Normative Principles and Non-Territorial Autonomy

Abstract

AbstractThis chapter asks the normative question whether non-territorial autonomy (abbreviated as NTA) should be implemented and, if so, why. In other words, it asks which normative principles, like the principle of equality or the principle of cultural preservationism, would demand NTA. As such this chapter places NTA in the debate on multiculturalism as it is conducted in the liberal tradition of normative political philosophy by authors like Yael Tamir, Will Kymlicka, Alan Patten and Brian Barry. The first section discusses what a principle of equality that demands the implementation of NTA would look like. This section points out a limit or a problem for the principle of equality as a legitimation of NTA. That problem is basically that the main alternative to NTA, territorial self-government, looks much more like, is much more equal to, a majority state than NTA. Hence using the principle of equality to argue for NTA requires one to explain why this principle nevertheless demands NTA. The second section discusses the principle of cultural preservationism in relation to NTA. This section tries to reappraise the heavily criticized principle of cultural preservationism. It does so because there is a close fit between this principle and NTA. The third section discusses group rights. Although not principles as such, liberal individualists often object to group rights on the basis of normative principles. Moreover, NTA is usually seen to imply group rights. This section points out the possible liberal defenses of group rights that an advocate of NTA might make use of.