Justice of the Right to Cross-Frontier Contacts

Individual Freedom Restricting the contacts of members of minorities solely to the majority society would take away the freedom of choice for the members. The right to cross-fr(Mitier crmtacts again is a possibility but not a must. It is up to the individual members of the minority. There is equally no obligation of individual 

See art. 17 (2) Explanatray Reprat to the FramewOTk Convention fin the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Crarvaition fin the Protecticni of National Minorities - Collected Texts, 4th ed.. Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17-35, Strasbourg Para. (32.6) CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www.osce. ng/odihr/elections/14304 Accessed 06 May 2014. 

General Aims The argument in favour of the right across frontier in this context is similar to the one on pre-set values. Contacts can potentially threaten a state but those are not the kinds of contacts that are envisaged in the documents. Contacts across frontiers can support economic development and welfare. They can further mutual understanding and thus secure peace and stability between two or more states. 

Individual Best Interest Being in contact with those similar to oneself is a wish easy enough to understand. Especially when a minority is surrounded by a majority that differs on important points from the minority, it will be important for members of the minority to keep in contact with its kin-state. 

The Dijference Principle The possibility to keep cross-frontier contacts is to the benefit of the least advantaged. It supports their existence and identity. It promotes the minority s possibility to be heard beyond the state boundaries. The right to cross-frontier contacts implies that minorities have a special interest in this while the majority does not necessarily share this interest. The granting of this right focuses on minorities and their needs. The difference principle is respected. 

---