Copenhagen Declaration

The value of unilateral declarations is discussed above in this chapter. The Copenhagen-Boim Declarations have a role to play in the establishment of adherence of the focus documents as they predate a number of rights that resurface in the documents of the 1990s. Regarding the Framework Convention for example Denmark states in its First Monitoring Report that it has not taken any special steps to implement the Convention as the Copenhagen Declaration from 1955 meets the requirements for minority protection. " The Declaration is clearly endowed with more force than an arbitrary statement would be. 

Box 4.1 Declaration from the European Conference Organic Food and Farming - Towards Partnership and Action in Europe , 10-11 May 2001, Copenhagen, Denmark... 

Dr. Niels Bohr of Copenhagen, a colleague of Dr. Albert Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., declared that bombardment of a small amount of the pure Isotope U235 of uranium with slow neutron particles of atoms would start a chain reaction or atomic explosion sufficiently great to blow up a laboratory and the surrounding country for many miles. 

A last point is made in selecting two documents each from the fields of minority rights and setf-determination. The chosen documents are introduced in more detail below. They are key documents in their fields and provide substantive input to their issues. In the field of minority rights the chosen instruments that meet the above criteria are the 1992 UN Minority Declaration and the 1990 CSCE Copenhagen Document. In the field of self-determination, two UN documents are chosen. One is Res. 1541 on decolonization which delves into the content of self-determinati(Mi and illuminates in what way self-determination can be achieved. Furthermore, Res. 1541 establishes the salt water rule that is still invoked for denying self-determination outside the colonial context. It is for these reasons that Res. 1541 is regarded as more important as Res. 1514 which was the most cited GA resolution in the context of decolonization. The second instrument is Res. 2625 which is... 

In this context, the CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ 14304, accessed on 06 May 2014 refers only to part IV on minorities if not otherwise indicated. In this context, the General Assembly (1970) Friendly Relations Declaration UN Doc. A/RES/ 2625 (XXV) refers only to the Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples if not otherwise indicated. 

Adherence Just like the Copenhagen Document, the UN Minority Declaration does not have subsidiary rules that back it up—it cannot have such rules because of its very nature as a General Assembly resolution. However, there is something similar to subsidiary rules. The Independent Expert on Minority Issues and the Forum on Minority Issues both refer to the Declaration in their scope of work. There thus are bodies continuously concerned with the implementation of the Declaration even though neither is an explicit monitoring body or has judicial power. 

There is a slight difference in wording regarding in community with others or in community with other members of their group. Para. (32.6) CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www. osce.org/odihr/electiOTis/14304, accessed on 06 May 2014 ait. 3(1) UN Minority Declaration, UN Doc. A/Res/47/135, art. 3 (2) FC. 

Compared to the UN Minority Declaration, the Copenhagen Document has more substance and has thus stronger impact. The pre-set values as well as the general aims are addressed in the very beginning of the section on minority rights. Individual freedom is explicitly affirmed. State considerations are addressed. Here, it is important to remind ourselves that we are in a liberal state in the original position. The state considerations will not lead to minority oppression. Overall, there is a balance between minority and majority interests. The difference principle is affirmed. 

The UN Minority Declaration scores well on Franck s criteria. It is a just document even though one could have wished for an approach that covers more areas important to minorities. Its compliance puU exists, though the documents weaknesses in several fields make the compliance pull rather weak compared to the Copenhagen Document and the Friendly Relations Declaration. 

For provisions on the right to cross-frontier contacts see para. 32.4 of the Copenhagen Document, art. 14 of the Language Charier, art. 2 (5) of the UN Minority Declaration and art. 17 FCNM. 

In para. (33), the Copenhagen Document focuses on identity only but is more determinate than the UN Minority Declaration. The Copenhagen Document echoes the double-layered approach of protection and creating conditions of promotion of minority identity. Moreover, it takes a collective approach. Para. (33) places positive obligations on states not only to act at all but to act in a certain way. States take necessary measures due consultations including contacts with minority institutions are involved. States not only act in accordance with decision-making procedures but the measures are also in conformity with the principles of equality and non-discrimination with respect to the other citizens. The states space of actirni is limited by these conditions. 

The Copenhagen Document exphcitly states that it is an individual choice to belong to a minority. The Framework Convention takes a slightly different approach and says members of minorities can choose whether to be treated as such or not. " Art. 3 (1) of the UN Minority Declaration implies this choice by using the words persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights.. 

---