Zwischen Arktis Adria und Armenien

312 Europaeica
definition of the term ‘national minority’ as in, e. g., Recommendation 1201 (1993).
This gives governments the possibility to impose their own definitions by way of interpretative
declarations; b) The convention also does not mention collective rights
of national minorities, but sticks to the UN principle of individual rights of ‘persons
belonging to national minorities.’ 7
Moreover, the entire text is packed with escape clauses in favour of the member
States and to the disadvantage of their national minorities. An already classical case
by now which is used in university lectures by many specialists in international law
all over Europe is article 11, paragraph 3, which in a single sentence dealing with
street signs contains as many as seven escape clauses: “In areas traditionally inhabited
by substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority, the Parties
shall endeavour, in the framework of their legal system, including, where appropriate,
agreements with other States, and taking into account their specific conditions, to
display traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications intended
for the public also in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand
for such indications.” 8 Even more cautious are formulations concerning topics that
can really cost money, e. g., article 10, paragraph 2, on the use of minority languages
on the administrative level: “In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities
traditionally or in substantial numbers, if those persons so request and where
such a request corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as
far as possible to use the minority language in relations between those persons and
the administrative authorities.”
Not surprisingly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe came up
with harsh criticism of the wording of the convention: “It formulates a number of
vaguely defined objectives and principles, the observation of which will be an obligation
of the Contracting States but not a right which individuals may invoke.” 9
Secondly, the deficiencies of signing, ratifying and implementing the convention
have to be mentioned: a) Apart from Andorra and the non-member State Belarus,
three other Council of Europe (and NATO) members, namely Belgium, Turkey and
France, have not signed the convention at all – and obviously have no intention of
doing so. Paris has stated that the recognition of national minorities among the citizens
of France would contribute to the fragmentation of the grande nation and thus
be anti-constitutional. The specifically French concept of ‘nation’, it was said, leaves
no room for ‘national minorities’. André Liebich has aptly characterised the negative
impact this stand has had on the new East European members of the Council of
7 Cf. Capotorti, Francesco and Rainer Hofmann, ‘Minorities’, Encyclopedia of Public International
Law, vol. 3, Amsterdam etc.: Elsevier, 1997, pp. 410–424, as well as Packer, John, ‘On the Definition
of Minorities’, in: The Protection of Ethnic and Linguistic Minorities in Europe, Eds. Packer, John
and Kristian Myntti. Turku: Institute for Human Rights. Abo akademi, 1997, pp. 23–65.
8 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and explanatory report. Convention
opened for signature on 1 February 1995, European Treaty Series No. 175. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publishing, 1995, p. 10.
9 Recommendation 1255 (1995), quoted by Alexanderson, Martin, ‘Why the Framework Convention
Should Be Ratified’, in: Mare Balticum [Copenhagen], no. 3, August 1997, p. 22.