Conclusions

Abstract

Languages may be minoritised as part of deep-rooted and long-lasting power conflicts, often colonial, ethnic or nationalist in nature. Definitions of conflict are fluid, and the theory and practice of conflict resolution contains within it contradictions and inconsistencies. Where struggle has been ongoing over a period of years, evaluating the success of any given CR process is influenced by changing values and political priorities as well as the moulding of relationships among the conflict parties. Domestic law is often part of the arsenal of the state in maintaining its dominance. Since World War II, the international ‘club’ of nation states has devised self-protecting approaches to conflict resolution geared towards the maintenance of stability within individual member states and at a broader international level. Mechanisms to protect human, minority and, to a lesser extent, linguistic rights have grown from this context. Soft law has been criticised for particular failure in conflict situations. It remains unjusticiable in domestic courts. In the case of self-determination, the shifting goals of nation states in different centuries have created an ongoing confusion in the law which disadvantages the less powerful in nationalist conflicts. Language rights are currently poorly served in soft law instruments, contributing to the marginalisation of minoritised language communities within the broader antidiscrimination, equality and human rights debate.