Interest of legal and state theorists towards ethnic and national
phenomena is not accidental one, because the very forms of the state
and its law depend on the way ethnicity and nationalism are accommodated
within the state structures. Yet, there are few specialists in international
law, which could speak on minority issues in law language and formulate
ethno-national claims in legal terms. Paying attention to the lawyers'
participation degree in discussing the problems of ethnicity and nationalism,
Bill Bowring pointed out that “although increasing attention is paid
by Western legal theorists to the work on citizenship …, there is almost
no reference to nationalism theory.” 1
Stephen Tierney shows that this gap between law and ethnonational and
ethnopolitical realities is even wider: “The preference for contextual
analysis over an interdisciplinary search for the substance and validity
of nationalist claims has left a significant gap between, on the one
hand, the work of social scientists and philosophers who grapple with
the empirical and normative manifestations of national identity, and,
on the other hand, international lawyers who address the ‘right of all
people to self-determination’ simply in terms of internal structures
of the conventions and declarations in which the right appears…(this)
would seem to demand a more sophisticated engagement by lawyers with
the political and moral justifications which are inextricably linked
in most nationalist claims to better legal recognition.” Further, Stephen
Tierney advises the researchers “with an interest in developing the
meaning of self-determination as a legal right should inform themselves
first, of the work being done by social scientists in their attempt
to locate the origin of national identity, and secondly, of the efforts
of theorists to engage with the moral issues arising from the rights
claims of ethnic or national group.” 2
The question of justice should be a central one in a research on this
topic.
It seems the truth is born in the dialogue between lawyers and politicians.
The difference between their discourses becomes apparent in the view
of Kantian classical dilemma of ‘sein’ and ‘sollen’. A politician starts
from the present situation, from reality towards visions. A lawyer brought
up in the continental law system has the framework of law as a quasi-ethical
system and trends to go towards the society how it must be in justice.
The later approach is a Hegelian one, a way from idea of absolute towards
reality. As history shows, e.g. Marxism as materialistic elaboration
of Hegelian dialectics, Hegelian ideas entail the threat of monism in
people's understanding of real life, thus, are in opposition to pluralism,
which precludes the dialogue. I believe the right way should start from
ethno-national claims through recognition of ethno-political interests
towards legal recognition of ethno-cultural differences.
What have the philosophical conceptions brought into the debate in political
sciences and the theory of state and law? Law reflects new achievements
of social sciences (such as deconstruction discourse, which is rather
common for social sciences nowadays) but not directly. That is, the
attempts to formulate alternative conceptions of the nation have certain
implications for relevant law and state debate. Namely, in the political-legal
context the first temptation is to deconstruct the conception of the
nation. Still nowadays the theorists are accustomed to take outputs
of other social and political scientists automatically and without testing
for legal purposes. Lawyers work with results, which have already been
prepared by ethnologists as well as scholars of nationalism and ethnopolitics.
For example, some theorists think that essentialist and situationalist
theories can be applied while discussing the problems of state and nation-building.
The attempt to fill this gap from the standpoint of situationalism was
made by Timo Makkonen in his recent work.3
The most problematic here is the question of the origin of identities,
as well as the role of the state in constructing them. Exploring the
literature on the issue one comes to the conclusion that scientists
usually try to take neutral position in dealing with legal aspects of
ethnicity. Historically theoreticians in their argument used to assume
the homogeneity of the population of the state. But recently inadequacy
of this approach has been realised. Ethnicity and nationality are often
taken as a base for inclusion or exclusion individuals and ethnic groups
and such policies create injustices. First of all, it can be seen in
the treatment of citizenship. Appropriate political and legal forms
should be found to combat injustices based on one's ethnic origin. In
my opinion, the approach to the matter from the position of ethno-national
movements is not less justified as it allows seeing the problem with
ethnic claims from inside.
I argue that we shouldn't mix the theories of ethnology with those of
ethnopolitics and other political sciences. The legal discourse is influenced
by theories and categories of ethnology, ethnopolitics, nationalism
and other social sciences. But it is important to understand that we
cannot arbitrarily transfer outcomes of philosophy and ethnology, which
are presented by essentialist and situationalist approaches, from ‘the
world of ideas’, into the current discourse of ethnopolitics and law.
The concept of state is also a construction. It is no more justified
than the concept of nation. If we deconstruct the category ‘nation’
why could we not deconstruct the category ‘state’? Beyond the frame
of philosopical discourse the idea of state usually takes the form of
material substance. People start to believe that "state" is
something natural and obvious. Artificial constructs of civic nationalism
are no more justified than those of ethnic nationalism; they bear the
same core of essentialism. In the field of ethnicity we should work
with alternatives other than dualism of monistic ‘essentialism’ and
‘situationalism’ or ‘ethnic nationalism’ and ‘civic nationalism’. It
must be realised that the state is not the place were the identities
should be born, even if it pretends.4
In political-legal space few proponents of liberalism such as Charles
Taylor, Yael Tamir, Jozef Raz, and more recently, Will Kymlicka and
David Miller, addressed the issue of nationalist impact on the contemporary
world developments from liberal prospective. In this paper I investigate
the liberal response at the level of political-legal debate to the rise
of ethno-nationalism. My suggestion is that the liberals fill the gap
I sketched above between ethno-national claims and legal pretensions
in complementary approach moving from ethnicity to politics and law.
I begin with analysis of political philosophy of Will Kymlicka. Further,
I undertake the survey in David Miller's philosophy. Finally, I compare
the proposals of David Miller and Will Kymlicka for political and legal
accommodation of ethnocultural differences and outline some implication
of their reasoning for the legal discourse on human rights.
Minority
nations within the multi-nation state in political philosophy of David
Miller
David
Miller proclaims plainly that his task is to adopt a practical attitude
adequate towards nationalism. This is similar to what I have discussed
on practical application of modernist approach in Rogers Brubaker’s
position. Like Kymlicka, but unlike Brubaker, Miller thinks nationalism
is not totally modern and not something what happens. Modern is the
idea of acting collectively, which enables people to generate nationalism
making sense of social surroundings. Thus, he recognises that people’s
own beliefs matter for nationality, but notwithstanding hesitates about
validity of subjectivity as method. He is concerned rather with objective
consideration of social constructions available to critical analysis
in accordance with implications of Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm.5
Miller’s work is exceptional for his excurse into ethical problems of
nationality. He argues national allegiances are suitable only in the
context of ethnic particularism, which values membership and attachments.
6 Probably, ethnic particularism
could be equated with cultural relativism, although Miller is not explicit
on the issue.
Following John Stuart Mill, David Miller favours the term ‘nationality’
to ‘nationalism’, because in his view the later term bears negative
connotation, not being enough sanitised even with involvement of classifications
of different kinds of nationalism. In fact, this is already positioning,
because the term ‘nationality’ stays next to ‘citizenship’. In consistency
with this theoretical framework with reservation he could be named a
proponent of nation-building project, including such its components
as public debate, vision of the future and civil education. Reservation
concerns his restriction of applicability of such project to ethnic
but not national groups. Simultaneously, Miller denies himself being
a proponent of civic nationalism, in particular he criticizes ‘constitutional
patriotism’ of Habermas, arguing that such concepts are misleading,
because they provide too thin reading of citizenship as the political
umbrella of society. Cultural membership matters for citizenship in
his opinion, and civic ties are too thin to cover it.7
Being a pluralist Miller favours unsurprisingly liberal multiculturalism
of Josef Raz and criticizes what he calls radical multiculturalism of
I. M. Young, because in Miller’s view multicultural politics of difference
alienates. Basing on American example he claims that multiculturalism
and nationality might be reconciled thinning national identities, but
still preserving cultural component, that is, not too thin, not just
to the political content of Habermas. Instead he argues there are many
ways of being national. He quotes Michael Walzer that national identity
is not replacement but addition to ethnic consciousness. 8
Thus, Miller believes that despite the cosmopolitan and multicultural
challenges, national identities continue to matter, because they provide
appropriate form of solidarity. No one is simply a nationalist, that
is why liberal theory like this of Miller is needed.9
In his way of thinking it is realised that even if the nation is distinct
form the state, they, nevertheless, correspond to each other. One implication
of this is that rights and obligation stemming from nationality are
powerful, but amorphous, whereas citizenship provides them with determinacy.
Nonetheless, Miller believes that multi-ethnic nation is also viable,
if ethnic groups feel secure and comfortable within the wider state,
thus, are sub-national in his vocabulary. He criticizes Gellner for
his belief that a nation must be ethnically homogeneous. Miller argues
it is an error to believe that every cultural group wants its own state.10
Of course, if group’s existence is threatened, it would be logical for
Miller to expect their desire to acquire own national identity and,
thus, become de facto a national minority. He assumes that
an ideal solution would be if national and political units were congruent,
that is, for him national minority could become the bearer of the right
to national self-determination.
National
self-determination is the way to achieve Gellner’s ideal of congruence
between political and national units, thus, bearing destabilising force.
But rather then accounting nationalism as backward-looking and reactionary,
David Miller points to historical association between national self-determination
and democracy. He argues only democratic state can ensure self-determination
to be genuinely national, that is, not of a class or an elite. I think
this coordination function of national ideology is equally valid also
towards ethnic groups, which often constitute a separate social strata.
But Miller admits it would be too strong to say that self-determination
requires democracy. Often the only democratic solution is partial self-determination,
which contradicts Gellner’s definition. Indeed, it follows from what
he says that nationalism could be democratic or exclusionary. It depends
on whether democratic procedures are kept in the process of national
self-determination.11
In practice the formal political status of ethnic and national minorities
is often similar, and Miller does not provide criteria what features
exactly make them distinct from each other. He opposes secession for
ethnic groups and argues that in many cases only partial self-determination
of national groups is realistic due to situations when the territory
is too small to function as an independent state, or when population
are so mixed that damage of separation will exceed its merits. It matters
for secession also if national groups compose 'rival nationalities'
or 'nested nationalities'. In Kymlickan classification both are referred
as national minorities. Miller's classification is more sophisticated
and, it seems, justified so. In the case of together-being described
as 'rival nationalities' he recognises national self-determination as
a valid method of solution. Breuilly believes the last multicultural
state was the USSR; for Brubaker Europe is entering not a post-national
but post-multinational era. Miller agrees partly only with classic modernist
scepticism to pluralism by Gellner, Breuilly as well as pragmatism by
Brubaker. Unlike
Gellner he does not see every national group with distinct national
identity to be potential nation and admits that multi-nation state is
another solution in the situation of 'nested nationalities'. 12
The core idea of the category 'nested nationality' proceeds from understanding
that national identity often being ambivalent can exist at two levels.
This category is addressed to phenomena laying in-between those signified
as ethnic groups and rival national groups. Ethnicity is not political
identity and does not bear territorial claims in itself. Miller applies
for justification of the category the case of British, English and Scottish
identities. But his ideas are applicable for assessment of the cases
with every minority nation. Miller enumerates such factors contributing
to nested nations as overlapping cultures, mutual economic advantage,
interwoven history of collaboration and common memory. In my view, common
history would be the first factor to list, in the sense, that it precedes
and enables overlap of cultures and economic benefits to take place.
For nations to have common history means that no alternative reading
of historical together-being is allowed except the one written in collaboration.
Further, Miller argues that enthusiasm for nations staying in one state
is greater among small nations. The label matters because of power of
the idea of national self-determination. For members of majority too
often it is hard to distinguish different levels of identity. Thus,
not every citizen is a bearer of nested identities. What identity do
the representatives of majority have then? Miller doubts if such national
identity exists.13
What is in Miller's opinion the best way to accommodate 'nested nationalities'
in the state? He believes majority voting cannot decide the state structure.
There should be constitutional settlement for sub-nations. The proper
response is to create political structure to recognise difference of
two or more communities. Minority needs a clear and distinct national
identity. Such distinction has for minority both symbolic and material
importance. It would be misleading after all to consider such a state
as multinational. At the same time, he is right to point out that members
of dominant nation would rather not think of themselves as separate
nation apart and below state-nation. Nevertheless, his prescription
is that majority nation should recognise smaller nations as separate
ones. In my opinion, here lays breach in argumentation. I think Miller's
own critique of identity politics is equally valid here towards majority.
Constitutional accommodation of minority nations and fostering of minority
identities would automatically lead to self-identification of majority
as separate nation in the state.
Minority
nations and the theory of minority rights in political philosophy of
Will Kymlicka
Starting
with his first significant book on liberalism and culture, Will Kymlicka
articulates his intention to generate a liberal response to the challenge
of ethnocultural diversity. His vocabulary in the book on multicultural
citizenship suggests that constructing the theory, he started with ethnicity,
that is, he did not go in depth exploring the philosophical and sociological
roots of ethnonational phenomena, but took rather a practical approach
with intention to accommodate ethnocultural differences within the existing
political structures of the liberal state. In his recent book he elaborated
on his theory at the level of philosophical and ethnological debate.
14
Unlike some other political science scholars in the field supporting
the necessity of practical stand in containing nationalism like Brubaker,
Kymlicka sees these ethnic differences as real source of social injustice,
thus, does not share the view on ethnic identity as situational. In
fact, he posits himself against situationalism when proposing the categories
and their definition as response to politics of situationalism. This
later term must be interpreted probably in such way that the state voluntarily
can abstain from definition of its nationality policies to encourage
situational change of identities. It is minorities who want to have
the rules of game defined. At the same time, Kymlicka does not fall
into essentialism, which is the other extreme approach to nationalism.
He emphasises, what would be logical to expect from a politician is
instrumental value of cultures in justification of claims for political
power. Yet, he rejects also modernist explanation and argues the explanation
to minority issues in terms of the clash of civilisations is made for
the sake of theoretical contrast, that is, exaggerated. 15
Central for liberal conception freedom of choice depends on culture.
Societal culture provides meaningful ways of life, context for choice.
Nation’s societal culture is national culture. The difference between
ethnic groups and national groups is that the later have societal culture.
Could be without? Interchange is possible, but still remain to be different
cultures. Self-government of small nations is needed to control the
rate of change. Culture must be own, too strong to give up, Rawls believes.
Despite cultural unification, people do value their cultural membership,
because it provides meaningful options.
Such staging led him to distinction between two basic categories in
his theory: 'national minorities' and 'immigrants'. Distinction is grounded
in basic difference of the place and strategies of groups in society.
Immigrants aim at "similarity" whereas national minorities
at "difference"16.
Answering to criticism expressed by some scholars towards this dilemma,
he alleges the actual practice and argues exactly these cases to be
most typical ways of successfully containing the ethnonational challenge.
The fact that the difficult cases "in-between" remain resolved
does not permit generalisations on invalidity of the categories and
inadmissibility of national claims as such. These cases are the result
of injustice and do not harm the logic of dilemma. Still, racism can
be inclusive or exclusive 17.
His opening point is comprehension of inadmissibility of the situation
when scholars construct their state theories as if the state were culturally
homogeneous and, thus, are silent on minority issues. In reality, he
witnesses, states rarely are homogeneous.18
In his view, it is false to think that "civic nations" are
ethnically neutral. Basing on this premise, he perceives the need to
supplement traditional human rights doctrines with liberal theory of
minority rights. Minority rights in this context are not deviation from
neutrality but response to nation-building. According to Kymlicka to
struggle for minority rights means, first, to accept the nation-building
concept and, second to amend and modify it. Ethnocultural groups deserve
liberalisation and modernisation but still need minority rights. Their
minority nationalism is directed to liberal democratic values. Limits
to nationalism are applicable both to majority and minority nationalisms.
Theory of permissible forms of nation-building is needed. External protections
are legitimate from liberal point of view. Internal restrictions are
prohibited. 19 Thus, the outcome
is that even if it is hard to accomplish in the conditions of dominant
culture, national minorities are legitimate in pursuing their own nation-building
alternative to state nation-building. 20
The state could both multinational and polyethnic, though usually it
views itself as one or other. Minorities are afraid that policies would
reduce their claims of nationhood to the level of immigrant ethnicity.
That was often the reaction to the laws advancing national-cultural
autonomy. Kymlicka explores three arguments of justice: equality, historical
agreements and cultural diversity and emphasises that they should be
involved in complex. After all, claims of justice made by ethnic groups
are of the same kind made by social movements. That means a part of
a larger struggle.21
It could be said that democratic multinational federation succeeded
even if it constantly faces the challenge what is the source of its
unity and, additionally, is not always fair to its nations. One problem
is that federal subunits can be manipulated to actually reduce self-government
of minority nations. It is not a wonder that nationality-based units
want more power than territory-based units, because nations vision of
federation is federation of peoples. They want their status to be symbolically
recognised. But this vision is difficult to negotiate with majority
nation and implement in asymmetrical federalism, because for majority
federation is first of all federation of territorial units. Kymlicka
believes such majority expectation to be a mistake based of false equation
of equality of citizens and equality of units. The first is a principle
of liberalism but not the second. Having in mind this difficulty, the
other problem appears that minority nations experience better treatment
from the federal government than from subunit government if they are
in minority in the subunit either. In my view, regional political elites
are not interested usually to increase power of subunit but see it just
as a part within the larger context of the state as a whole. And it
is "glory" of the state they are concerned, not of its subunit.
To resolve the problems Kymlicka illustrates the way they were addressed
in the US and Canada in form of reserved lands out side the federal
system.22
In sum, Kymlicka is sophisticated in showing what is needed to accomplish
minority nation-building project.23
An ethno-national movement should present its pursue for recognition
in the political-legal field as a part in the general struggle for democratisation.
First, it should press the state for the rules of the ethnopolitical
games, for defined nationality policies. Second, it should lobby for
asymmetrical federation, where national minorities will be recognised
as constitutive nations of nationality-based federal units, having symbolic
but also material dividends from such status. Third, in the case when
nationality-based federal units are not asymmetrical, that is, not effective
for minority nation-building, the movement should concentrate on the
struggle for self-government rights, extending the system of federation,
preferring rather land reserves system and advancing land rights' claims
in capacity of indigenous peoples.
Some
implications for general human rights concept
The
theories of liberal nationalism advanced by Will Kymlicka and David
Miller provide a passable bridge between ethno-nationalism and law.
Stepping from similar liberal premises, they both took a practical approach
of political researchers and did not plan to produce a new theory of
nationalism, nor a legal theory. Nevertheless, their proposals are important
for investigators of both ethnopolitics and law, because of their far-reaching
implications.
Kymlicka is a political philosopher, not a lawyer. His intention is
to produce a theory on minority rights, but after all it is
a political theory of rights. He was able to put the minority
issues in language of rights, because he assessed the existing doctrine
from the perspective of finding a political solution to ethical problems
of social justice. It is indeed possible to look at the matter from
the point of justice. But justice is not a single driving force in politics
and even not the most influential. Politicians often are led by considerations
of stability instead those of justice. In fact, a solution in the political
sphere has not been found yet. That is why ethno-national claims are
not ready for revised legal comprehension either. It seems it is not
possible to reach an adequate normative evaluation of the problem in
the legal discourse without negotiated political forms of adjustment
beyond the state.
The concept of the nation-state is challenged. What is the corner brick
of the fundament of the modern international political order? Is this
the state? Does the concept of national sovereignty based on the ideology
of civil nation remain to be more justified than other concepts? “The
notion of the state and sovereign state is becoming increasingly difficult
to employ as description of reality” 24.The
bloody history of last century has shown that the state cannot be build
on the idea of supremacy of one class over the others or of one ethnically
defined nation over the others. But could it be build up on the notion
of civil nation that is on citizenship, which is given by the state
its population? Is the idea of patriotism cultivated among state’s own
citizens not the same idea of supremacy of white race over yellow and
black ones? These are the question for a discussion on the future of
the state itself, which two scholars do not undertake. They work rather
within the existing concept of the liberal state.
Group-differentiated rights are considered to be in contradiction to
citizenship and to challenge social unity in the liberal state. But
citizenship itself is group-differentiated as far as it concerns foreigners.
The state promotes certain cultural identity, the government supports
dominant culture. In fact, representation rights and polyethnic rights
of minorities serve the function of integration into society. Indeed,
only self-government rights could theoretically challenge citizenship.
However, nation-building policies imposing common citizenship on minorities
lead to violent conflicts, whereas guaranteeing self-government rights
reduces the likelihood of such conflicts. Kymlicka agrees with Anthony
D. Smith and Walker Connor that governments have no other choice than
to accommodate minorities through recognition of minority rights in
addition to human rights.
Miller has little to say on law and does not pretend to formulate legal
conceptions, nonetheless cannot spare the language of rights. One important
Miller’s consideration is that “the principle of nationality is resistant
to special rights for groups, over and above what equal treatment requires,
because of the fear that this will ossify group differences and destroy
the sense of common nationality on which democratic politics depends”.25
Further, in the second book, he is of different opinion on this question
and considers as desirable political recognition, which fixes and consolidates
minorities. People are not to be trapped in their own past. Miller reaches
a similar to Kymlicka conclusion that nationalists are true to their
core belief, only that nationality principle must be applied to all
levels.26
In Kymlickan appraisal, individual human rights protect group life,
although not perfectly, remaining silent on some issues, including minority
issues. Non-discrimination is helpful to protect minorities from most
the cruel attempts of assimilation and other abuses like genocide. But
existing human rights are still insufficient to prevent other forms
of ethnocultural injustice, because they do not preclude less extreme
forms of nation-building. The field of human rights, minority rights
and citizen's rights remains to be controversial, for example, in what
concerns the right to free mobility etc. The state can infringe minority
rights under the slogan of human rights assertion in such directions
of its nationality policies as internal migration policies, drawing
the boundaries and sharing power with internal political units, pursuing
official language policy. Thus, Kymlicka holds the view that human rights
and minority rights are equally important components of the human rights
doctrine. The list of human rights is incomplete and should be amended
to fill this gap and avoid contradictions. That means minority rights
are not exception from but logical extension of human rights. That is
to say, liberal minority-majority approach to ethno-national challenge
is a part of the general liberal discourse and, thus, is not exceptional
to the liberal human rights doctrine. 27
1
Makkonen, Timo. Identity, Difference and Otherness. The Concepts of
"People," "Indigenous people" and "Minority" in International Law, Erik
Castrén Institute Research Reports 7/2000, Forum Iuris, Helsinki 2000,
p. 33
2
Laitin, David. Political science. In: Encyclopaedia of nationalism.
Fundamental themes. San-Diego etc. Acad. press, 2001. Vol. 1, p. 575
3
Miller, David. On nationality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 4-7
4 Ibid., pp. 49-58
5 Ibid., pp. 163, 178, 182, 189; Citizenship and national
identity, Cambridge Polity Press, 2000, p. 131; He pays specific attention
to question of citizenship and nationality in this second book especially
in chapter 5.
6
Miller, David. Citizenship and national identity, Cambridge Polity Press,
2000, pp. 130-141
7
Ibid., pp. 155-195, especially pages 162, 174, 184, 187;
8 Citizenship and national identity, Cambridge Polity
Press, 2000, p. 31. Similar point on complementarity of nationalism
made Anthony D. Smith
9 Miller, David. On nationality, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1995, pp. 20-21, 68-70
10
Ibid., pp. 89-90;
11Citizenship and national identity, Cambridge Polity
Press, 2000, p. 26
12 Miller, David. Citizenship and national identity,
Cambridge Polity Press, 2000, pp. 113-117
13 Ibid., pp. 127-137
14
For evolution of his view compare, for instance: Kymlicka, Will. Liberalism,
community, and culture, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1989, Multicultural
citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights, Oxford Clarendon Press,
1995, and Politics in the Vernacular - Nationalism, Multiculturalism,
and Citizenship, Queen’s National Scholar, Department of Philosophy,
Queen’s University, 2001
15 Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular - Nationalism,
Multiculturalism, and Citizenship, Queen’s National Scholar, Department
of Philosophy, Queen’s University, 2001, pp. 50-62
16 Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural citizenship: a liberal
theory of minority rights, Oxford Clarendon Press 1995, pp. 59-60
17 Ibid., pp. 64-65
18 Ibid., pp. 1-6
19
Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority
rights, Oxford Clarendon Press 1995, pp. 34-35
20 Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular - Nationalism,
Multiculturalism, and Citizenship, Queen’s National Scholar, Department
of Philosophy, Queen’s University, 2001, pp. 1-4, 20-38
21 Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural citizenship: a liberal
theory of minority rights, Oxford Clarendon Press 1995, pp. 13-19, 239
22 Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular - Nationalism,
Multiculturalism, and Citizenship, Queen’s National Scholar, Department
of Philosophy, Queen’s University, 2001, pp. 90-110
23 Ibid., pp. 158-160
24
Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State / Manchester University Press
1982, second edition 1992, p. 395
25
Miller, David. On nationality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 146-154
26 Miller, David. Citizenship and national identity,
Cambridge Polity Press, 2000, pp. 35, 70, 138-140
27
Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular - Nationalism, Multiculturalism,
and Citizenship, Queen’s National Scholar, Department of Philosophy,
Queen’s University, 2001, pp. 69-89
Date:
May, 2004