Abstract
Following an introduction to the changes in how ethno-racial identity is conceptualized in the social sciences and humanities by the destabilization of categorical frameworks, the author looks at how law reacts to these discussions and paradigm shifts, and argues that legal and administrative approaches face severe linguistic and conceptual limitations by operating within a “choice” and “fraud” binary. The article then questions if the free choice of identity exists as a principle of international minority protection law, a legal field that arguably represents a global political and ethical consensus. The author makes two claims. First, according to the basic tenet of legal logic, a proper right to free choice of identity allowing people to opt out of racial, ethnic, or national (minority) communities would necessitate the freedom to opt in to the majority or to any chosen group. The second claim, however, is that international law would not actually construct an approach to opting in. Thus, the right to free choice of identity is not an autonomous,sui generisright under international law.
Funder
Slovak Academy of Sciences
SASPRO Programme
Seventh Framework Programme
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,History,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference143 articles.
1. Recognition and narrative identities: is refugee law redeemable?
2. Toward a Definition of National Minority;Valentine;Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,2004
3. UN Human Rights Committee. 2007. UN Principles and Recommendations for Population and
4. UN Human Rights Committee. 1981. Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R/6/24/ para 14, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献