Zwischen Arktis Adria und Armenien

314 Europaeica
the opinion of the Russian Federation, attempts to exclude from the scope of the
Framework Convention the persons who permanently reside in the territory of States
Parties to the Framework Convention and previously had a citizenship but have been
arbitrarily deprived of it, contradict the purpose of the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities.” 14 While this is targeted, of course, towards
Russians and Russian-speakers in the ‘Near Abroad’, i. e., in other successor states
of the Soviet Union, it can apply also to the successor states of Tito’s Yugoslavia.
Still, which national minorities exist in Europe and who exactly is a member of
them is decided by the governments. Although in the Framework Convention citizenship
is not mentioned as a precondition almost all member States of the Council
of Europe agree that in fact it is. This is, of course, a highly problematic way to deal
with minority issues since it means that, for example, the large Russian minorities in
the Baltic States or the non-citizens parts of the equally sizeable Albanian minority
in Macedonia do not fall under the convention. And most governments are of the
opinion that it is up to them to ‘recognise’ ‘real’ national minorities thereby leaving
out those ethnic groups that in their view do not deserve to be called national minorities.
The government of Denmark, for example, ‘recognises’ only the German
minority in the South of Jutland, not, however, the Inuit communities in and around
Copenhagen; Slovenia ‘recognises’ Italians and Hungarians, not Germans (or Austrians);
Macedonia explicitly leaves out Bulgarians; and so on and so forth. What the
Permanent Court of International Justice in 1935 in a decision on Minority Schools
in Albania had ruled, namely that ‘the existence of minorities is a question of fact,
not of law’, is not reflected in the Framework Convention. 15
Thirdly, the problem of monitoring the implementation of the Framework Convention
by those countries which have ratified it has to be tackled. It is a positive fact
that the Framework Convention, in contrast to a number of other conventions, has a
monitoring mechanism, yet it is a weak one. In 1995, the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe warned: “Its implementation machinery is feeble, and there is
danger that, W fact, the monitoring procedures may be 1_Pft entirely to the government.”
16 The convention indeed provides that it is the Committee of Ministers which
shall monitor the implementation, and not an independent body, as is the case for
the ECHR. In monitoring the Framework Convention, the Committee of Ministers
will be assisted by an Advisory Committee. This Advisory Committee could play an
important role in the further development of the monitoring mechanism, as well as
in the implementation of the convention provided that it is able to emancipate itself
from the tutelage of the Committee of Ministers. However, when going through the
rules on the monitoring arrangements in general, and the composition, election and
appointment of the Advisory Committee in particular, as fixed in resolution (97) 10
14 Ibid.
15 Minority Schools in Albania (1935), Permanent Court of International Justice, Ser. A/B, No. 64, 17.
16 Recommendation 1255 (1995), quoted by Alexanderson,‘Why the Framework Convention Should
Be Ratified’, p. 22.