The issues of accommodation of differences, incorporation of individuals belonging to various groups in(to) a society as well as the policy options available to states in the era of increasing ethnic and cultural diversity of societies have been discussed prominently in the areas of sociology, political theory and philosophy.77 These ques-tions have also found their way into the sphere of international law, particularly the area of human rights. International human rights norms contain some express references to the concept of integration as well as to a number of its
neighbour-71. See e.g. Shibutani and Kwan (2005), p. 78. The authors also see cultural pluralism as a concept characteristically used in Europe with respect to ethnic minorities and as one fa-vouring the separate development of ethnic groups. Ibid., pp. 63, 67 and 78. See also Gans (2005), p. 138.
72. Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations, p. 173.
73. This may be concluded from a number of articles in Incorporating Diversity. Rethinking As-similation in a Multicultural Age, Peter Kivisto (ed.), 2005. See e.g. the article by Milton M.
Gordon. Kivisto has also pointed out that many elements identified by multiculturalists such as Will Kymlicka, Bhikhu Parekh and Charles Taylor (who tend either to avoid the word “assimilation” or to be critical of it) do not necessarily differ from those relying on assimilation theories. According to Kivisto, such terms as “incorporation”, “integration”, or “inclusion” are often synonymous with “assimilation”. Kivisto (2005b), p. 21. He also asserts that the republican model advanced in France is different from the assimilationist policies supported in the US, noting that France has defined assimilation as entailing the elimination of ethnicity in the process of becoming French. However, there are signs that multiculturalism is making inroads in France. Kivisto (2005c), p. 315.
74. Kivisto (2005a), p. vii.
75. These new definitions are introduced in a number of articles in Incorporating Diversity. Re-thinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age, Peter Kivisto (ed.), 2005. See e.g. the article by Ewa Morawska. Kivisto suggests that assimilation and incorporation may be used inter-changeably. Kivisto (2005c), p. 311.
76. Kivisto (2005a), p. vii.
77. See the remarks on the views of the authors representing various disciplines, presented both in this introductory chapter and infra in chapter 5.
ing concepts, such as assimilation, inclusion, and marginalisation. Additionally, the norms explicitly address such issues as identity, diversity, pluralism and social cohe-sion. Furthermore, human rights norms pertain to the issue of incorporation in a more general manner, as the application of these norms is relevant to belonging and inclusion even where this objective has not been expressly put forward.
The core of human rights relates to the recognition of the equal value and inher-ent dignity of all human beings regardless of their personal characteristics, politi-cal opinions, religious attachments, etc. States have adopted a considerable number of international instruments addressing human rights; the body of rights contains norms of general application but the norms also pertain to various groups and issues.
The international community has come up with international human rights instru-ments that pay particular attention to certain groups and issues, often in recognition of the fact that there are certain groups of individuals that face greater difficulties than others as regards their possibility to enjoy human rights and that there are cer-tain particularly great challenges and persistent problems to be overcome in the area of human rights. Consequently, specific human rights instruments and norms have been drafted to consider such groups as minorities, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, refugees, women, children, persons with disabilities, and even the elder-ly. The issues addressed include combating racial discrimination, racism and other forms of intolerance,78 statelessness, nationality/citizenship,79 and fighting against trafficking in human beings. The principles of equality and non-discrimination run like a red thread through all human rights, underscoring the non-discriminatory application of human rights.
International human rights norms of general application, as well as norms per-taining to specific groups and issues, are all part of the same “package” of human
78. The expression “racism” is often accompanied by a variety of other terms; one may come across such ‘lists’ as “racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and related intolerance”, “racism and related intolerance”, “racism and intolerance” and “racism and comparable forms of intol-erance”. Nowadays Islamophobia is also often explicitly mentioned. In addition, the term
“discrimination” appears on various “lists”. For example, the UN world conference of par-ticular relevance for the topic, organised in 2001 in Durban, was entitled the World Con-ference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. In the framework of the OSCE, the term “racism” is often presented together with such concepts as “aggressive nationalism” and “chauvinism”. See also the pertinent texts cited infra in this research.
In this research, the expression “racism and other forms of intolerance” is used as a general umbrella expression covering various phenomena such as xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia. The international human rights norms addressing these questions are termed
“anti-racism norms”, and action in the area generally “anti-racist action”. Whereas these very general expressions are adopted for practical reasons, it is nevertheless important to keep in mind that various phenomena have their own characteristics from the point of view of both theory and practice.
79. For the terms “nationality” and “citizenship”, see the remarks infra in chapter 2.2.2.
rights and merely represent its various facets or dimensions. In this situation it is crucial not to lose sight of the interlinkages and interplay of the various instru-ments and norms. For instance, in the area of combating racism and other forms of intolerance there are a number of other relevant instruments in addition to those that have been specifically drafted to address the focal issues.80 For the protection of minorities, in addition to minority-specific norms, both human rights of general application and the norms enacted to combat racism and other forms of intolerance are of fundamental importance. Despite these links between the protection of mi-norities (including minority rights) and the fight against racism and other forms of intolerance, these questions have often been kept apart in the texts of international documents, with the result that they have been considered in separate international documents or in different sections within the same document.81 This state of af-fairs has, however, changed somewhat in recent years, as will be illustrated in this research. It is also significant, particularly for the research at hand, that the issue of integration has been expressly addressed in both areas, i.e. minority protection and anti-racist action.
The focus and content of the research: The research at hand focuses on international hu-man rights norms, and in particular their role in the incorporation82 of individuals (and groups) in(to) society. One of the main aims of the research is to survey the use of the frequent term “integration” in the area of human rights in order to ascertain in what kinds of contexts the concept is explicitly mentioned and what kinds of other concepts are linked to it. The aim is to clarify the concept of integration by investigating whether it has been given any definitions in the framework of human rights and what kinds of elements are linked to it. One of the core questions is how the concept of integration relates to human rights norms, whose general thrust is the values of inclusion and inclusiveness.
As discussed above, the concept of integration seems to be frequently used with respect to the groups whose defining characteristics are linked particularly to eth-nicity, and integration is viewed as applying especially to groups of immigrant back-ground. While the integration in(to) society of persons belonging to these groups is among the most acute challenges for governments in Europe, the present research
80. See e.g. the lists of international instruments considered relevant in this area and set out in the Durban Document and by the European Conference against Racism and ECRI, pre-sented infra in chapters 2.2.1.1.3, 2.2.1.3.2 and 4.2.1.
81. For example, the Vienna Document of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights con-tains separate sections on these questions. See also the remarks on the relative absence of references to racism and other forms of intolerance in international instruments on minori-ties and indigenous peoples infra in chapter 2.1.4.1.
82. In this research, the term “incorporation” is used as a general term for a variety of terms, including “inclusion” and “integration”.
does not confine itself to discussing these situations, but takes a broader view of the issue of integration. This approach is taken, because the human rights norms address the concept of integration with respect to various groups, including more traditional minorities and indigenous peoples as well as women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly. Thus, the research analyses international human rights norms comprehensively; that is, it examines the relevant norms across the board, both those pertaining to various groups and those addressing various issues.
To inform the overall analysis, the work also discusses the principles of equality and non-discrimination underpinning the entire international human rights regime.
In general, the research concerns both the role and limits of the human rights re-gime in fostering incorporation in(to) and creating an integrated society. One recur-rent theme is the attitude towards differences, i.e. how differences – and what kinds of differences – are allowed, recognised or discouraged in various spheres of life.
This is also among the spearheads of the analysis of the international human rights norms in this research; i.e. it examines the attitude towards allowing or recognising differences that is incorporated in the contemporary human rights norms.
Whilst the principal approach taken in the research is to describe and assess the international human rights norms, the specific focus of the work is Europe in that the analysis explores the human rights documents applicable to the European states.
Consequently, the approaches taken in the regional human rights systems outside of Europe are beyond the scope of the study. Furthermore, the research concen-trates on the norms adopted at the international level, and thus does not analyse and compare integration policies and approaches adopted at the national level in various European states. Defining the scope of the work in this manner aims at distilling the approaches to integration taken primarily at the international level and reflected in international documents adopted by states. While the human rights norms of relevance have been adopted within the United Nations (UN) and its specialised agencies, the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the research also analyses the approaches to integra-tion taken within the EU in order to provide as complete picture as possible of the relevant integration approaches at the international level in Europe.
The normative analysis is complemented by an examination of the approaches to integration by international expert bodies and actors. Since the question of integra-tion has been discussed most actively with respect to various minorities defined by ethnicity, culture, language or religion, the views of international bodies dealing with such groups are chosen for closer scrutiny; these are the Advisory Committee (AC) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the CoE, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM). All three
bod-ies83 have extensively considered incorporation into society and have also frequently employed the concept of integration. Since these bodies have tried to find ways to develop good means to integrate persons belonging to various minority groups in(to) society, their remarks on integration reveal a concrete set of elements considered important in the process of developing policies of integration at both the European and national levels.
Although some conclusions are drawn in the course of the research,84 the main analyses, syntheses and conclusions are presented in the concluding chapter. Ad-ditionally, even though the thrust of the research is a consideration of international human rights norms and their application by the three international bodies men-tioned, the work includes references to the views on integration put forth outside normative contexts. This is done to avoid “the prison-house of irrelevance” that law-yers are said to be often trapped in without a better grasp of social theory and polit-ical principles.85 Consequently, the research takes up insights, among other things, from sociology, political theory and philosophy in chapters 1 and 5, which contain the introductory and concluding remarks of the research.
Combining an analysis of the role of international human rights norms in inte-gration, the more practically oriented views on the requirements and needs in the area of integration raised by the three international bodies, and the insights into integration gained outside the human rights framework and in other disciplines enables one to draw conclusions on both the role and limits of the international human rights regime in creating an integrated society. This broader perspective en-ables a more critical analysis of the international human rights norms and provides information on various multifaceted elements that need to be in place for successful integration.
The research method applied is quite straightforward: it builds squarely on an analysis of international human rights norms, including the approaches to equality and non-discrimination they embody, and examines how those norms address the questions of integration, incorporation and recognising differences. These normative analyses are complemented by the views of scholars and the three international bod-ies mentioned.
83. Strictly speaking, the HCNM may not be called an expert body comparable to the AC and ECRI, which are both bodies consisting of a number of independent experts. The HCNM is an OSCE institution set up to prevent conflicts linked to situations involving national minorities. In practice, the HCNM is an individual with recognised diplomatic skills in the area of mediation between governments and (national) minorities. For more about these bodies, see infra, chapter 4. In this research the AC, ECRI and the HCNM are called “in-ternational bodies”.
84. See particularly chapters 2.1.4, 2.2.3, 3.4 and 4.4.3.
85. The “the prison-house of irrelevance” of lawyers has been discussed by Martti Koskenniemi.
Koskenniemi (2005a), p. 4.
The impetus for the research derives from a desire to investigate the extent to which the following tentative observations are true and to address the gaps identi-fied:
Although the incorporation of individuals belonging to various groups, particu-larly those of immigrant background, in(to) society is presently one of the most -important aspects linked to minorities, and although the integration issue is widely considered to be among the key topics in the area, it has not been considered sys-tematically and coherently either in international human rights norms or by interna-tional expert bodies and actors.
Although the concept of integration is widely used, its content is often left un-specified.
-Although there appear to exist concrete indications regarding the elements con-sidered necessary (or important) for successful integration in some situations, analy- -ses of the interplay of these elements, as well as a more general picture of integra-tion, are still lacking in the area of human rights.
Insufficient linkages between the minority and anti-racism discourses make it dif-ficult to grasp the multifaceted dimensions of integration. Although links between -minority rights and anti-racist action have been established in some international documents and in the work of many international expert bodies and actors, there is still a need to elaborate various (also practical) dimensions of these links and their implications. Additionally, certain tensions between the minority and anti-racism discourses – arising, for instance, from the different emphases they place on the sig-nificance of differences – complicate the consideration of the issue of integration.
The present analyses of various dimensions of incorporation (integration), includ-ing those relatinclud-ing to gender and age, are highly insufficient.