Stefan Wolff

THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF REGIONAL CONSOCIATIONS IN BRUSSELS, NORTHERN IRELAND, AND SOUTH TYROL

After some initial observations on the origins of regional consociations and a brief background to the conflicts in Brussels, Northern Ireland and South Tyrol, this article compares and contrasts the institutions of three regional consociations with respect to the types of institutional structures; the ways in which horizontal and vertical forms of power-sharing are combined, the distribution of powers among, and the coordination of policies between different vertical and horizontal layers of authority, and the mechanisms to guarantee the preservation of the agreed structures. On this basis, it establishes the common features of regional consociations and how far these are different from sovereign consociations. The article concludes with pointing out the potential and limitations of regional consociationalism as an approach to resolving ethnic conflicts.

Germany as a Kin-State: The Development and Implementation of a Norm-Consistent External Minority Policy towards Central and Eastern Europe

Germany’s role as a kin-state of ethnic German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe stems from a number of factors. At one level it is part and parcel of a unique historical legacy. It is also inextricably linked with the country’s foreign policy towards this region. The most profound policy that the Federal Republic of Germany developed in this context after the early 1960s was Ostpolitik, which contributed significantly to the peaceful end of the Cold War, but has remained relevant thereafter despite a fundamentally changed geopolitical context, as Germany remains a kin-state for hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans across Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in the former Soviet Union, in Poland, Romania, and Hungary. As such, a policy towards these external minorities continues to form a significant, but by no means the only, manifestation of Ostpolitik. Our aim in this paper is to show the basic continuity of German Ostpolitik since the late 1960s and to explain it in terms of the development of, and adherence to, a set of norms to which the overwhelming majority of the German political class and public subscribes. This is not to say that Ostpolitik has not been affected by changes in the wider political environment that have occurred since the late 1960s. Rather, our point is that German Ostpolitik priorities—peace, reconciliation, and “change through rapprochement”—have remained largely constant, while the opportunities for success have at times gradually and at other times rapidly increased. This broader analysis forms the context within which we will use the case study of Germany’s external minority policy as an example to illustrate this policy continuity in practice. We develop our argument in several steps. Initially we present the framework for our analysis that is informed by a constructivist approach to international relations and foreign policy. Following a broad contextualization of Ostpolitik since the 1960s, we examine in greater detail how one of its key components—external

Ethnic Germans as a Language Minority in Central and Eastern Europe: Legislative and Policy Frameworks in Poland, Hungary and Romania

In many cases, language is a vital component of individual and group identity and figures prominently among the aspects by which ethnic minorities distinguish themselves from majority populations in their host-countries. Thus, the very survival of a minority population as a distinct ethnocultural group often depends upon provision for the continued preservation of its mother tongue as a living language. This can normally only be achieved if this language is used in public as well as the private sphere and is taught as a first language at schools, which, in turn, is only possible if political and legal conditions are in place that allow minorities to ‘live’ in their language. Such conditions include, above all, a commitment by the relevant state not to discriminate against people who speak a language other than the language of the titular nation. However, general non-discrimination legislation and its enforcement are often not enough to enable a minority to preserve its language. The Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities emphasise that the legislative framework also needs to provide for complete equality in the use of individual and place names, must allow language use in the practice and profession of religion and religious ceremonies, that it should extend permissively into community life, the media, and public administration and that adequate funding should be provided for the implementation of such laws.

Between stability and collapse: Internal and external dynamics of post‐agreement institution‐building in Northern Ireland1

Introduction On 14 October 2002, the then British secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Dr. John Reid, announced the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland as of midnight the same day by an order made under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. Unlike the previous two suspensions, on 11 August 2001 and 21 September 2001 which were only ‘technical’ 24-hour suspensions to allow the political parties in Northern Ireland to resolve a deadlock over the decommissioning of weapons in possession of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Sinn Fein’s membership in the Executive this latest suspension, similar to the very first one on 11 February 2000, had no time limit attached to it.

Ethnic Germans in Poland and the Czech Republic: a comparative evaluation*

This paper seeks to analyze the nature of the German minorities in the Czech Republic and Poland. In order to achieve this goal, the relationship between Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic and Poland with the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany/FRG), forms an essential intellectual backdrop to our main theme. Reference to the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic/GDR) will be made as and where appropriate. As we shall see, tensions simmered between the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany/SED), and the Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza Zjednoczona (Polish United Workers’ Party /PZPR), and in reality relations between the two sides were poor (Czaplinski: 2004). Reference will be made to wartime German occupation policy in both Poland and the Czech lands. Due attention will also be paid to the consequent expulsion of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. However, due to limitations of space these themes, that have been exhaustively dealt with elsewhere, do not form part of our main focus of study.

Introduction: Elections in divided societies

Divided societies around the world require specific institutional arrangements, including electoral rules, to accommodate diversity of interest in ways that can deal with social divisions in a non-violent manner. What might sound like a truism is still frequently challenged in discussions on institutional design for divided societies. While scepticism in academia and among policy makers often focuses on whether democracy is at all possible in divided societies, a large number of countries have been forced to meet this particular challenge in recent decades. In some cases, such as Belgium, long-established democracies have experienced increasing division along linguistic (or ethnic) lines. In others, such as Macedonia, the transition to democracy has occurred under conditions of deep ethnic division and a long-standing antagonism between different communities with very distinct visions of the future of the state in which they live. A third category of cases is constituted by countries in which hegemonic parties in the past have dominated and at times constrained democratic competition, such as in Singapore or in Rwanda, but have subsequently moved towards more competitive elections. The marked divisions along ethnic, religious or racial lines not only inform today’s voters’ choices at the ballot box but they also frequently precede the specific electoral rule and political system in place today. The conceptual discussions and case studies that follow this introduction focus on the evolution of electoral systems in seven countries around the world, from Belgium to Trinidad and Tobago. In some cases, such as Rwanda, experiments with multiparty elections in the post-genocide context of the country are recent, whereas in other cases, such as Guyana, elections discussed here date back several decades. The cases demonstrate that the ethnopolitical dynamics of elections are best understood in the context of the evolution of electoral systems, and not just by a snapshot analysis of their technical design. Understandably, much discussion on electoral systems in recent years has focused on the institutional design component: academic and policy-oriented research has made significant contributions to devising new electoral systems to ‘manage’ democracy and diversity in post-conflict divided societies, ranging from Ethnopolitics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 359–363, November 2005

The peace process in Northern Ireland since 1998: Success or failure of post‐agreement reconstruction?

Key to the long‐term stability of peace settlements is the ability of political leaders to change the social organisation and execution of power from force/violence‐centred structures to those of consensual politics. This is a complex and long process that requires institutional reform, economic reconstruction, and the rebuilding of (civil) society. Using Northern Ireland as an example, this article argues that only a comprehensive strategy focusing on all three dimensions can ultimately succeed in providing conditions that are conducive to sustainable peace in formerly conflict torn societies.

‘Bilateral’ ethnopolitics after the Cold War: The Hungarian minority in Slovakia, 1989–1999

Abstract Using the relationship between Hungary and Slovakia as a case study, this article discusses the problems associated with ‘bilateral’ ethnopolitics in the context of cross‐border minority situations. It starts by outlining a theoretical framework for such an analysis, and then turns to the institutional structure of legislation and policy related to minorities in Slovakia. This is followed by an analysis of the role that minority issues have played in the bilateral relations between Hungary and Slovakia. The article concludes with some more general observations on the factors that influence cross‐border minority situations similar to that of Hungary and Slovakia.

Lessons from the Balkans: The ENP as a Possible Conflict Management Tool?

The 2004 and 2007 enlargements moved the European Union (EU) closer — geographically, politically and security-wise — to a number of frozen and violent ethnic conflicts in its so-called ‘new neighbourhood’. These conflicts include ongoing disputes in Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Algeria, Moldova (Transnistria), Armenia/Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh), Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), Morocco/Western Sahara, Egypt, Ukraine, Jordan and Syria. EU foreign policymakers have in recent developments of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP)1 stressed the importance of managing these conflicts. With the 2003 European Security Strategy and the launch of the 2004 European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) the Union explicitly articulated its intention to take a more active stance in the management of violent ethnic conflicts in the ENP area (and beyond).

The EU and the Management of Ethnic Conflict

The European Union as a collective of its member states has been concerned with ethnopolitical conflicts since its very beginning. This concern can be looked at and analysed from different perspectives. On the one hand, the EU (and its predecessor organizations) has always prided itself on being, among other things, a community of values in which democracy, human rights and the rule of law take on concrete meaning for the benefit of all its citizens, regardless of ethnic, linguistic or religious background. This normative perspective has informed the EU’s non-discrimination directives and policies, and has thus been one instrument in the management of minority—majority relations within EU member states.