Carnegie Council

Shopping Cart

People Topics

Text Size: A A

Print this Page Email this Page Bookmark and Share

Categorizing Groups, Categorizing States: Theorizing Minority Rights in a World of Deep Diversity [Abstract]

Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 23.4 (Winter 2009)

Will Kymlicka

December 15, 2009

Since 1989 we have witnessed a proliferation of efforts to develop international norms of the rights of ethnocultural minorities, such as the UN's 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the Council of Europe's 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and the Organization of American States' 1997 draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This activity at the level of international law is reflected in a comparable explosion of interest in minority rights among normative political theorists.

In this context, Michael Walzer's work occupies an important but somewhat anomalous role. On the one hand, he was arguably the first political theorist, at least in the postwar era, to take seriously the issue of minority rights. Nonetheless, Walzer's work has had surprisingly little enduring impact on multiculturalism debates in either academic political theory or international law.

One explanation for this puzzle is that Walzer's substantive discussion of minority rights seems to sit uneasily with his more foundational theory of justice, laid out in Spheres of Justice. I want to suggest a distinct (but complementary) explanation for why Walzer's work has not permeated the debate, focusing less on metaethical worries about his account of common meanings, and more on the practicalities of how he categorizes ethnic diversity. Walzer's state-differentiated but minority-undifferentiated approach simply does not connect to the governing premises of the larger academic and public debate, which treat minorities as differentiated and states as undifferentiated. I believe it is Walzer's idiosyncratic approach to categorization—more than his controversial theory of justice-as-common-meanings—which explains his relatively marginal role in the multiculturalism debate.

To read or purchase this article, click here.

Related Resources:

blog comments powered by Disqus

About the Journal

The Carnegie Council's flagship publication, Ethics & International Affairs is an interdisciplinary resource for scholars, students, and policy analysts concerned with the moral dimensions of global issues. The journal covers global justice, civil society, democratization, international law, intervention, sanctions, and related topics.

Search the Journal

Sign up for the EIA Journal Newsletter

SUBSCRIPTIONS
To subscribe to Ethics & International Affairs, or to purchase individual issues and articles, please contact Cambridge University Press.

CALL FOR PAPERS
We are currently accepting submissions for upcoming issues of the journal. For more information, click here.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
For submission guidelines, click here.

RESPONSES
The Editors welcome responses to Features and Essays published in Ethics & International Affairs. To be considered for publication, responses should be no longer than one thousand words, including endnotes (which should be kept to a minimum). Responses are not peer-reviewed, and are published at the Editors' discretion. All responses are subject to editing for length and style. In the event of any questions or substantive editing, the response will be returned to the author for final approval prior to publication. Responses are published online, alongside the article they address.

Carnegie Council provides an open forum for discussion. Views expressed are not necessarily those of Carnegie Council.

Features

Policy Innovations Online Magazine

The central address for a fairer globalization.
» More

blue dot separator

Ethics & International Affairs

Go to the Journal for articles on ethics and foreign policy.
» More

postprandial-ft