differentiated based on a clear,
relevant distinguishing feature, can be considered a minority. However, reserving the
concept for cultural traits makes perfect sense.

On the one hand, we should exclude those differences that are not relevant to the
definition of public policies (eyes colour, for instance), and surely do not shape
collective identities. The second step is to distinguish between types of differences that
are indeed politically relevant. This is the most complicated aspect, whereby cultural
elements in a strict sense differ from one another, precisely due to the impact they have
on the construction of collective identities. In fact, such significant factors as gender,
age, sexual orientation or functional ability are key to the exercise of rights and should
therefore have a bearing on public policies. In this regard, a group with a sexual
orientation differing from that of the majority of the population could be considered a
minority, as is the case of a generational group or another type of group distinguished
by their different functional capabilities. These groups are especially concerned about
not being discriminated in the exercise of their rights, which will require adaptation or
inclusion policies related to their realities. However, these demands are not defined
against a majority national identity but against a prevailing social reality. These are not
factors that identify majority society against other European societies. They are
ineffective when it comes to identifying or distinguishing the different European
societies because they do not affect the design of the State or the public space, in the
same way as strictly cultural factors, which do shape national identity and differentiate
one national society from another. And this difference should be considered when
defining the technical concept of minority.

In fact, no European society identifies itself as such with a specific generation,

gender or sexual orientation. There is a specific prevailing sexual orientation across all
European societies, which is basically the same in all of them. The possible “sexual
orientation minorities” are not confronted with a “national identity” but with a “majority
social reality”, or one that prevails in a historical moment and against which they
deserve to exercise their rights on an equal footing. The majority reality that forms the
backbone of our social structures across all European countries is that of a society
conceived from the standpoint of a working-age, heterosexual adult male with full
functional capabilities. The sectors that do not match this majority or prevailing filter
for one reason or another are potentially at risk of discrimination and the factors that
differentiate them are certainly relevant to public policies on human rights.

However, by cultural elements as relevant factors of collective identity, we mean

those that are confronted with or differ from majority cultural elements that shape the
respective national identity. The aim is not only to broaden or expand a majority reality
(to fight against the possible exclusion of other social realities) but to allow for the
coexistence of collective identities that differ from that endorsed by the majority society
against other countries (thus avoiding the tendency to assimilation that occurs in any
political entity). European countries are not distinguished by sexual orientation but by

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
10
language, religious and cultural traditions or related ethnic and symbolic elements.
Thus, the technical concept of minority is limited to these realities where minority
difference is proclaimed against majority “national identity” and not so much against a
“prevailing social reality”. These wide-ranging factors have very different dynamics
(and counter-dynamics: exclusion against assimilation), as is the full range of collective
identities they comprise, and the legal solutions that both categories deserve or require.
Obviously, this technical distinction does not exclude the concurrence of different
factors of possible discrimination against the same individuals.

The objective nature of the cultural elements, to a greater or lesser extent, also
makes the existence or presence of minorities less dependent on their being recognised
by the State in which they reside (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2011: 8). The
definition of those distinctive cultural traits can be made through several simultaneous
methods.

III. DISTINCTIVE CULTURAL TRAITS OF MINORITIES

The distinctive cultural traits of minorities in terms of integration policies may

be determined through three complementary methods: examining the adjectives that
accompany the word minority in major legal or policy documents; systematising the
features or aspects that appear in key reports on the subject; and comparing the elements
contained in various legal definitions of minorities.

1) Adjectives that usually accompany the noun minority in key legal or policy
documents

Within the field of international law, the concept of Minority was introduced in
several international treaties between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. In that
first period, the most frequently mentioned category of minority was by far that of
Religious Minorities (Ruiz Vieytez, 1999: 12). After WWI, and under the mandate of
the League of Nations, official documents referred to the formula “racial, linguistic and
religious minorities”. After WWII, the word racial was substituted by ethnic and
therefore the UN started using the three-fold formula “ethnic, linguistic and religious
minorities”, which was also incorporated into Article 27 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter, ICCPR). Only in 1992, the United Nations
Assembly adopted a Declaration on the rights of members of “National or Ethnic,
Linguistic and Religious Minorities”. At the regional level, however, as soon as in 1950
the concept National Minority was introduced in the European Convention on Human
Rights, and later used in the framework of the OSCE; in 1995, the FCNM was adopted.

Thus, when international legal texts refer to minorities, this noun is generally
accompanied by one of these four adjectives: religious, linguistic, national and ethnic.
This last concept replaces that of racial minority, widely used until the mid-twentieth
century. The four categories are far from being mutually exclusive, but they provide an
important basis for understanding what regional or global institutions refer to when they

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
11
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

use this term. Hence, the concept Minority refers to groups of people who differ from
the majority of the population of the State in some of their ethic, linguistic, religious or
national characteristics.

A panoramic view of the European Constitutions today in force reinforces this

conclusion, since we will find the same categories of minorities. “National Minorities”
is included in 10 European constitutions 6, as it is the expression “Ethnic Minorities”
(including similarly ethnic groups or ethnic communities) 7, while “Linguistic
Minorities” is used in just 3 constitutions 8 and “Religious Minorities” (including
religious communities and religious groups) appears in 7 constitutions 9. Finally, the
Constitution of Belgium is the only one that includes a reference to “Philosophical and
Ideological Minorities”. Also, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union refers in its Article 22 to “cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”. Therefore,
the number of categories of minorities included in international or constitutional texts is
reduced, pointing to elements such as religion, language, ethnicity and nationality.

2) Traits or aspects contained in key European documents on the subject

The analysis of reports or plans that refer to the protection of minorities or the
management of cultural diversity also points in this direction. In this regard, the “White
paper on Intercultural Dialogue” (Council of Europe, 2008) or the report on “Respect
for and protection of persons belonging to minorities” (EU Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2011) may be regarded as reference documents, in addition to the set of reports
issued by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (hereinafter, ECRI)
or the Advisory Committee (hereinafter, AC) of the FCNM.

The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights report (EU Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2011) is clear in highlighting that it includes “persons belonging to ethnic
minorities as well as persons belonging to linguistic and national minorities” but not
groups or identities generated by sexual orientation (EU Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2011: 9). The report devotes more attention to linguistic aspects (EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights, 2011: 65-72), than to religion (EU Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2011: 57-61). The situation of Roma communities is also shown, as they are
defined by one or several of these elements, and that of foreign immigrant communities.

About the White Paper, the linguistic and religious aspects also accompany other
less homogenous factors. The documents produced by ECRI and AC of FCNM contain
numerous references to ethnic or nationality differences, and to religious or linguistic
6
Poland (art. 35), Czech Republic (art. 25 Charter of Rights), Slovakia (art. 33-34), Hungary (art. 32 and
68), Croatia (ar. 15), Serbia (art. 47-57 Charter of Rights), Albania (art. 20), Romania (art. 6 and 32),
Ukraine (art. 10-11 and 53) and Armenia (art. 37),
7
Estonia (art. 50), Latvia (art. 114), Poland (art. 35), Czech Republic (art. 25 Charter of Rights), Hungary
(art. 32 and 68), Sweden (ch. 1, art. 2.4). Slovakia (art. 33-34), Lithuania (art. 37), Slovenia (art. 61 and
64) and Belarus (art. 14).
8
Italy (art. 6), Sweden (ch. 1, art. 2.4) and Austria (art. 8).
9
Swedish Instrument of Government (ch. 1, art. 2.4). Croatia (art. 41), Serbia (art. 27 Charter of Rights),
Albania (art. 10), Macedonia (art. 19), Bulgaria (art. 13) and Cyprus (art. 2).

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
12
aspects, thus confirming that focus is placed on the same set of cultural traits in the
framework of European institutions.

3) Cultural traits that appear in several legal definitions of minorities

Although the attempts to find an internationally accepted definition of minority

have failed so far, several States have decided to formulate their own definition of this
concept. This may have happened either in adopting specific domestic legislation on the
rights of national minorities, or in drafting declarations when ratifying the FCNM. A
total of 12 European countries include in their legal framework a definition of the term
“national minority”: Hungary10, Luxembourg 11, Estonia 12, Austria 13, Switzerland14,
Czech Republic 15, Moldova 16, Serbia 17, Croatia 18, Bosnia-Herzegovina 19, Poland20 and
Latvia 21. Two additional definitions can be added, provided by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe in the Recommendations 1134 22 and 1201 23.

All these legal definitions include, among their basic elements, the endorsement
of ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or national characteristics, which distinguish
them from the rest of the population, as well as the requirement that the members have
the nationality or citizenship of the State of residence. From the comparison of the 14
definitions, we can conclude that there is in Europe certain degree of agreement on the
elements of the concept of national minority. Different authors defend that it does exist
an implicit definition of national minority at the European level (Verstichel, 2008: 155,
Gonzalez Hidalgo and Ruiz-Vieytez, 2012: 50-51; Smihula, 2009: 50, Pentassuglia,
2002: 56-74).

10
Hungary: Act LXXVII of 1993 on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, of 10 July 1993,
Article 1.2.
11
Luxembourg: Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg,
dated 18 July 1995, handed to the Secretary General at the time of signature of FCNM, on 20 July 1995.
12
Estonia: Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification of FCNM, deposited on 6 January 1997.
13
Austria: Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification of FCNM, deposited on 31 March 1998.
14
Switzerland: Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification of FCNM, deposited on 21 October
1998.
15
Czech Republic: 273 Act On Rights Of Members Of National Minorities And Amendments Of Some
Acts, of July 10, 2001, Article 2.1.
16
Moldova: Law of the Republic of Moldova on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities
and the Legal Status of their Organizations, of 4 September 2001, Article 1.
17
Serbia (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia): Law on Protection of Rights and Freedoms of National
Minorities, of 27 February 2002, Article 2.
18
Croatia: The Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia, of 13
December 2002, Article 5.
19
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Law on Rights of National Minorities, of 1 April 2003, Article 3.
20
Poland: The Regional Language, National and Ethnic Minorities Act, of 6 January 2005, article 2.
21
Latvia: Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification of FCNM, deposited on 6 June 2005.
22
Recommendation 1134 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopted on 1 October
1990, on the Rights of Minorities.
23
Recommendation 1201 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopted on 1
February 1993, on the Rights of Minorities.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
13
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

Deepening the analysis, the concrete cultural factors of identity that appear in
these definitions can be organised according to the following list (Ruiz Vieytez, 2014b:
205-207):

1. Linguistic element (language, mother language or linguistic characteristics):

present in 13 out of 14 definitions (all but that of Bosnia-Herzegovina).
2. Religious element (religion, confession, religious characteristics): included in 9
out of 14 definitions.
3. Ethnic element (ethnic characteristics, common ethnic origin, ethnic culture,
ethnic affiliation): mentioned in 9 out of 14 definitions.
4. Cultural element (culture, cultural characteristics, ethnic culture): mentioned in
13 out of 14 definitions (all but that of Luxembourg).
5. Other elements mentioned: Traditions (5 definitions), Common origin (3
definitions), Costumes and History (1 definition).

From this comparison, it may easily be concluded that the most repeated
elements are those referring to language, religion, ethnicity and “culture”. This last
concept should be understood as extending beyond the previously mentioned elements
and it may also cover other elements that appear less frequently, such as traditions,
customs, origin or history.

The three-parallel analyses performed reveal that there are two cultural factors
that are clearly present in the shaping of the minorities whose integration is promoted.
These are language and religion. At the same time, there are other kind of cultural
elements that are more difficult to pinpoint with respect to the idea of ethnicity. This
additional cultural factor is more difficult to define as ethnicity is not an easily
identifiable element a priori and yet it appears repeatedly in the studied documents,
assuming that language and religion do not exhaust the entire cultural space that should
be kept in mind in designing integration policies. This area may be referred to as "third
cultural space" or “third cultural element", although it is evident from the outset that it
consists of an open set of cultural sub-elements, other than language and religion, which
wholly or partly form what is termed as ethnicity. It is therefore necessary to develop a
better, more accurate definition of this third cultural space.

Finally, the question arises as to whether a legal element as that required by most
of the definitions referred to, namely, nationality or state citizenship should also come
into play. The fact that immigrant populations are included in the reports on minorities
and that they are the main focus in our analysis of integration policies reinforces this
reasonable doubt. It is with good reason that the term ‘ethnic minorities’ is mostly
identified with the immigrant communities residing in the country. And, obviously, the
presence of new minorities is one of the greatest challenges facing integration policies.
Therefore, we might want to consider to what extent citizenship is a defining element.
In other words, the question is whether legal nationality could be regarded as a culture-
based element.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
14
 The debate about inclusion or exclusion of non-citizens or recent immigrants
from the category of minority, or national minority, is not a new discussion. Already in
the inter-war period, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated that non-
citizens could benefit from the protection of the minority treaties, although in that
moment the concept of national minority was not used 24. Some international
instruments on the protection of national minorities do not require the legal nationality
of the State to be recognised as a member of these groups, and this idea was also
highlighted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment
No. 23 25. Even in Europe, there is “a large number of positions expressed by various
bodies at both international and European level were in the sense that citizenship
requirement should no longer represent a sine-qua-non condition for defining the
national minority” (Aurescu, 2007: 153). This position is partially based on the Report
of Venice Commission on Non-citizens and Minority Rights 26. In fact, one of the most
important problems faced by the AC or the OSCE High Commissioner on National
Minorities has been the exclusion in certain countries of significant minorities of the
population because their members were not given the nationality of a new independent
State 27. According to Hofmann, and following the standpoint of the AC, the FCNM can
be applied to the new minorities in many of its articles (Hofmann, 2005: 17) and indeed,
this seems to be the dominant trend today, both at the institutional and doctrinal level.

Thus, one of the most controversial issues today in defining “national”

minorities lies on the tension between old and new minorities and the potential
exclusion of the former from the implicit definition. The requirement of citizenship in
all the definitions reflects the will of European governments to exclude new minorities
from the benefits of instruments like the FCNM (Verstichel, 2008: 144-151). There is a
real debate today on the rights that can be enjoyed by the members of old or new
minorities (Medda, 2015: 5). Medda makes a distinction between Old and New
minorities, noting that the already mentioned cultural elements are present in old
minority groups, whereas new groups respond to recent immigration processes (Medda,
2015: 3). However, immigrant groups usually have cultural differences that distinguish
them from the rest of the population, forming a separate identity. In cases where these

24
Permanent Court of International Justice, Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion of 15
September 1923, Collection of advisory opinions, Series B, No. 7. September 15th, 1923: “The term
minority seems to include inhabitants who differ from the population in race, language or religion, that is
to say, amongst others, inhabitants of this territory of non-Polish origin, whether they are Polish nationals
or not (p. 1).
25
United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, Article 27 -. Rights of minorities
HRI/GEN /1/Rev.7 p.183 (1994). "5.1. Under the terms of Article 27, the persons to be protected are
those belonging to a minority group and who share in common a culture, a religion and a language.
Those terms also indicate that for the protection of these persons is not required to be citizens of the State
Party in which they live or are (...) 5.2. Article 27 confers rights on persons belonging to minorities which
"exist" in a State party (...). Just as they need not be nationals or citizens, they need not be permanent
residents”.
26
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on Non-Citizens and
Minority Rights, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 69th plenary session (Venice, 15-16 December
2006), doc. CDL-AD(2007) 001.
27
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Opinion
on Estonia, doc. ACFC/INF/OP/I (2002)005, adopted on 14 September 2001, paragraph 17.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
15
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

elements are not present, the cultural difference will not be so relevant in their
integration process and other legal, social or urban aspects involved in that process
should also be considered. However, it may be admitted that national membership can
contribute to a certain extent to identifying cultural minorities, provided that other
cultural traits also come into play.

All in all, membership in a political community can be sometimes a cultural trait

that helps to identify a minority. This would result in several traits that we have called
third cultural space, although it is sometimes related to differences on the level of other
more evident cultural factors such as linguistic or religious differences. From a strictly
integration perspective concerning minority cultural groups, the legal nationality of their
members is not a relevant factor; the cultural differences of both nationals and foreign
citizens should be borne in mind in designing integration policies.

IV. CULTURAL TRAITS AND THEIR DYNAMICS

Language and religion, understood in a very broad sense, have been key
elements to differentiate collective identities, and especially those of minority groups,
throughout European history. Other elements that form what we have called the third
cultural space (ethnicity, geography, history, phenotypic traits or lifestyles) always seem
to coexist to some extent with religious or linguistic aspects. At least in Europe, it is
noteworthy that religion and language have been more significant factors than identity
differentiation. As Williams underlines, religion is “the primary evolutionary universal”
within “the human capacity to create and transmit culture”. However, to “operate
effectively”, religion “must be implemented in action systems and must therefore
involve communication via the secondary primary evolutionary universal, language”
(Williams 1992: 53). “Religion and language are to be considered as anthropological
constants in the evolution of mankind” (Darquennes/Wim Vandenbussche, 2011: 5).

IV.1. Linguistic traits

In Europe, language has been considered the most common, definitive basis of
national identity (Hannum, 1996: 458). Whereas in the early Modern Era the main factor
of community identity was religion, in the nineteenth century, language began to emerge
as a determining factor of membership (Petschen, 1990: 41). Language, according to
Obieta, is the main creation of a group as part of the culture; it is the record and
synthesis of the main historical experiences that reflect the lifestyle of a community that
takes shape over time (Obieta, 1985: 39). For most people and human groups, language
is a key element of one’s identity (Patten, 2003: 313; O’Reilly, 2003: 20; Blake, 2003:
213). Its loss, atrophy, unequal status or decline are a source of personal and collective
trauma and may cause, directly or indirectly, social conflicts (Kontra, 1999: 281).

Today there are about 200 sovereign states on the planet and the number of modern
languages is considered to be around 6000 (Breton, 2003: 15). This imbalance gives an
initial idea of the difficulty involved in the public organisation of the use of languages. The

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
16
political community cannot avoid defining itself linguistically, since language is a key
element for the purpose of carrying out the duties of any State (Rubio-Marin, 2003: 55;
Patten, 2003: 296), but the idea of monolingual nation-States is a threat to the current
linguistic plurality (Kymlicka and Patten, 2003: 10).

Language is a complex reality that encompasses not only a set of communicative

variables but also symbolic, political and identity variables. Language, as any other
cultural trait, has aspects or manifestations that are difficult to define objectively and
compare. Even a seemingly basic fact, such as that of setting out everyone’s language, can
be very complex, considering the combination of personal, social and psychological
factors that operate on it. Therefore, we tend to identify an individual’s language with that
of their parents (together or separately), but this language (or languages) may in turn differ
from the language spoken in their families; the language they know best; the language they
use the most in their daily lives; the language they feel most identified with; or the
language with which others identify them (Kontra, 1999: 285). The choice of one or
another of these possibilities is indeed a question of identity, whereby an individual may
become a member of a majority or a minority. It may also occur that a specific language
does no longer play a communicative role and yet it maintains its cohesive nature as a key
element of a group’s identity. That is, some sectors of the population may consider
themselves strongly attached to a language that is only spoken by other group members.
This is the case with many linguistic minorities, both traditional and immigrant groups,
for whom the memory of their tongue remains a factor of cohesion and identity through
other artistic, symbolic, festive functions, etc.

Likewise, linguistic factors have complex internal dynamics that also affect
collective identity ties and the sense of belonging. In many cases, the very existence of the
group is defended by the existence of a distinct language. In this regard, the distinction
between languages and dialects comes into play, not responding so much to purely
scientific facts as to political and symbolic options (May, 2003: 128; Nic Craith, 2003: 61).
After all, many of the languages we identify in Europe today are but the standardisation of
former dialects which benefited from the institutionalisation of a specific form of state
policy (Letzburger, Norwegian, Macedonian…) and vice versa, a significant number of
languages are not recognised as such for failure to have their own political entities
(Asturian, Ruthenian, Scots…)28.

The same identity dynamics sometimes occurs regarding the use of language
names. Language names are often particularly sensitive in cases where linguistic unity or
plurality is under discussion or, in other words, there is reluctance to admit the existence of
certain minorities. The controversy over language names usually occurs in parallel to
that already mentioned between languages and dialects, or to reduce the cultural nature
of some specific political projects. In Europe there are particularly striking cases, such
as the separation of Serbo-Croatian language into three languages, the alternative use of

28
Perhaps the best way to express the difference between language and dialect from a political point of
view is the phrase coined by Marshal Hubert Lyautey (1854-1934): "A language is a dialect with an army
and a navy ".

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
17
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

Valencian versus Catalan, Moldavian versus Romanian, Ruthenian versus Ukrainian, or

Yezidi versus Kurdish.

Finally, another important element that affects the relationship between language
and identity is the spelling or alphabet used for writing. In addition to being written
means of expression for languages, alphabets have historically played a key role in the
field of religion. It can therefore be considered that the great liturgical languages in
Europe have been Latin for Catholic Christianity, Greek and Slavonic for the Orthodox
Christianity, Arabic for Islam, Hebrew for Judaism and Armenian for Armenian
Christianity, the main alphabets in force today corresponding to each of them. This
identification of alphabets with language and religion has made the former become a
factor of identity and a differentiation factor between groups. Thus, there are groups that
despite having the same language, use different alphabets for religious reasons (Serbians
and Croatians; Ruthenians and Ukrainians; Finnish and Karelians), or with political
decisions related to the use of alphabets as part of identity policies 29.

IV.2. Religious traits

Religions have been an important source of cultural diversity throughout history

(Lane and Ersson, 2002: 144). Social evolution has radically changed the public role of
religions in modern European societies, highly secularised today compared to previous
periods in history. However, this does not lessen the significance of the religious fact in
the definition of collective identities, since the dominant religion has strongly
determined cultural evolution in each context. It must be understood that, by including
religion as an objective element of identity in the case of minorities, we are in turn
referring to the religious affiliation or tradition. In this sense, this continues to have an
undeniable bearing even though specific religious practices may have fallen into
disuse. 30 Indeed, religious differences express a whole series of cultural symbols and
elements that possibly go far beyond the transcendental beliefs of their followers:
religious symbols, social events, educational curricula, management of public spaces,
notions of family life, scheduling of festivities, etc.

The instruments for the protection of human rights lack a definition of the term
“religion”. However, freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed as an individual
freedom, either alone or in community with others (for example, in Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or in Article 18 of the ICCPR). Religion has
historically been a major issue in international relations. Between the seventeenth and
nineteenth centuries a few agreements were signed in Europe, whose purpose was to
29
The decision adopted in 1938 by the Soviet Union on the use of the Cyrillic alphabet was imposed on
almost all languages of the Union; the Turkey of Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), who adopted the Latin
alphabet to replace the Arabic script in 1928; the Republic of Moldova after its independence, when the
Latin alphabet was adopted again; the decision adopted by the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of
Tatarstan not to use the Cyrillic alphabet.
30
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, refers particularly to
religion-identity-minorities on Part III of the 2012 annual Report on freedom of religion or belief,
submitted to the Human Rights Council (doc. (A/HRC/22/51, of 24 December 2012). Available at
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/A.HRC.22.51_English.pdf

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
18
legally guarantee the freedom of religion in some contexts (Ruiz Vieytez 1999: 16).
During the League of Nations period, several treaties forced several European States to
create mechanisms to protect religious minorities (Contreras, 2004: 59). The right to
freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief remained one of the fundamental
rights under the United Nations system and in 1981, the General Assembly adopted the
Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on
Religion or Belief 31.

It is also relevant to mention that religion is a complex phenomenon. In this

regard, religion is not only a specific organised belief system or a social experience of
transcendence but also a huge variety of rites, beliefs, organisations, cultural
expressions or traditions that are associated with a religious base 32. The European Court
of Human Rights recognizes that it is not possible to find a common and unique
conception of religion within European societies, and that the impact of external
manifestations of religious beliefs may vary significantly in different times and contexts33.
It is equally important to acknowledge the increasing diversity of religious communities
or groups, and the relationships that may be established among them, given the growing
complexity of identities because of syncretistic trends, the fusion of traditions or the
emergence of new spiritual movements. Finally, we must also consider the new
phenomena of “believing without belonging” and “belonging without believing”
pointed out by Davie (Davie, 2000) and Hervieu-Léger (Hervieu-Léger, 1993).

As is the case with languages, religions have identity problems in themselves, as

it is often difficult to determine whether a specific set of religious beliefs or practices
are a religion or they derive from a larger religious unit. By worship we understand the
set of acts and procedures to express and manifest religious beliefs in community 34. In
this regard, worship is an external manifestation, and as such, an experience with a
highly collective component and hence, an element of identity for many communities.
In the case of human groups sharing the same basic religion, cultural differences may be
the distinctive and differentiating factor in their context. Thus, the differences of
worship would complement the religious affiliations that have traditionally served to
distinguish minorities. In turn, these differences of worship may be due to the existence

31
United Nations, General Assembly, Resolution 36/55 “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief”, 25 November 1981.
32
The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has warned that today it is necessary to
progressively broaden the idea of religion to accommodate new phenomena and expressions that do not
match the great traditional religious facts. Human Rights Committee, The right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion (Article 18) (General Comment no. 22), adopted on 30 July 1993 (UN Doc
CCPR/C/21/rev.1/Add.4), paragraph 2.
33
European Court of Human Rights, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, judgment of 10 November 2005, paragraph
109; Refah Partisi v. Turkey, judgment of 13 February 2003.
34
The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations states that "the concept of worship extends to
ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such
acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, the display of
symbols and the observance of holidays and days of rest". Human Rights Committee, General Comment
22 of the Committee of Human Rights: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article
18), 30 July 30 1993: UN document CCPR/C/21/ rev.1/Add.4, paragraph 4.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
19
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

of a different church organisation affecting that minority in question, or the use of its
own religious ritual.

IV.3. Ethnic traits. The third (cultural) space

As seen above, international documents include references not only to religious

or linguistic minorities but also to ethnic and national groups. Considering that the
adjective national tries to make a distinction between new minorities and traditional
ones, it is yet to be determined what cultural traits can be included in the adjective
ethnic, which we have called the third cultural space. Following the wording of Article
27 of the ICCPR, the members of ethnic minorities have the right to “enjoy their own
culture”, beyond the religious or linguistic parameters that expressly referred to in this
article. It could be inferred from this that what characterises an ethnic group is a
distinctive culture that should consist of something other than linguistic and religious
traits.

What other cultural traits or factors can be considered in this third space? The
adjective ethnic refers to a concept that is difficult to define. The term ethnicity has been
traditionally understood as a group of human beings that have some somatic, linguistic
or cultural affinities, but the distinction between the concept of ethnicity and those of
cultural people or nation is not always clearly defined. There are no international legal
or political documents that offer a definition of ethnicity or expressions like "ethnic
groups", "ethnic minorities" or "ethnic communities". What is clear is that the term
ethnicity has been used since the end of World War II to replace that of race with
regards to minorities. Therefore, the references to “racial minorities” in international
documents prior to 1939 became references to “ethnic minorities” as of 1945. It also
appears that this replacement broadens its meaning with respect to visible minorities by
phenotypic aspects, but without clarifying the approximate scope of this extension.

However, there are still certain formal contexts where the term race is still valid.
The most relevant international legal instrument in this regard is the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Rational Discrimination 35. Both Article I of the Convention
and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in their general
recommendations 36 use the term race when applying criteria for the identification of
potentially discriminated human groups. The other terms used are skin colour, descent
or ethnic or national origin that differ from the majority. There may also be references
to racial groups or minorities in some national legislations like that of Britain. It is
undeniable that today there may still exist groups discriminated against on the grounds
of their physical characteristics, but this is not, strictly speaking, a question of managing
minorities in terms of multiculturality, but of recognising civil rights to all people
equally. In this sense, this may justify affirmative action policies to restore structural
inequalities. However, the cultural perspective would only be present insofar as the
physical elements or their history may have caused the emergence of other specific
35
Convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965.
36
See, for example, the General Recommendation No. 8, of 1990, and the General Recommendation No.
24, of 1998.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
20
cultural products of the group that do serve their own inner identity and against third
parties.

As discussed earlier, almost all cultural differences that are used to identify
minorities are currently linked in the European context to some kind of linguistic
(including variations related to language names or alphabets) or religious (including
liturgical or ecclesiastical variations) difference. In addition, culture manifests itself in
many forms, including peculiar lifestyles associated with the use of natural resources or
land use, especially in the case of indigenous peoples. This is recognised by the UN
Human Rights Committee, for whom the right to enjoy one's own culture may include
traditional activities like fishing, hunting and the right to live in reserves or
environments protected by the Law 37 for persons belonging to minorities. In the case of
the European Convention on Human Rights, which does not include any article on the
specific protection of minority rights, the European Court of Human Rights understood
that the “traditional lifestyle” of minorities can be comprehended in the content of the
right to private and family life recognised in Article 8 of the above Convention 38. This
recognition may be particularly relevant for minorities that lack a defined territorial base
such as the Roma population.

In most cases, included the so-called indigenous peoples, non-territorial minorities

or the some of the so-called new minorities, the recognition of traditional cultural
practices, lifestyles or peculiar modes of production is linked to religious traditions, or to
the existence of languages that are exclusive to these groups. However, this productive
(traditional economic activities) or celebrative (including external expressions such as
clothing, food-related rituals, festivals and social events, artistic expressions, etc.) aspects
can easily be associated with the third cultural space.

In addition, other aspects or factors that can help to strengthen the identity of a
specific minority group should not be left aside. These are usually aspects that make up
the symbolism or the collective thinking of the group. These factors are generally
derived from geographical or historical elements. The geographical circumstances where
a territorial minority lives are sometimes a factor that helps to create or strengthen
collective identities (Hooson, 1994). The geographical features that may be relevant in

37
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23 on Article 27, of 6 April 6 1994, UN
document CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, paragraph 7. "With regard to the exercise of the cultural rights
protected under article 27, the Committee observes that culture manifests itself in many forms, including
a particular way of life associated with the use of land resources, especially in the case of indigenous
peoples. That right may include such traditional activities as fishing or hunting and the right to live in
reserves protected by law (...) "This argument also appears in many cases elucidated by the same
Committee under the optional protocol: Kitok v. Sweden (Communication No. 197/1985), Views adopted
27 July 1988, CCPR/C/33/D/197/1985, paragraph 9.2 ; Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (Communication
167/1984) Views of 26 March 1990, CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984, section 32.2; Diergaardt and others v.
Namibia (Communication No. 760/1997), Views of 25 July 2000, CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997, section 10.6;
Apirana Mahuika and others v. New Zealand (communication No. 547/1993), Views of 27 October 2000,
CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993, section 9.3; Lansman and Muotkatunturi Herdsmen’s Committee v.Finland
(Communication No. 1023/2001), Views of 17 March 2005, CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001, paragraph 10.1.
38
Vid. Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
21
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

this regard are varied (orography, hydrography, natural features, climate, ecosystems,
political and administrative divisions) and they usually play an important symbolic role.
For immigrant communities, the very geographical distance from their place or origin is
a factor of cohesion and belonging to the minority group.

Furthermore, the historical belonging of a territory or population to a political

entity other than the current one is a memory that can serve as a cohesive element for the
respective community. In this regard, it is a historical element linked to a political
geography factor. Since political spaces and borders are key elements to creating or
strengthening collective identities, past political boundaries may have contributed to the
emergence or development of identities that are now in a minority situation. In any case, it
can be seen here that the historical element always accompanies other objective
differentiation factors.

IV.4. Dynamic cultural traits: evolution and interaction

In the analysis of each of the cultural traits that define minorities, we have noted
that these traits are not static. It is difficult to define the third space that we included
under the ethnicity or culture category, as it is challenging to determine languages and
religions, dialects, alphabets, specific worships, church organisations, syncretic beliefs,
etc. And all this considering that these factors are in constant evolution and
transformation. Talking about identities that are defined by culture and its importance in
managing integration policies does not mean reifying cultures or considering them
unmovable realities.

Similarly, it should be borne in mind that individuals may belong to more than
one cultural group at a time (Polavieja, 2015: 170), and that it is necessary to relate the
micro and macro levels of culture dimensions to understand these phenomena. Identities
in general, particularly those culturally-based, exist and evolve by comparison
(Polavieja, 2015: 172; Ruiz Vieytez, 2014c: 22). This requires highlighting the dynamic
nature of these elements and the differences in their practical operation. All this makes
it more difficult to manage them but does not lessen its importance.

On the one hand, we are presented with a changing evolutionary dynamic.

History teaches us that diversity is not a new feature, not even in Europe. European
societies have always been plural from a linguistic, religious or ethnic perspective, but
the strength of these factors has been uneven across different periods of our recent
history. In the Early Modern Age, religion was by far the main factor of European
identity but, over time, the collective identities especially supported by languages
increasingly shifted the importance of religious differences in public debate. With the
secularisation process, it appeared that faith-based identities lost their political relevance
in Europe for good. However, recent population movements and other social changes
have caused religion to acquire high public visibility again.

On the other hand, these major cultural factors also have large differences in
their social and political operationalization. Moreover, they show significant differences

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
22
in the way they are displayed in the public sphere and hence, in terms of their
relationship with integration policies. These differences may result from
anthropological, sociological or legal reasons. Simplifying the scheme, below is a list of
some among the two most clear identity factors:

1. In our political context, one of the requirements of a modern democratic

State is neutrality in matters of religion. Indeed, this contrasts with the impossible
linguistic neutrality of today’s public apparatus, which officially chooses one or several
specific languages.
2. In our cultural context, religion is a contingent element in people’s lives,
even if it is extended to any kind of spiritual experience and it is not a relevant element
in their way of being for all people. On the contrary, today language is necessary for
anyone, whether one or another.
3. One same person can speak several languages and even feel emotionally
close to more than one language. On the contrary, we usually understand that one
person has a specific religious affiliation, regardless of whether this responds to a more
classic version of a tradition, or a syncretic amalgam of beliefs or practices of various
traditions.
4. According to some interpretations, language is by definition an
instrument of socialisation that can only be shared interpersonally, while religion is
more related to the private or intimate sphere of the human being. This difference,
however, is severely questioned by others, who understand religion as an essentially
collective phenomenon.
5. Apparently, languages have a more compact territorial base, or at least an
original reference territory, a linguistic domain, whereas in the case of religions it is
blurred. This does not mean that religions cannot be mapped, but the legitimacy of the
religious claim is not so linked to the territory as the linguistic claim (apart from very
specific areas or places that hold a sacred value such as shrines, monasteries, mountains,
rivers or other objects).
6. In today’s politically dominant discourse, there is a tendency to highlight
the wealth of linguistic diversity as a (European) common cultural heritage. However,
this positive assessment of all languages gives way to much more reserved positions in
the field of religion. It is difficult to find general positive assessments for all religions
and, in some cases, even for only one of them. Something similar can be said regarding
the consideration of the intrinsic equality of all languages or all religions.
7. In many Western societies, linguistic diversity evokes a traditional
diversity (linguistic minorities, regional languages…), while religious diversity mainly
evokes immigration and new minorities.
8. Under International Law (and Comparative Constitutional Law), freedom
of religion is clearly designed as a universally recognised human right, as well as a right
of the members of religious minorities. However, regarding language, there is not a
comparable right to language, beyond the rights (very generic in nature) of linguistic
minorities. There is no freedom of language (“right to a language” instead of “right to
the language”) in the same way as there is as freedom of religion, which alters the
position of both elements in the political and regulatory game.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
23
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

These operational differences between the religious fact and the linguistic fact
explain that, despite both being strong socialisation and differentiation factors, their
legal and political treatment cannot be equal. However, this should not make us forget
that the foundation of their protection is that they both affect the interpretation of a
significant number of fundamental rights that form the backbone of collective identities.

All in all, the cultural traits that define minorities also evolve and interact with
one another. Both linguistic and religious factors can help consolidate the elements of
the so-called third space and vice versa. We mentioned this fact when we referred to
visibility (through phenotypic traits or clothing), historical, geographical or even legal
(such as the failure to hold the nationality of the State of residence) elements. These
factors themselves, which may not help to define a collective identity, become relevant
in conjunction with linguistic traits (even the memory of extinct languages) or religious
tradition (even through phenomena such as belonging without believing). Therefore, its
definition will always be considered relative and contingent.

V. CONCLUSION

The aim of this first paper has been to better identify the main cultural traits that
define minorities and affect their dynamics of integration. The identity and cultural
integration dimension deals with the linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity of
European societies, considering it as a crucial factor for integration processes. An
analysis of political and legal documents has led us to conclude that the most significant
cultural traits can be grouped into three major groups. On the one hand, those aspects
related to or derived from religion or religious tradition. Secondly, there appear
linguistically-based products or elements. Then, there is a less defined third space that
comprises other cultural expressions not strictly related to language or religion, but that
serves to shape or strengthen collective identities. Within this third space, the migrant
status (which can in turn be considered from the geographical or legal perspective) may
be a cultural factor itself that usually accompanies and reinforces the above. Finally, we
have argued that the relationship of all these factors is dynamic and complex and,
therefore, it cannot be defined in a static or closed way.

In any case, understanding integration and human rights protection is related to

different cultural views. In turn, some elements that shape cultural identities (religions,
languages, lifestyles...) may become part of the exercise of these same rights. Cultural
diversity is therefore extremely important when addressing or designing integration
policies or strategies based on the extension of human rights to all people. All this
confirms the importance of properly assessing cultural events in public policies, by
easing traditional parameters to enable the incorporation of an increasing number of
identities. The subsequent papers examine the different scenarios regarding the
integration of traditional and new minorities, by addressing the cultural factors that
shape their distinct identities.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
24
REFERENCES

AURESCU, B. (2007). “The 2006 Venice commission Report on Non-citizens and

Minority Rights–Presentation and Assessment”. Helsinki Monitor: Security and
Human Rights, no. 2, pp. 150-163.
https://doi.org/10.1163/157181407781486831
BLAKE, M. (2003). “Language Death and Liberal Politics”, in KYMLICKA, W. and
PATTEN, A. (eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 210-229.
BRETON, R. (2003). Atlas des langues du monde. Une pluralité fragile. Paris:
Autrement.
CONTRERAS MAZARIO, J.M. (2004). Las Naciones Unidas y la protección de las
minorías religiosas. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2008). White paper on Intercultural Dialogue. Living
Together as Equals in Dignity, document launched by the Council of Europe
Ministers of Foreign Affairs at their 118th Ministerial Session, Strasbourg.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY (2003), Recommendation
1625 (2003) Policies for the integration of immigrants in Council of Europe
member states, Strasbourg.
DARQUENNES, J. and VANDENBUSSCHE, W. (2011). “Language and religion as a
sociolinguistic field of study: some introductory notes”. Sociolinguistica
Internationales Jahrbuch für Europäische Soziolinguistik / International
Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics / Annuaire International de la
Sociolinguistique Européenne, no. 25, pp. 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110236262.1
DAVIE, G. (2000). Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory mutates. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
DE LUCAS, J. (2010). “Algunos riesgos de las propuestas de ciudadanización de los
inmigrantes”, in SOLANES CORELLA, A. (ed.). Derechos humanos,
migraciones y diversidad. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia-Tirant lo Blanch,
pp. 11-28.
DE TOCQUEVILLE, A. (1863). Democracy in America. Vol I, 3rd ed., Cambridge:
Server and Francis.
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (2011). Respect for
and protection of persons belonging to minorities 2008-2010, Luxembourg.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
25
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

GONZALEZ HIDALGO, E. and RUIZ-VIEYTEZ, E. (2012). “La definición implícita

del concepto de minoría nacional en el Derecho Internacional”. Derechos y
Libertades, no. 27, pp. 17-56.
HANNUM, H. (1996). Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-determination: the
Accommodation of Conflicting Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24918-3_2
HERVIEU-LÉGER, D. (1993). La religion pour mémoire. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
D. HOOSON (ed.)(1994). Geography and National Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
HOFMANN, R. (2005). “The FCNM: an Introduction”, in WELLER, M. (ed.). The
Rights of Minorities: A Commentary on the European Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
1-24.
KONTRA, M. (1999). “Some Reflections on the Nature of Language and its
Regulation”, in J. PACKER (ed.). Special Issue on the Linguistic Rights of
National Minorities, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol.
6, no. 3, pp. 281-288 https://doi.org/10.1163/15718119920907730
KOUBI, G. (1995). “Penser les minorités en Droit“, in FENET, A., Le Droit et les
minorités. Analyses et textes. Brussels: Bruylant, pp. 251-297.
KYMLICKA, W. and PATTEN, A. (eds.)(2003). Language Rights and Political Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
JLANE, J.E. and ERSSON, S. (2002). Culture and Politics. A comparative approach.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
MAGOSCI, P.R. (1995). Historical Atlas of East Central Europe (A History of East
Ccentral Europe, volume I). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
MAY, S. (2003). “Misconceiving Minority Language Rights: Implications for Liberal
Political Theory”, in W. KYMLICKA and A. PATTEN (eds.). Language Rights
and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-152.
MEDDA-WINDISCHER, R. (2015). “Integration and New and Old Minorities in
Europe: Different or Similar Policies and Indicators?, Integrim online paper,
2/2015, available at http://www.integrim.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/MEDDA-integration-of-new-and-old-minirities.pdf
NIC CRAITH, M. (2003). “Facilitating or Generating Linguistic Diversity: The European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages”, in HOGAN-BRUN, G. and
WOLFF, S. (eds.), Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks – Status –
Prospects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59-72.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502994_4

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
26
OBIETA CHALBAUD, J.A. (1985). El Derecho humano de la autodeterminación de
los Pueblos. Madrid: Tecnos.
OSCE HIGH COMMISSIONER ON NATIONAL MINORITIES (2012). The
Ljiubljiana Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies. The Hague.
PATTEN, A. (2003). “What Kind of Bilingualism?”, in W. KYMLICKA and A.
PATTEN (eds.). Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 296-321.
PALERMO F. and WOELK, J. (2008). Diritto costituzionale comparato dei gruppi e
delle minoranze. Padova: Cedam.
PENTASSUGLIA, G. (2002). Minorities in International Law. Flensburg/Strasburg:
Council of Europe/European Centre for Minority Issues.
PETSCHEN VERDAGUER, S. (1990). Las minorías lingüísticas de Europa
occidental: documentos (1492-1989). Vitoria-Gasteiz: Basque Parliament.
POLAVIEJA, J.G. (2015). “Capturing Culture: A New Method to Estimate Exogenous
Cultural Effects Using Migrant Populations”. American Sociological Review,
vol. 80(1), pp. 166-191 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414562600
PRIETO DE PEDRO, J. (2006). Cultura, culturas, constitución. Madrid: Centro de
Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
O’REILLY, C. (2003). “When a Language is Just Symbolic: Reconsidering the
Significance of Language to the Politics of Identity”, in HOGAN-BRUN, G. and
WOLFF, S. (eds.), Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 16-31.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502994_2
RUBIO-MARIN, R. (2003). “Language Rights: Exploring the Competing Rationales”,
in KYMLICKA, W. and PATTEN, A. (eds.), Language Rights and Political
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 52-73.
RUIZ VIEYTEZ, E. (2014a). “Cultural Diversities and Human Rights: History,
Minorities, Pluralization “, The Age of Human Rights Journal, no. 3, pp. 1-31.
RUIZ VIEYTEZ, E. (2014b), “Definitional trends in the legal management of National
and Religious Minorities (Diversity)”, in HANDZLIK, I. and SOROKOWSKI,
L. (eds.). Found in Multiculturalism. Acceptance or Challenge?. Frankfurt am
Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, pp. 195-
214.
RUIZ VIEYTEZ, E. (2014c). United in Diversity? On Cultural Diversity, Democracy
and Human Rights. Brussels: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-
6389-3

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
27
 EDUARDO J. RUIZ VIEYTEZ

RUIZ-VIEYTEZ, E. (1999). The History of Legal Protection of Minorities in Europe

(XVIIth - XXth Centuries). Derby: University of Derby.
SMIHULA, D. (2009). “Definition of national minorities in international law”, Journal
of US-China Public Administration, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 45-51.
VERSTICHEL, A. (2008). “Personal scope of Application: an Open, Inclusive and
Dynamic Approach–The FCNM as a Living Instrument”, in VERSTICHEL, A.,
ALEN, A., DE WITTE. B and LEMMENS, P. (eds.). The Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, A Useful Pan-European
Instrument?, Mostsel: Intersentia, pp. 127-157.
WILLIAMS, G. (1992). Sociolinguistics. A Sociological Critique. London: Routledge.

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 7 (December 2016) pp. 6-28 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.n7.2
28