Monday, 9 July
Power-sharing in Ethnically Divided Societies: An Introduction
In the first part of the presentation we will discuss the historic development of the model of consociational democracy by A. Lijphart following from Central and Western European experiences of democratic government in the 1960s and 1970s. We will then highlight the contextual difference in the further development of the model of power-sharing in post-conflict societies, in particular after the Balkan wars in the 1990s, and the ongoing theoretical debates between ‘accomodationists’ in the tradition of Lijphart and ‚integrationists‘ following D. Horowitz´s approach. In the second part we will then try to give an overview on three basic, but mutually excluding meanings of the concept of ‚ethnicity´ in order to be able to understand the notion of ‘divided societies’ following, in our view, from the processes of ethnification of territory, peoples, and institutions. Our structuralist-functional approach will then finally enable us to discuss the most intricate problems for constitutional design in divided societies such as the hen-and-egg problems of timing and phasing the goals of peace and/or democracy or political stability and/or reconciliation through transitional justice.
Panel Discussion: Power-Sharing and the Role of Courts
Joseph Marko, Stefan Graziadei, Cuno Tarfusser
Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Joseph Marko)
The so-called ‚constituent peoples‘ case which was handed down in 2000 by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Case U 5/98, Third Partial Decision) became one of the most prominent cases of this Court. At the core of this case was the question submitted to the Court by then President A. Izetbegović whether „constituent peoples“, i.e. Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs, have to be treated equally „on the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.“ This, at first glance, simple question together with more than twenty other questions submitted, led to the judicial review of the entire corporate power-sharing system which had constitutionally been established by Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement of 1995 to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Having been appointed the judge rapporteur in this case, I will report from an inside-perspective not only about the legal-dogmatic problems raised through this case, but also about the necessary interrelationship of law and political sciences to discuss the legal as well as political problems raised by judicial review.
Tuesday, 10 July
Roundtable: Constitutional Design in Divided Societies
Joseph Marko, Patricia Popelier, Neophytos Loizides, Limor Yehuda, Sumantra Bose
The round-table “Constitutional Design in Divided Societies” aims to compare case studies from Europe (Belgium, Cyprus) and beyond (Israel/Palestine, India) whose constitutional design follows institutional arrangements of power-sharing and/or affirmative action including the use of quotas in different sectors of state and society. The overall purpose of this comparison is to identify the factors for “successes” and “failures” and to stimulate a broad discussion with participants of the summer school. In a first round, the speakers present their case study along the following lines: historic development whether and why the country presented is perceived as “divided society” in terms of linguistic, religious, ideological (cross-cutting?) cleavages; description and analysis of the establishment and functioning of institutional arrangements including case-law of apex courts; description and analysis of the political culture; and proposals for constitutional/institutional reforms. In a second round, we draw comparisons between the case-studies presented, before the floor is given to questions and comments of the students.
Wednesday, 11 July
South Tyrol’s Autonomy: From Conflict to Power-Sharing
Scholars and practitioners generally agree that South Tyrol is one of the most successful examples of minority protection through cultural and territorial self-governance. The province enjoys a far-reaching autonomy within Italy’s asymmetric regionalism, and its institutional set-up is based on the principle of power-sharing among three linguistic groups, i.e. German, Italian and Ladin. This lecture aims to provide an overview of the complex institutions and mechanisms of South Tyrol’s self-governance system and their functioning. The first part will address the 1972 Autonomy Statute’s implementation focusing on the specific mechanism of joint commissions. In the second part, we shall discuss the four elements of South Tyrol’s consociational democracy: (1) participation of all linguistic groups in the joint exercise of power; (2) right of veto to defend each group’s vital interests; (3) proportionality (i.e. quota system) based on declarations of belonging (or affiliation) to linguistic groups; (4) cultural autonomy for each group. Finally, we shall assess the strengths and weaknesses of South Tyrol’s autonomy arrangement in the light of the ongoing process to reform the 1972 Autonomy Statute.
Panel Discussion: Territorial and Cultural Diversity Governance: Strengths, Challenges and Future Prospects
Francesco Palermo, Karl Kössler, Yonatan Fessha
The panel discussion seeks to assess whether governance tools such as territorial autonomy, non-territorial autonomy and power-sharing are viable tools to prevent and resolve conflicts in ethno-culturally diverse societies. It will evaluate the strengths, challenges and future prospects of these instruments in light of a recent increase in secessionism in a number of countries. The debate will situate the above-mentioned tools within the broader context of constitutional design in diverse societies and thereby draw on a wealth of experiences from different parts of the world. While a particular focus will be placed on examples from Europe and Africa, the panelists will also refer to cases, for instance, from India and Canada. In the first part of the session they will discuss among them and answer questions of the summer school participants in the second part.
Thursday, 12 July
Indigenous Peoples and Power-Sharing: Self-Determination, Land and Autonomy Rights
Alexandra Tomaselli and Joshua Castellino
Power-sharing systems of and for indigenous peoples cannot be discussed without tackling their rights to self-determination, land and autonomy – the former two now broadly considered as prerequisites for the exercise of their other rights. Their right to autonomy is less guaranteed at international level, but a number of States have recognized and established forms of (territorially-based) indigenous autonomies or self-governments at domestic level. Furthermore, there are a variety of de facto autonomy arrangements of indigenous peoples living in urban, rural or forest areas. In this frame, the first part of this lecture aims to discuss with students the recognition and the concepts of the three above-mentioned indigenous rights, and to evaluate the achievements and failures of selected case studies of indigenous power-sharing and territorial autonomous arrangements (e.g., Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, and Indigenous Native Peasant Autonomies in Bolivia). The second part of the lecture engages students in a role play on indigenous peoples’ cultural practices and access to subsistence means as a potential exercise of power-sharing.
Friday, 13 July
Workshop: Science Outreach Online
Martin Angler and Sergiu Constantin
Communicating science has become a crucial skill of every scientific career. There are correlations between scientists’ online activities (especially on the social media) and how often their papers get cited. Several studies support the view that successful scientific online outreach is linked to higher funding and an increased support from the general public. Reaching out to online audiences is rewarding in that it may have an enormous impact, but at the same time it is also a complex endeavour to stand out from all the noise that is flooding the internet. That is why in this session, we aim to offer insights into which topics perform best within the social sciences, and into news values, essential online story formats and structures, as well as synchronising blogging and social media outreach. We shall also address online writing, visual language and composition, basic online media law (including defamation, libel and slander), scheduled publishing strategies and a basic overview of defining metrics and applying online analytics in order to assess one’s reach and online performance. The second part of the workshop will focus on case studies and practical exercises.
Monday, 16 July
Migration as a Challenge to Power-Sharing Systems? An Introduction
Consociationalism has often been praised as an instrument to guarantee the survival of democracy and the avoidance of violence in societies divided along ethnic, religious or linguistic lines. In particular the principle of proportionality, one of the characteristics of consociations, has been applauded as an instrument to guarantee the just representation of all groups present in society. At the same time, consociationalism gets criticism for the potential of cementing divisions between groups, of holding on to a static conception of group identity, or of excluding non-constituent group. Based on those adverse views on consociationalism, we will have a close look into various consociations around the world and ask, which place “others” that have not been initially included in the power-sharing systems, find countries and regions organized along consociational lines. Migrants and non-citizens are a paradigmatic example of “others”: they either moved into the territory after the power-sharing agreement entered into force, or they have not been included into the power-sharing agreement because of not being citizens of the country. Hence, migrants and their descendants face various challenges in achieving a degree of membership and being recognized. Nevertheless, this can result not only in a division between immigrants and natives, but it can also divide natives in case of migrants and natives finding common grounds (Bartram 2011). Following a first look at the Swiss consociation and its history of immigration and integration, we zoom into and focus on political marginalization of others in six selected corporate consociations. The second part of the day discusses ways to overcome the marginalization of others and in particular migrants in consociational systems and beyond by focusing on the advantages and disadvantages direct democracy brings for minorities.
Swiss Institutional Structures: How Functional are They for the Inclusion of Migrants?
Multiethnic societies pose especially in conflict-ridden regions important challenges to democratization and peace-settling efforts. Ethnic diversity across regions but also specific settlement patterns, e.g., in larger cities, may spurn conflict. Political institutions, chief among them federalism, regional autonomy and power-sharing, are often envisioned as possible tools to mitigate these problems. The present lecture depicts from a historical perspective the pluralization of Swiss society due to immigration, it follows the institutional constraints in order to grasp its interaction with the demographic, societal and economic transformation over time, and the venues it offered for anti- or pro-immigrant mobilization. Switzerland – Europe’s greatest Migration Lab – functions here as a metaphor to understand the changing migration system, the role of subnational governments in policy changes and the visualizing the key trends in the past 10 years.
The “Others” in Consociations. A Comparative Overview on the Inclusion or Exclusion of Others in Burundi, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, and South Tyrol
Most consociations contain provisions that guarantee a certain number of seats for the main ethnic segments of society. Yet in all hard-core consociational regimes – Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, and South Tyrol – we find citizens (called ‘Others’) who are not affiliated with any of the main segments. Who are the Others? The easiest anwer is to say that Others are all those citizens who live in a consociational democracy but do not belong to any of the main “segments” of the society. Yet the galaxy of Others is much more complex and can be broken down to a number of sub-categories. One of them is based on the distinction between citizens and foreigners, given that most countries contain a given number of immigrants. The non-citizens (of their host country) are clearly Others. The situation is less clear-cut for the naturalized citizens. Now why is it is important to discuss the position of Others in consociations? In most cases they are, statistically speaking, a very small population. The problem is that, regardless of their size, the exclusion of Others from consociational institutions raises normative and legal issues for liberal democracies. It is important to emphasize, in fact, that the equality of citizens is a paramount principle in democratic theory and the contemporary standards of human and citizens’ rights and liberties prohibit discrimination based on ethnic belonging. If the goal of consociationalists is not to build any kind of political regime but a democratic regime, then they must find ways to ensure the political equality of Others.
Tuesday, 17 July
Religious Diversity and National Courts: “The Anthropologist Judge”
The lesson will start with a brief reference to the distinction between culture and religion in constitutional law. Then the lesson will proceed with an analysis of cases proposed to the students, and with the analysis of a legal tool to resolve religious conflicts: the religious and cultural tests. In order to decide whether or not to accept cultural and religious claims, several judges (the Canadian Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, the UN Committee of Human Rights) have elaborated religious tests (since 1963) and cultural tests (since 1996). These legal tools consist in a set of pre-established questions a judge has to answer in order to decide whether or not to accept a cultural claim made by a migrant or by a person belonging to other cultural minorities. Some questions of the religious and cultural tests refer to typical legal balancing between rights, other questions incorporate the anthropological knowledge within the trial, requiring the judge to analyse the cultural practice at issue, its historical origin and its level of importance for the community, that the judge would not be sufficiently knowledgeable of without resorting to anthropology. The students will be invited to comment the existing religious and cultural tests and to apply them to concrete cases.
Religious Diversity and Supranational Courts
The increased diversity in contemporary societies – in Habermas’ terms “secularized but yet post-secular societies” – has multiplied the claims to accommodate diversity, particularly on cultural and religious grounds, in different contexts of everyday life such as work places, public offices and schools. The accommodation of these new diversity claims is a challenging and complex matter that is at the forefront of the current political and public debate in many countries. Culturally and/or religiously motivated claims range from exemptions from general laws that penalise or burden minority practices, such as motorcycle helmet laws for Sikhs or swimming classes for conservative Muslims, to the recognition of traditional legal codes by the majority legal system such as traditional or group-specific family law. In Europe, many culturally and/or religiously motivated claims are brought up to the European Court of Human Rights, revealing the growing importance of this topic in the European judicial arena. With its several decades of interpretative jurisprudence in the field of equality, non-discrimination, minority rights, and more generally, diversity, the ECtHR is illustrative of how the international protection of human rights can reconcile legitimate, yet relative, minority claims without compromising universal standards for democratic societies. The present lecture aims to shed light on the limits and potentials of supranational judicial bodies as instruments for diversity governance and positive dialogue as well as tools to defuse tensions and prevent potential conflicts in our contemporary, increasingly diversified societies.
Freedom of Religion, Islamic Veiling, Feminist Perspectives and the Law (Moot Trial)
Since 2004, there is a growing trend among European States to enact legal restrictions on Muslim women’s clothing in public space, in particular on wearing the niqab or burqa. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found in a French and a Belgian case that these veil bans did not violate Art. 9 ECHR and justified them in the name of women’s rights, gender equality, public order and security or social cohesion. Consequently, these judgements do not only tackle the issue of an alleged incompatibility of Islam and of Islamic values with European ones. Moreover, the negative status of women in an Islamic society is repeatedly referred to. However, the Western perception of oppressed Muslim women does not fully correspond to reality. Rather an inherent pluralism characterizes the Islamic faith, in terms of the different Islamic denominations, with regard to the position of women in Islamic society and likewise when it comes to different strands of Islamic feminism. Therefore, this workshop not only aims to familiarize participants with the relevant case law of the ECtHR in terms of religious freedom or to develop advocacy skills. Moreover, it seeks to provide participants with an understanding of underlying religious arguments and ongoing feminist debates.
Wednesday, 18 July
Past and present processes of bordering and cross-border cooperation: The case of South Tyrol
The status of the border between Italy and Austria has become the focus of renewed attention since Austria announced to possibly introduce border controls as reaction to the refugee flows in 2015 and 2016. Thus, borders are increasingly perceived again as national security devices, which often stays in contrast of de-bordering processes that helped to overcome minority conflicts and facilitated institutional relations to the kin-state, as in the case of South Tyrol. Due to the common history of this border region, cross-border cooperation between Trentino, South Tyrol and Tyrol has had a long, but also conflicting path (Engl and Zwilling, 2008; Palermo and Woelk, 2003). Important steps of formal cooperation include membership in transnational regional working communities since the 1970s, the agreement to establish the Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino in 1998, and the legal formalization of the Euroregion as European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) in 2011. Most of these de-bordering and cross-border cooperation processes were facilitated by the European Union and were thus driven by Europeanization processes. However, recent migration flows challenge these processes of de-bordering within the Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino. This lecture will give an overview of past and present processes of bordering and cross-border cooperation, looking at the case of South Tyrol and the Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino. It will present major drivers of cross-border cooperation on the one hand, and look into major obstacles and recent bordering processes on the other hand, which continue to challenge cooperation at the Italian-Austrian border.
Bordering, Debordering and Rebordering: The Case of the Island of Ireland
This session examines border reconfiguration on the island of Ireland. It is organised around the themes of bordering, debordering, and rebordering. It will explore the manifestations and nuances of the Irish border between 1921 and 1993, the period synonymous with bordering. The ensuing 25 years of debordering, which was underpinned by Europeanisation and the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, will then be discussed in economic, political, social and cultural contexts. Finally, the rebordering proposed by Brexit (the proposed withdrawal of the UK from the EU) will be examined in these contexts.
Thursday, 19 July
Security considerations or securitization in divided societies? A conversation
Paul Roe and Andrea Carlà
Since the last decades, security has become a relevant field of governments’ action with repercussions in several policy areas, including accommodation of diversity and minority issues. At the same time, following the broadening and deepening of the Security Studies agenda, many scholars have applied specific concepts from this academic field to investigate ethnic politics/conflicts. This session discuss the interplay between security concerns and the politics surrounding the governance of ethnic diversity, exploring the cross-fertilization between Security Studies and works on conflict regulation/minority accommodation. This session will take the form of a mini round table/Q & A. The aim of the session is to provoke a series of starting assumptions against which students will be asked to reflect on with specific regard to certain empirical contexts. In other words, the major purpose is for students to ask the question: ‘What is the applicability and efficacy of certain theories and concepts’?; in particular with regard to cases of divided states. The session will begin by introducing how the disciple of Security Studies has, since the end of the Cold War, tried to adjust it’s focus to changing empirical contexts: that is, from the inter- to the intra-state; to the notion of the ‘weak’ state and the challenges of ethnic conflicts and minority rights protection. Particular attention will be paid, firstly, to the concept of societal security; as first introduced by the so-called ‘Copenhagen School’. Secondly, to the subsequent concepts of securitization and de-securitization. The session will discuss diversity accommodation in divided societies in light of these concepts. Of importance here is critical reflection as to what happens when certain, so-called ‘non-traditional’ Security, such as minority protection, increasingly become subject to the language of threat and defense.
State security vs human security
Many countries around the world are affected by the contradiction between state security and human security. Many states are not willing or able to protect their citizens. However, the quintessence of any state is to protect, respect and fulfill the rights of its citizens. Because of this states’ lack of will or ability to protect, respect or fulfill their rights millions of people are exposed to hunger, violence, conflicts, human rights abuses, displacement, food insecurity, forced emigration or environmental destruction. The international and national war on terror and different security structures often contradict the different components of human security. On the national level, political conflicts between the government and the local communities undermine human security. While putting too much focus on state security many countries have been putting the human security component in danger. This has led to poverty, displacement, violence and emigration. This lecture focuses on this contradiction between state security and human security. However, at the same time it will be argued that there should not necessarily be a contradiction.
Friday, 20 July
Education and Power-Sharing: Any Obvious Relationship?
To what extent does the adoption of consociational power-sharing affect the design and implementation of education reforms? This session will explore the relationship between power-sharing and education reform employing qualitative data from Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well as evidence from the first large-scale dataset of educational provisions in intra-state peace settlements (the Political Agreements in Internal Conflict dataset). Students will be encouraged to reflect on the following themes: Do peace agreements represent a genuine synthesis of the conflicting parties’ interests? Is education a priority in the aftermath of a civil conflict? What education reforms are implemented and which reforms are sidelined? Do different varieties of power-sharing impact differently on education reform?
Why and How do External Actors Promote Post-Conflict Power Sharing?
In this session, we will explore the role of international organisations (principally the UN, EU and the OSCE) in the promotion and maintenance of power-sharing institutions in post-conflict, deeply divided societies. We will focus on a series of questions of interest to the scholarly literature and to international policymakers engaged in conflict resolution. Why do third-party mediators seeking to resolve conflict turn to power sharing strategies during peace negotiations? Once an agreement has been reached, what role do external actors play in the maintenance of post-conflict power sharing? How do externals seek to encourage inter-communal cooperation? And are they necessary for ensuring stable power sharing? The session will be structured as a seminar around these key questions and as reflected in the key readings. In addressing these salient questions on the role of external actors in the promotion of post-conflict power sharing, we will also consider potential avenues for future research on power-sharing and the likely policy implications.