نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بینالملل دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
چکیده
رویکرد زمینهگرا در شناسایی حقوقی اقلیتها را میتوان نوعی «گفتگوی دوسویه کنشگرانه اقناع ساز»، میان فاعل شناساییِ حقوقی (سوژه) و گروههای اقلیت (ابژه) دانست. ضرورت این فرآیند شناسایی حقوقی، منتقدان و منکرانی دارد. جرمی والدرون به عنوان یک حقوقدان حوزه حقوق عمومی از جمله منکران ضرورت شناسایی حقوقی اقلیتها است که دیدگاهها و استدلالات وی ناظر به این موضوع در این نوشتار بررسی و نقد شده است. محور مرکزی استدلالات وی از زاویه دید جهانوطنگرایی را میتوان تعارض شناسایی حقوقی اقلیتها با اصل بیطرفی دولت مدرن دانست. او همانطور که دولت سکولار را غیردینی میپندارد، همان دولت را غیرفرهنگی نیز تصور میکند. وی در راستای برهان خود، شناسایی حقوقی را ناقض ماهیت حاکمیت قانون، مخلّ نظریه لیبرال فردگرا در نظام حقوقی و در چالش با سازوکار رأی اکثریت میداند. اما باید گفت شناسایی گروههای اقلیت، عموماً بر ساخته گفتمان عمومی در عرصه عمومی است. با توجه به بیتفاوتی بسیاری از جوامع اکثریت نسبت به مطالبات گروههای اقلیت، شناسایی حقوقی به صورت تدریجی و در بستر اقناعسازی مستمر صورت میپذیرد. استثنا پذیر بودن قواعد عام در بستر حاکمیت قانون نیز از خلال این گفتگوی دوسویه کنشگرانه اقناع ساز گذر میکند.
منظور از رویکرد زمینهگرا در مطالعات حقوقی Contextual Approach in Legal Studies به واقع به ضرورت گذر از مطالعه مبتنی بر متن قوانین و مقررات و بازخوانی نظام هنجارین حقوقی از خلال روابط واقعی درون جامعه، وقایع و استدلالات موردی پروندههای قضایی و بایدها و نبایدهای درونگروهی در مطالعات اقلیتها اشاره دارد. به نظر نویسنده، زمینه اجتماعی نظام حقوقی لاجرم جزء لایتجزی آن نظام حقوقی برای یک پژوهشگر محسوب میگردد.
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Threats and Limitations of Legal Recognition of Minority Rights in Jeremy Waldron’s Views: A Critical Analysis
نویسنده [English]
- Hadi Salehi
Assistant Professor, Public International Law, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
The legal recognition of minority rights has become a central issue in contemporary societies grappling with increasing diversity. While some argue that legal recognition is essential to ensure equal protection and participation of minority groups, critics express concerns about its potential drawbacks. Jeremy Waldron, a prominent legal and political philosopher, stands out as a leading critic of legal recognition, arguing that it can undermine core principles of neutrality, impartiality, and universal responsibility. Focusing on Waldron’s critique, the current study aimed to examine the threats and limitations he associates with minority recognition. The analysis also explored alternative perspectives and the broader context surrounding this debate.
Literature Review
The literature on minority rights and legal recognition is vast and multifaceted. Liberal theorists such as Kymlicka advocate for multiculturalism. In Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Kymlicka (1995) argues that legal recognition is crucial to ensure cultural accommodation and the flourishing of minority identities within liberal democracies. On the other hand, communitarian thinkers caution that multiculturalism may lead to social fragmentation and the erosion of a shared national identity. The legal scholarship has focused on the international legal framework for the protection of minority rights, emphasizing instruments such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. By contrast, critical race theorists critique the limits of legal recognition in contexts shaped by ongoing historical and racial injustice, calling instead for more transformative approaches to addressing systemic inequality.
Materials and Methods
This research employed a qualitative approach, relying on a critical analysis of existing literature on legal recognition and minority rights. The primary focus is on Jeremy Waldron’s arguments in The Law of Nations and the Problem of Difference (2001). In addition, the analysis also examined relevant scholarly works from legal, political, and philosophical perspectives. This allowed for a comprehensive understanding of Waldron’s critique within the broader debates on legal recognition.
Results and Discussion
Waldron’s critique of legal recognition stems from his commitment to cosmopolitanism, which emphasizes universal moral principles and individual rights. He argues that granting special rights to specific groups based on their minority status can potentially undermine these principles and produce undesirable consequences. One of his central concerns is that legal recognition threatens the neutrality and impartiality expected of the state. When the state privileges certain groups, it risks appearing biased and eroding public trust in its objectivity. Waldron also argues that granting special rights to minorities can divert attention from the state’s fundamental responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens equally. By prioritizing group-based rights, the state may overshadow its obligation to ensure universal human rights protections. In addition, he suggests that legal recognition may be perceived as conflicting with the principle of majority rule in democratic systems. Because the majority’s voice carries significant weight in shaping laws and policies, recognizing minorities could be seen as undermining the majority rule, thereby fostering resentment among majority populations who feel neglected. While Waldron’s arguments present valuable insights, they can be challenged on several grounds. First, his analysis tends to assume a rigid model of legal recognition that grants absolute group rights, yet more nuanced approaches acknowledge the possibility of context-specific forms of recognition that aim to address systemic discrimination or ensure equal opportunities for participation. Moreover, his emphasis on neutrality may itself be problematic. Second, the emphasis on neutrality can be problematic. Ignoring group-based disadvantages and inequalities within a seemingly neutral system can perpetuate the marginalization of minorities, whereas recognition can function as a tool to redress existing power imbalances and promote genuine equality. Finally, it is important to note that Waldron’s arguments are situated primarily within the framework of liberal democracies. In societies shaped by different historical and cultural contexts, the role of the state and the meaning of minority rights may be conceptualized differently, and alternative models such as assimilation or consociationalism may be considered more relevant.
Conclusion
Jeremy Waldron’s critique of legal recognition offers valuable contributions to the ongoing debate on minority rights. He highlights the need for careful consideration of the potential implications of legal recognition and the importance of upholding core principles like neutrality and universal responsibility. However, his arguments should not be understood in isolation. By engaging with alternative perspectives and acknowledging the limitations of his framework, it becomes possible to develop more nuanced approaches to legal recognition that respond effectively to the concerns of minorities in diverse societies.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Minority Status
- Jeremy Waldron
- Cosmopolitanism
- Multiculturalism
- Legal Recognition
Books
- Barry, Brian, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002).
- Benhabib, Seyla, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).
- Dworkin, Ronald, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
- Dworkin, Ronald, Justice for Hedgehogs (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2011).
- Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Clarendon: Clarendon Press, 1995).
- Mahmood, Cynthia Keppley, Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010).
- Medda-Windischer, Roberta, Old and New Minorities: Reconciling Diversity and Cohesion: A Human Rights Model for Minority Integration (Nomos: elibrary.de, 2009).
- Rights, Minority, International Standards and Guidance for Implementation (United Nations, Rights - Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner 2010).
- Waldron, Jeremy, Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981-1991 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
- Waldron, Jeremy, The Dignity of Legislation, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Articles
- Pejic, Jelena, “Minority Rights in International Law”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3, (1997).
- Thornberry, Patrick, “Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International Instruments”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38, Issue 4, (1989).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “A Majority in the Lifeboat”, BUL Rev, No. 90, (2010).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Cultural Identity and Civic Responsibility”, Citizenship in Diverse Societies, cir.nii.ac.jp, (2000).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Justice for Hedgehogs”, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 123, No. 4, (2014).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative”, U. Mich. JL Reform, No.25, (1991).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “One Law for All-the Logic of Cultural Accommodation”, Wash. & Lee L. Rev, No.59, (2002).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Superseding Historic Injustice”, Ethics, Vol. 103, No. 1, (1992).
- Waldron, Jeremy, “What Is Cosmopolitan?”, Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 2, (2000).
)