Introduction: Dispersed Minorities and Non-Territorial Autonomy

Abstract

The concept of non-territorial autonomy gives rise to at least two important questions: the range of functional areas over which autonomy extends, and the extent to which this autonomy is indeed non-territorial. A widely used early description significantly labelled this 'national cultural autonomy', implying that its focus is mainly on cultural matters, such as language, religion, education and family law. In many of the cases that are commonly cited, 'autonomy' may not even extend this far: its most visible expression is the existence of separate electoral registers or quotas for the various groups. Part of the dilemma lies in the difficulty of devolving substantial power on a non-territorial basis: to the extent that devolved institutions are state-like, they ideally require a defined territory. Ethnic groups, however, vary in the extent to which they are territorially concentrated, and therefore in the degree to which any autonomous arrangements for them are territorial or non-territorial. This article explores the dilemma generated by this tension between ethnic geography (patterns of ethnic settlement) and political autonomy (degree of self-rule), and introduces a set of case studies where the relationship between these two features is discussed further: the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sámi in Norway and the Maori in New Zealand.

Estonia: A Model for Inter-War Europe?

“…With regard to institutional depth, however, the 1925 law provided for a nondeconcentrated administration subject to central government veto. Under the measurement scale devised by Hooghe, Schakel and Marks (2008) and adapted by Coakley (2016) in the introduction to this collection, this would therefore represent a score of two points. In respect of scope, it would seem reasonable to claim that minority CSGs possessed authoritative competence in the area of cultural-educational policy, giving a score of one.…”

Economy, territory, and identity: A Rokkanian analysis of Indigenous self-determination in Canada and Norway

“…It is important to recognise at the outset that, unlike the case of the Inuit, the territorial dimension of the Sámi is rather diffuse with fuzzy boundaries not only geographically but also demographically, and with varying levels of "ethnic thickness" among individual Sámi (Coakley, 2016). There is an understanding of where the core Sámi areas are (i.e.…”

Nonterritorial Autonomy and Minority (Dis)Empowerment: Past, Present, and Future

“…Classifications based on levels of effectiveness are, similarly, linked by to institutionalized channels regulating autonomy through diffusion of powers from the state. Comparably, Coakley (2016aCoakley ( , 2016b sought to analyze, through a range of case studies, objectives and characteristics of NTA systems. These studies have further highlighted factors for success of NTA regimes: classified NTA models on the basis of their "voice," on a spectrum ranging from functioning self-governing institutions to merely "symbolic" policies ("nonvoice").…”