On Incorporation: From Forced Assimilation to Integration or Inclusionto Integration or Inclusion

The issue of incorporation in(to) or within a society or community in terms of ex-pressly emphasising integration is not often addressed in the international human rights norms dealing with various groups. In the area of minority norms, the CoE Framework Convention is in fact the only international minority-related document explicitly referring to the issue of integration in its text. A policy orientation to-wards incorporation may be read in its article 5, which obligates the states parties to refrain from policies or practices aimed at the assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities. Assimilation has been “qualified” such that these persons are protected against assimilation against their will but their voluntary assimilation should be allowed. The CoE Framework Convention considers the issue of integra-tion also in connecintegra-tion with the provisions on languages;⁵⁰⁸ these stress a knowl-edge of the official language of the state and link it to both integration and social cohesion.⁵⁰⁹ While other international norms pertaining to minorities do not make any express references to integration, the pertinent OSCE commitments ban at-tempts at non-voluntary assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities.

Additionally, scholarly views put forward on article 27 of the ICCPR refer to the prohibition of all forms of integration and assimilation pressure.

Although the text of the CoE Language Charter is silent on such issues as inte-gration, inclusion, exclusion, marginalisation and fragmentation and specific prob-lems of integration are associated with the populations that have appeared in the states parties as a result of recent migration flows (and that speak new, often non-European languages), the Explanatory Report attached to the Charter discusses a number of points relevant to integration. For instance, the integration of language groups speaking the languages addressed in the Charter is seen as being advanced by the states parties when they recognise these groups and their languages and al-low their cultural contacts (with their neighbouring communities). Concern is voiced over fragmented patterns of settlement and administrative divisions within a state and exclusion or marginalisation of speakers of a regional or minority language having a shared identity. Cultural barriers are seen as being eliminated by

promot-508. The CoE Framework Convention raises the issue of integration also in its broad provi-sion addressing tolerance, i.e. in art. 6. For this proviprovi-sion, see the remarks infra in chapter 2.2.1.3.

509. Whilst the importance of knowing the official language has been cited also in the OSCE commitments and the CoE Language Charter, the CoE Framework Convention differs in linking this issue expressly to the issue of integration (and social cohesion).

ing (cultural) relations and interactions between different language groups. In gen-eral, the values of interculturalism and multilingualism are underlined. Whereas the CoE Language Charter puts a clear emphasis on the need of the speakers of regional or minority languages to learn the official language(s), non-native speakers of regional or minority languages are also encouraged (but not obligated) to learn these languages in order to facilitate understanding between language groups. The promotion of mutual understanding and the inclusion of respect, understanding and tolerance for regional or minority languages in the areas of education and training as well as in the mass media are also underlined.

It should be noted that even if the provisions on minorities lack explicit referenc-es to integration (or inclusion), many of them in practice contribute to incorporation in(to) society. The provisions of relevance from this viewpoint include non-discrimi-natory provisions referring to ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms of general application also to persons belonging to minorities,⁵¹⁰ provisions on enhanc-ing the participation of these persons in the society at large, and provisions on en-abling persons belonging to minorities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.

The provisions on the dissemination of information about minorities in the context of general education may also be seen as furthering incorporation.⁵¹¹

Whilst ILO Convention No. 107 reflected both paternalistic and assimilationist at-titudes towards indigenous peoples, the instrument also stands as a prime example of the fact that, when the text was adopted, the concept of integration as used therein was equated with assimilation. Consequently, and due to these terminological bur-dens, ILO Convention No. 169 refers to neither the concept of assimilation nor that of integration. However, Convention No. 169 requires the flourishing of indigenous cultures within the framework of existing states, and envisages certain interaction between indigenous peoples and the rest of the population. Among other things, the provisions on education mention the importance of a knowledge of the state’s official language and imparting information to indigenous peoples to enable them to participate in the national community. Additionally, the Convention contains a provision on educating the rest of national community about indigenous peoples.

It is noteworthy that although ILO Convention No. 169 incorporates the aim of abandoning an assimilationist orientation in indigenous norms, there are also views claiming that the instrument does not in fact signify a departure from an assimi-lationist mentality. Unlike ILO Convention No. 169, the UN Declaration on In-digenous Peoples expressly incorporates the issues of both assimilation and integra-tion when it asserts that indigenous peoples and individuals may not be subjected

510. Inclusive effects of general human rights are discussed infra in chapter 2.3.

511. The facilitation of contacts among students and teachers of different communities that is taken up in the CoE Framework Convention should be noted.

to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture and that states are to provide effective mechanisms for the prevention of, and redress for, any form of forced as-similation or integration.

The attitude towards migrant workers laid down in the international instruments adopted prior to the 1990s did not envisage the integration of these persons in the receiving country; the basic view at the time was that migrant workers were there only temporarily and only as long as they contributed to the labour force. A look at more recent international norms shows a slight change in this attitude. This change is reflected particularly in the OSCE documents adopted since 1994, in addition to which the CoE summit of 1997 called for facilitating the integration of lawfully re-siding migrant workers and the members of their families in the societies in which they live.⁵¹² The OSCE standards also point to the role of migrants themselves in the process of integration.⁵¹³ While in recent years the ILO has strongly advocated the importance of integration of more or less permanently residing migrant work-ers, the fact that the UN Convention on Migrant Workers has attracted hardly any ratifications from migrant-receiving Western states⁵¹⁴ sends a signal of the reluc-tance of states to come up with stronger norms in the area. The explanation for the low number of ratifications may be sought – in addition to the reasons discussed above in the text on this instrument – in the fact that the Convention, to which no reservations may be filed, concerns extensively undocumented migrant workers. The strong human rights component of the instrument, i.e. the requirement to grant a number of human rights also to undocumented migrant workers, may discourage states’ from adhering to the Convention, since they may see this as leading to what for them would be a clearly undesirable stay (inclusion) of these persons in the host country.⁵¹⁵

Regarding foreign residents more generally, the CoE Convention on the Partici-pation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level establishes an explicit link be-tween participation in society (involving interaction with authorities) and integra-tion into society. The connecintegra-tion is made particularly between consultative bodies or other appropriate institutional arrangements and fostering lawfully residing foreign nationals’ general integration into the life of the community.⁵¹⁶ The significance of

512. It is important to note, however, that the OSCE and CoE norms in the area focus on law-fully residing migrant workers who are also the nationals of the participating/member states of these organisations.

513. It is worthy of note that the discussions on migrant workers within the OSCE have also often had a certain context, i.e. the issue of migrant workers of Turkish origin in Germany.

514. For the remarks on the ratification status of this convention, see chapter 2.1.3.1.1 supra.

515. See also the remarks on the inclusive effects of general human rights infra in chapter 2.3.

516. The Convention also deals with the right to vote, but it does not link this to the issue of integration.

this CoE instrument is vitiated by its somewhat limited and weak provisions as well as the low number of ratifications to it.⁵¹⁷ In the first CoE summit of 1993 the CoE states committed themselves to continuing their efforts to facilitate the social integration of lawfully residing migrants. The recent attention by the OSCE states to migrants has resulted in the decisions adopted by the OSCE Ministerial Coun-cil calling for promoting integration of these persons. In connection with migrant populations, the Council has expressly linked the failure to integrate societies to instability and, in the same vein, has pointed to the relation between integration and cohesion within societies. It has also stated that successful integration policies give due regard to cultural and religious diversity as well as to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The policy orientation towards asylum-seekers and refugees set out in the pertinent international norms does not favour the integration of these persons in the receiving state; rather, states prefer voluntary repatriation when viable and the reintegration of asylum-seekers and refugees in their places of origin.

The international human rights instruments and norms on women are concerned with the inclusion of women in various spheres of societal and private activities, in-cluding decision-making processes. While the international women-specific docu-ments do not discuss the integration of women, the Vienna Document of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights does take up the issue by explicitly referring to the importance of both the integration and full participation of women. The doc-ument does not, however, provide for any further information to enable to conclude whether this integration is in fact different from inclusion. The same difficulty of drawing a distinction between the concepts of inclusion and integration, is reflected when the Child Convention addresses the social integration of children in special need of assistance, and when the concept of integration is raised with respect to the elderly. Among the international norms calling for the social integration of persons with disabilities in the life of the community, the provisions on the need to adjust structures and patterns of behaviour in order to enhance the integration and partici-pation of the persons concerned merit particular mention.⁵¹⁸

517. For the remarks on the ratification status of this convention, see chapter 2.1.3.1.2 supra.

518. See the (revised) European Social Charter.