Ybkohama’LawReview - CORE · Ybkohama’LawReview (YokohamaKokusaiKeizaiH6gaku)...
Transcript of Ybkohama’LawReview - CORE · Ybkohama’LawReview (YokohamaKokusaiKeizaiH6gaku)...
Ybkohama’LawReview (YokohamaKokusaiKeizaiH6gaku)
Volume16Numberl
SepterTlber2007
Contents ArtICles
RethinkingofTheDoubleStandardTheory MasaomlKIMIZUKA
CanweestabllShaFreeTradeAgreementoftheAsLa-PacIfic(FTAAP)? Hlroml KABASHlMA
RelationsbetweentheGovernmentSect10nandtheEconomcandScIentlflCSect10n ofGHQ/SCAPlntheProcessofConstltutionalReformInJapan FocusslngOnthePerLOdfromtheBeginnlngtheAllledOccupat10ntO
CompletIOnOfso-CalledMacArthurDraftConstltut10n Koan-JeongKIM
Note
DleRechtsnaturderGarantlehaftung
Taku WATANABE
ConstltutIOnallSmln mOdern Chlna TheAcceptanceofConstltut10naIISmInNon-WesternCountrIeS
Naoyukl MATSUl AstudyofthedraftbankruptcylawofTalWan.2004
You KOUKA
LLberalUnderstandlng.Shortcomlng.andControversyaproposGroupRLghts DoWeNeedaDrfferentParadigmワ
Mohammad SHAHABUDDIN
Matenal
CNilLawinthePeopIelsRepubIFCOfChina(Draft):PersonalRlghtLaw
withtwoludlClaryFnterPretat10naboutpersonaldamagebytheSupremeCourllnChina EIIChilCHIKAWA
l)し直Ii\】1しし111\
Association oflnternationaland Businessl,aW
TnttlrnatioTla](ir;ldu;ltt-SぐhoolofS()CialSぐit,lnL、tlS
YokohヱIm;lNationiIILTniversitv
[二重亘二〕
LiberalUnderstanding,Shortcoming,and
ControversyaproposGroupRights:
DoWtNeedaDifLtrentParadigm?
Mohammad Shahabuddin*
1.Prologue:
Liberalattitudetowardsgrouprightsisadubiousone.Forquitealongtime,
1iberalsconsideredanyideaofgroupidentityathreattoindividualism;hence
therewasnojusti負cation正)rdevolvinganyrightto‘groups’.Historyofmankind
ismarkedwithincidentsofbrutalityagainstindividuals,eSpeCiallywomen,inthe
name ofrelig10nOrCulture.Onceliberalismcamewiththe messageof
emancipationforindividuals,therewasnoreasontoletreligious and cultural
dogmasruleover血・eedomagain.Historical1y,Ontheotherhand,Variousminority
groupshadbeenvictimsofmqJOrityoppression・Therefore,itwasalsofelt
necessarytoprotecttheseminoritygroupsforthe sakeofhumanityorfor
internationalornationalstability.ThePeaceofAugsburg(1555),thePactof
Warsaw(1573),andtheEdictofNantes(1598)aresomeoftheearlymechanisms
forprotectingreligiousminorities.However,withtheemergenceofliberal
155
横浜国際緑済法学第16巻第1号(2007年91」)
ideologyasadominantphilosophyintheinternationalplane,theideaofminority
rightsstartedtobeconsideredredundant,Instead,itwasbelievedthatliberal-
individualismcould effectivelyguaranteenecessaryprotectionsforvarious
minoritygroupsbeitreligious,1inguistic,Culturalorethnic.Sincethen,aSharp
lineofdistinctionhasbeenvisiblekeepingliberals(advocatesofindividual
rights)andcommunitarians(proponentsofgrouprights)intwosidesoftheline.
Forliberals,individualismoreimportantthancommunityandcommunityis
important only aslong asit contributes toindividualwe11-being.For
COmmunitarians,Ontheotherhand,COmmunitycomesfirstasindividualwell-
beingandautonomyisdeeplyrootedincommunitylife.
LiberalUnderstanding,ShorteomingandCon[roversyaproPOSGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm?
individualismandcomeupwithanaccommodativeliberalh・ameWOrktoaddress
theissuesofgrouprights.Consequently,thesharplineofdistinctionbetween
communitariansandlibertariansstartedgettingblurredwiththeemergenceofan
accommodativeconceptionthatindividualrightsandgrouprightsarenot
mutuallyexclusiveanditispossibletoaccommodategrouprightswithinliberal
framework.Theproponentsofthisargument,YaelTamir,JosephRaz,andWill
Kymlicka,aCknowledgethattherearecompellinginterestsrelatedtocultureand
identitywhicharefu11yconsistentwithliberalprinciplesoffreedomandequality,
andwhichjustifygrantingspecialrightstominorities.Kymlickacallsthisthe
‘1iberalculturalist’position.
ThecollapseofBerlinWallwasconsideredalandslidevictoryofliberal
ideology.HopewassohighthatFukuyamaevencalleditthe‘endofhistory’as
hesawtheprogressionofhumanhistoryasastrugglebetweenideologies
eomingtoanendwiththeworldsettlingonliberaldemocracya氏ertheendofthe
ColdWar.1)Butthishopewasshort-1ived.EthniccleanslnginformerYugoslavia
andRwandaputabigquestionmarktothathope.EveninWesterndemocracies
likeCanada,Belgium,andSpain,grOupreSentmentisverYmuChprevalent.Even
afteralmostonedecadeofsigningtheBelLastPeaceAgreement,ethnictensions
inNorthernIrelandsometimestakespaceinthepagesofnewspapers.Besides,
VariousdiasporaswithinWestern democraciesarenowmoreorganizedthan
beforeasaresultofincessanttechnologicalinventionsthathelpedinreviving
ethnicidentitybyprovidingwithcheaperwayofcommunications.Atthesame
time,marketeconomyhasbroughthomeethnictelevisionchannelsoreven
ethnicfoods.Thehopethatinthisincreasinglyglobalizedworldvariouscultures
Willconvergeintooneculturehasbeenreducedtoabsurdity.Perhaps,allthese
reallife experiencesprovokedliberalsto revisitthewholeideaofliberal-
156
lnthefollowingsections,Iwillcriticallyexaminethis‘1iberalculturalist’
positionofWillKymlickawithaviewtodemonstratingthateventhismoderate
positionisincompatible,atleasttheoretically,Withtheideaofgrouprights・One
Obviousimplicationofthisassertionisthatweneedadifferentparadigmto
addressthisvitalshortcoming.ThescopeOfthispaperislimitedtothisaspect
only,andnodetaileddiscussiononanyalternativeparadigmismadehere.
2.‘Can Liberalism Accommodate Group Rights?’-A
CommunitarianCha11engeforKymlickn:
VernonVanDyke2,aVeteranCOmmunitarian,anSWerSthisquestioninnegative・
HepresentsahistoricalaccountofhowliberalpoliticaltheoristslikeHobbes,
Locke,andRousseaueliminated anypoliticalidentitybetween Stateand
individuals.HefindsthesamephenomenonintheworkofRawIswho put
individualsinthe‘0riginalpositions’.HiscriticismgoestoMillandBarkeraswell
fortheirindividualisticapproach十 Unlikethem,VanDykefindshistoric
157
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
precedentsexistandcontemporarypracticesarefollowedthatgoagainstliberal
individualisticposition;theestablishmentoftheStateitselfisonesuchgreat
historicprecedence.lnhiswords:
LiberalUnderstanding,ShortcomlngandControversyaproposGroupRightsニDoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm?
doesnot軋”7 Thesameanalogyappliestoothercountrieswherethereisa
practice ofgrantinggroup rights.Eveninthe US,COmmunity rightis
acknowledgedforIndians.“IJegislationconcerningtheIndiansrenectsdifferent
andcontradictoryprinciples,butsomeofitassumesthatthetribesarelike
sovereignstatesinbeingirreducibleright-and-duty-bearingunits.”H} Wecanadd
manymoretoVanDyke’sexamples.Malaysiahasbeensuecessfu11ypursulng
thispolicyformanyyearstokeepharmonyamongethnicMalays,Chinese,and
Indiancommunities.IJebanonisanotherexample.
“【T]henotionthatallindividualssomehowconsenttothejurisdictionofthe
Stateisanobvioustiction.Amoretenableposition(…)isthathumanneeds
existatvariouslevels(.,.).andthattheexistenceofneedsinlPliesarightto
meetthem”・.Thisprinciplejusti負esindividualrights,anditalsojustiBesthe
rightsofcommunities,includingthecommunities(orthecommunitiesof
COITmlunities)thatconstitutestates.Atnolevelaretherightsabsolute.At
eachlevelandbetweenlevels,rightsandtheirexercisearelimitedbyother
rights・Withinlimitsreachedafterconsideringtherelevantrights,the
meetingoftheneedsofcommunity-Orthepromotionofthegoodofthe
COmmunity-justi丘esrestrictionsonthebehaviourofindividuals,Whether
theyconsentornot.”6)
Defendinghissecondassumptionthatrightsthatshouldbeaccordedto
groupsshouldalsobethoughtofasreflectingmoralclaims,VanDykequestions:
“Whyshouldthepossibilityberu1edoutthattheauthorityofthestateshouldbe
limitednotonlybythemoralrightsofindividuals(“inalienable”orhuman
rights),butalsobythemoralrightsofgroups?”L巨 Heassertsthatthegrantof
legalstatusandrightstogroupsinmanycountriesmaywellbeinresponsetoa
moralclaim.Similarly,therighttoselfdeterminationasamoralrightisglVentO
groups,and mostimportantlythisgrouprightisnotconnictingwithindividual
rights.Toquotehim:‘′nlereisneverathoughtthatwhenapeopleexerciseits
righttoselidetermination,theoutcomemightviolateanindividualright.No
violationoccurseveninthecaseofthosewhoopposetheoutcome.Theyretain
therighttoleavethegroup,buttheyhavenorightofprotectionagainstthe
group’sdecision,andnorightofredress・・・TheforegolngSuggeStthatitisthe
corporateunitthatenJOyStheright;themostthatanindividualeanclaimisa
righttoparticipateinthecorporatechoice.”10)Inadifferentworkll),hecriticises
liberalattitudetowardstherighttoself-determinationbysaylngthatliberalswho
Championthisrightfornationsorpeoplestendtothinkofanationorpeoplenot
asaeollectiveentitybutasanaggregationofindividuals.Hedismantlesthis
159
Hisargumentinfavourofgrouprightshasitsbaseontwoassumptions:
瓜rst,thecommunitieshaverightsasseparateunitsandinsomecasesthese
rightsarenotreducibletotherightsofindividualsasmembers,andsecond,
theserightsmayrenectmoralclaims.Heexempli鮎dtheBrstassumptionwith
theBritishpracticeinmanyofhercolonieswhereBritishconferredlegalrights
tocommunities.Britishpracticeforcoloniesisevidentinmanyindependent
COuntries.InBelglum,rightshavebeendevoIvedtolinguisticcommunities.In
Fiji,SpeCiallandrightisguaranteedfortheFijianintheconstitution.He
COmmentSOnthisarrangementthatitis“obviouslycommunal,glVlnglandrights
tothecommunityassuchonaco11ective,COrpOratebasis.rIbseektoreduce
thesecommunalrightstoindividualrightsistostraintopreserveaparadigmthat
158
L,JH・m[=Il血s(aIlding,ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights=DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm?
舶rt(・(1with:Canliberalismaccommodategrouprights.Toquotehim:
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号 t2007年9月)
COnCeptionandassertsthatthoughindividualshaveinterestinbeinggrouped,
thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattherelatedrightgoestoindividuals.
VanDyke’scriticismextendedtopluralistsaswell.Likesomeliberalists,
heargues,mOStOfthepluralistsconsidervariousinterestgroupsbetween
individualandstates.Butethniccommunitiesfailedtoattracttheirattention.The
problemwithinterestgrouplnSuChapositionisthattheypursue,inVanDyke’s
term,’individualisticvalues’.Giventhisbackground,hisassertionisjusti茄ed:
“Theliberalconception-anindividualistconception-isundulylimited‥・
Consideringtheheterogeneityofmankindandofthepopulationofvirtuallyevery
existingstate,itisalsonecessarytothinkofethniccommunitiesandcertain
Otherkindsofgroups,andtoincludethemamongthekindsofright-and-duty-
bearingunitswhoseinterrelationshiparetobeexplored.”12iHisanotherattack
Onliberal-individualismcomesinthefollowingway:
“【T]heliberal,mOVedbyhumanconcerns,hastofavoursomekindofa
special,prOteCtiveregimefor【indigenouspeople]-perhapsestablishing
territorialreseTVeSfromwhich othersareexcluded.Butthisiscontraryto
)iberaldoctrine,Whichisatleastintegrationistifnotassimilationist;
pcrmanentcommunalismisunacceptable・Andsotheliberalistorn・Whathe
usuallydoesistosaythatthespecialmeasuresfortheindigenousare
transitory,pendingdevelopmentsthatpermitintegration・Butifindependence
isimpractical,permanentCOmmunalismmaybeexactlywhattheindigenous
Want…
・lnetroubleisthattheliberalhasnoplaceinhistheoryforpeoplesasdistinct
t)Oliticalunitswithinthestate・Individualsaretheunits,andwhenindividuals
aredividedupforgovernmentalpurposes,itmustbeonaterritorialbasisand
notonthebasisofethnicdifferences.‖Thereseemstobenoplaceinthe
liberal,sthoughtforthepossibilitythatanindigenouspopulationmightwant
t()preSerVeitsdistinctiveidentityinde丘nitely・”14’
“1tisunjusttoacceptorassume statusand rightsforstates,nations,and
“peoples,”buttorejectthemforethniccommunitiesthatarealsohistorically
COnStituted.Anditisevenunjusttoindividualstosaythatthosewhobelong
todominantgroupscanenjoytheattendantadvantagesandsatisfactions,
whereasthosewhobelongtonondominantandminoritygroupsmusteither
abandontheircultureoracceptsecondclassstatus.”13) ′nlisishowVanDykeexplainsliberalshortcomingsindealingwithgroup
riKhls.Itisnotthatliberalsdonotcareaboutgroups;buttheproblemistheway
lhcytendtorespondtogroupneeds,i・e・theindividualisticapproach,isvery
o(I(1ndisprovedbypractice・Thisgapbetweentheoryandpractice・in
c()mmunitarianunderstanding,markstheinherentlackinginliberalr
individualism.Andthisisexactlywherecommunitarianstakeasolidstandby
;l$Sertingthatindividualismalonecannotbeaproperresponsetogrouprights;
ht・nCetheobviousconclusionasdrawnbyVanDykeisthat“1iberalismneeds
161
VanDykeportraysinherentdrawbacksinliberalismwiththecaseofliberal
responsetoindigenouscommunities.Liberalsacknowledgerightsforpersons
belongingindigenouscommunities,Ontheotherhand,historyshowsthatthe
indigenousareasarulenotcapableofupholdingeithertheirrightsortheir
interestsin血・eeandopenindividualisticcompetitionwiththeirmoreadvanced
COunterpartS.HiscommentonthiscontrastisavitalresponsetothequestionI
160
川,t・ll=Tll(lL-rStanding,ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRigtltS:DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm?
l・lowthegapbetweenpracticeandtheory-tOSeeifhecould丘ndanadequate
両州血tionwithinliberaltheoryforthisdifferentialtreatment.171Nowrecalling
VMlI)yke’scriticismofliberal-individualism,WeSeethatthisisexactlywhathe
w;111tlLdtheliberalstoexplain.Kymlickapickedtherightchallenge,indeed.
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
Supplementing”.15TheproposedsupplementistorecognlZetheexistenceof
groupsaswellasrightsforthosegroups.Wesuppose,bysupplementinghedid
notmeanadifferentreadingofliberalthought.Rather,giventhetheoretical
limitationsofliberal-individualism,heurgedforadistinctsetofprinciplesthat
recognizes groupexistence and group rights.Herewe find adefinite
COmmunitariananswertoourquestionthatliberalismcannot,intheory,
accommodategrouprights;andpragmaticpracticesofgroupdi鮎rentiatedrights
byliberalsstrikeattheveryrootoftheirtheory.Tnefollowingsectionswi11trace
howKymlickarespondstothischallengeputforwardbythecommunitariansand
WhataretheshortcomlngSOfsuchresponse.
Inhisventureofclosingthegapbetweenliberaltheoryandpractice,
Kymlicka’sliberaljustificationfordifferentiatedtreatmentfornationalminority
KrOupSgOeSthisway18):mOdernstatesinvariablydevelopandconsolidatea
societalculture’一針whichrequiresthestandardizationanddi仇1Sionofacommon
];L叩uage,andthecreationanddiffusionofcommoneducational,pOlitical,and
ll、Kalinstitutions.Indeed,thestateistheleadingforcebehindtheseefforts.
’111t・SL、SOCietalculturesareprofoundlyimportanttoliberalismasliberalvaluesof
行t・t・(l川Ilandequalitymustbedefinedandunderstoodinrelationtosuchsocietal
‖11t11作S.I.iberalismrestsonthevalueofindividualautonomybutwhatenables
ttlisM)rtOrautOnOmyisthefactthatoursocietalculturemakesvariousoptions
ilV;lilat)ll・tOuS.Freedomistheabilitytoexploreandrevisethewaysoflifewhich
;H・ぐIll;l(lL、aVailablebyoursocietalculture.Similarly,equalityofopportunityis
;l‖Ottll・rPillarofliberalism,butwhatmakesthisequalitypossibleisthedi凪1Sion
or;I川111mOnlanguageandinstitutionthroughoutsociety.Equalityis,inthe貢rst
iIl$t;川Ct・,a matterOfequalopportunitytoparticipateinthesecommon
ill$tituti(mS.Therefore,tOenSurefreedomandequalityforallcitizensinvoIves,
iHLpraLia,enSurlngthattheyhaveequalmembershipin,andaccessto,the
oL)I)()rtunitiesmadeavailablebythesocietalculture.Hence,membershipina
ヽl)(・it、t;11cultureisnecessaryforliberalfreedomandequality.Inthisconnection,
rrt・l・(lomandequalityforimmigrantsrequlreSfreedomandequalitywithin
ln誼11$trt!aminstitutionsbypromotinglinguisticandinstitutiona=ntegration,On
thl・川Il・hand,andbyreformingthosecommoninstitutions,Ontheother,SOthat
163
3.LiberalCulturalism:AnInsufficient Response to
CommunitarianCritique
LiberalpoliticalphilosopherWillKymlickaputforwardhisfamoustheoryof
‘1iberalculturalism’inhisseminalworkMuLticulturaLCitizensh妙6∫whichhas
beencriticizedbyboththeliberalandcommunitarianschooIs.Hisargument
StartSWiththeassertionthatinvirtual1yallliberaldemocracies,adistinctionis
drawnbetweenimmigrantsand nationalminorities.InWesterndemoeracies,
immigrantsareexpectedtointegrateintothemainstreamsociety,andthis
expectationisbackedupwiththeforceoflawsandpublicpolicies.Ontheother
hand,nationalminoritiesareviewedinadifferentway.Unliketheeighteenthand
nineteenthcenturypractices,OVerthecourseofthiscenturyanewattitudehas
developedwhichallowed states toaccord nationalminoritiesvariousself-
governmentpOWerS.Inotherwords,KymlickapointsthatWesterndemocracies
havealongstandingpracticeofgrantingdifferentiatedtreatmentfornational
minorities.TTlerefore,themotivationforhisbookwastoseewhetherhecould
162
横浜国際凝牒法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
1inguistic andinstitutionalintegrationdoes notrequire denialoftheir
ethnoculturalidentities.Butinthecaseofnationalminoritiesコ(】∴thecaseisquite
difEerent.Thesegroupsalreadypossessedasocietalcultureandtheyhavefought
tomaintaintheseinstitutions.Theirdemandsforspeciallanguagerightsand
reg10nalautonomyhaveincreasinglybeenaccepted byliberaldemocracies.
Group-differentiatedtreatmentofthissortisnotavi01ationofliberalprlnCiples,
fortoexpectthemembersofnationalminoritiestointegrateintotheinstitutions
OfthedominantCultureisneithernecessarynorfair.FreedomfortheminvoIves
theabilitytoliveandworkintheirownsocietalculture.Inshort,theaimofa
liberaltheoryofminorltyrightsisto definefairtermsofintegration for
immigrants,andtoenablenationalminoritiestomaintainthemselvesasdistinct
societies.
hlNlr;11u11derstanding,ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDi鮎rentParadignl?
(llIile a straightforward one:“Minorityrights are consistentwithliberal
ttHIIuralismif(a)theyprotectthe血・eedomofindividualswithinthegroup;and(b)
tlll-yPrOmOterelationsofequality(non-dominance)betweengroups,’’21)Inother
WOrds.accordingtothistheory,minoritygroupscanassertrightasagainstthe
軸11(、OrOthergroups,butwithinthegroupindividualrightswi11prevailover
灯l)ul)rights.7bisarrangementisquiteobviousaslongasKymlickacal1sita
●1il)t-raltheory’.However,Kymlicka’sideaofsubjectinggrouprightstothe
t・11)OymentOfliberalrightsbytheindividualmemberscanbecriticizedfrom
Ll()111111u11itarianperSpeCtiveas“itisalltooeasytojudgesocietiesbystandards
lllt・y(l()nOtreCOgnlZe”.22)The precondition thatKymlicka set,in fact,
HIl(ltlrnlinesmanyformsofculturalcommunity,eSpeCiallythosethatfailintheir
I)rIILliL・L-Sloconformtoliberalprinciples.Thisisnotauniformliberalposition.
∧tlt)1hllraCClaimedliberalscholarChandran Kukathasj3OptSfora different
;LIJl)11);lLth.UnlikeKymlicka,Kukathasdoesnotsetanypreconditionforthe
l・nJ.}yl11(tntOfgrouprights.Actually,thereisnogrouprな加inhisthesis.His
llll・OrYtW)1elydependson‘individualchoice’.Aslongasindividualschooseto
rH11雨11Withagroup,1iberalorilliberal,OutSidesocietyisnotentitledtointervene
iHlhl・intL、rnalaffairsofthatgroup.Yet,withthisindividualism,hebelieves,
川‖lH)unitiL†Saregivenaconsiderableamountofpowerovertheindividuals.If
‖l・nlI)t・rShiptoaculturalcommunityisvoluntary,andiftheoutsidesocietyhas
rll)ri山Ill()interveneintheinternalaffairsofthatcommunity,itfollowsthatto
rtLnli血IaSamemberofthatcommunity.individualsmuststicktotherulesofthat
(・o‖munily.Therebre,heexempli丘es,aSaCitizenofaliberalsociety,aMuslim
h;L=righ10ffreespeech;butasaMuslim,however,hehasnorighttochallenge
lヽl;Inl’s(11ndamentaltenet.Kukathasbelievesthatinthiswaysomeprotectionis
か椚Iloculturalcommunitieswithoutdeviatingfrombasicliberalprinciples.
“l′rIht-Primacyof血・eedomofassociationisa11-important;ithastotakepriority
165
Kymlicka■stheorylSSignificantforitseffortstoaccommodategrouprights
Withinaliberalframework.Mostimportantly,likecommunitarians,Kymlicka
recognizedthegapbetweentheoryandpracticeaproposgrouprightsinliberal
SOCieties,and urgedforincorporatinggrouprightswithinthetheoretical
framework.However,Kymlieka’sliberalculturalistpositionisnotsufficientin
itself.Weidentifyatleastthreeinherentshortcomingsinhistheorythatdonot
allowittobeasu疏cientresponsetocommunitarianchallenge.Thesubsequent
SeCtionstouchupontheseshortcomlngS.
.?.J.小川/ん・A(バイ〟〃,川J/一品可…〃ヾ′・†′′-〃/〃,川ノ/-√;J川小ヾ.・
WhatisKymlick’sresponsetowardgroupsthatare‘illiberal’?Inotherwords,tO
WhatextentKymlickaisreadytocompromisebasicliberalrightsofindividual
membersofagrouptoaccommodaterightforthatgroup?Hisresponsetothisis
164
横浜国際程漸去学第16巻第1冒・(2007年9月)
OVerOtherliberties-SuChasthoseofspeechorworship-Whichliesatthecoreof
theliberaltradition.”24E ThisargumentbyKukathasisnotbeyonddebate,butthe
pointtobemadehereisthatKymlicka’sresponseto‘illiberal’groupsviolatesthe
liberalprinciplebygivingpreferencetoliberalism.Liberalismissupposedtobe
colour-blind.
l」tN・r;I=Ill(lerstanding.ShortcorningandControversyaproposGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm?
個l八・ぐt.butitcannotlogicallydismantletheothersideofthestory.
However,ifwecompareKymlicka’sresponseto‘illiberal’groupswith
thtIドl・OfKukathasandBarry,itishardtocallita‘1iberal’position.Totheextent
什川IKymlickasets‘liberal’standardtograntrightto‘illiberal’groups,itgoes
ilKainstliberalprineiple,foritgivesanequalrighttoadespoticstatetoput
il[il〉ltraldogmasatthesameposition.
WeaknessofKymlickals‘1iberal’responseto‘illiberal’groupsbecomes
morevisibleifwejuxtaposeitwithamoreconservativepropositionbyanother
eminentliberaltheoristBrianBarry.251LikeKukathas,Barryalsobelievesthatit
isnopartofliberalismtoinsistthateverygroupmustconformtoliberal
prlnCiplesinitsinternalstruCture.Inhisunderstanding,thefundamentalliberal
positionongrouprightsisthatindividualsshouldbefreetoassociatetogetherin
anywaytheylikeprovidedthattheirtakingpartintheactivitiesofthegroup
Shouldcomeaboutasaresultoftheirvoluntarydecisionandtheyshouldbefree
toceasetotakepartwhenevertheywantto.26WhatmakesBarrydistinct血・Om
KukathasisBarry’sdeepunderstandingoftheterm‘voluntariness’.Whena
memberofagroupquitsorremainswiththegroupLvoluntarily’,Variousfactors
actuallyworkbehindthatapparently‘voluntary’decision.Letusconsidera
hypotheticalcasehere:afatherbelongingtoaminoritycommunitymightnot
貢nditcost-effectiveforhissontolearnethniclanguage.Hemightwanthissonto
learndominantlanguageandgetassimilatedtomainstreamcultureassoonas
possibletoseeureabetterfuture.Ifallthefathersstartthinkinginthisway,that
minorityculturewillceasetoexistverysoon.Canitbecalled avoluntary
decision?‘Voluntariness’canbeexaminedfromtheoppositeaspeCtaSWell.Here
Oneindividualremainsasamemberofanilliberalgroup‘voluntarily’.But,in
reality,thisindividualisnotwillingtoshoulderthecoststhatwillfollowhis
decisiontoleavethatgroup.Beingaliberal,nOdoubt,BarTyisinterestedinthis
166
:l.2.克」砂∽Jわ烏α7協βざブざCb∽♪αf蕗Jβ紺地⊥加和Jブざ椚7
’[lltlnlissionofKymlicka’stheoryofliberalculturalismistoclose thegap
I)t・tW=、11theoryandpractice.Inalmostallliberalsocietiestherearegroup-
(‖(t・‖・l両;ltぐdpractices.Ontheotherhand,1iberal-individualismasatheorydoes
11111‖・‖明11izegrouprights.Kymlicka’stheorytendstoclosethisgapbyclaimlng
tl川tilllibt、raldemocracieswhileasocietalculturesponsoredbytheState
]II・01110t(LSthelanguageandinstitutionsofmainstreamculture,itwi11bean
i11jtI8ti(1(-tOeXpeCtmembersofminorityculturestospendtheirownresourcesto
‖JlhltiLi11theirculture.InKymlicka’sunderstandingitgoesagainsttheverybasic
IIIl‖(HOPhyofliberalism;henceminorityrightsmustberecognizedand
J川H・Mltt・(t(lwithinliberalism.Groupscanenjoyspecialrightsaslongasthese
rIJht$(lonoIviolatetheindividualrightsofmembers.WhatmakesKymlicka
lLi((l・rl・‖t fromacommunitarianisthathegivesaliberaljustincationforgroup-
1日lt・r川ti;山・d practicesinliberaldemocracieswithhiscentralargumentthat
th・I)rivi咽nlinoritiesoftheirrightswillbeaviolationofliberalprlnCiplesof
JHll川い川yandequality.Nodoubt,histheorytendstomakeabalancebetween
iHtivillLl;Llandgrouprights.However,Otherliberalsthinkthatthistheory
HITnl)nu]]isぐdliberalprlnCiplestoaccommodategrouprights.Theybringback
ll1.・.ILll(h-l〉atぐOfcompatibilityofgrouprightswithliberaltheoYy.Thissection
167
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
brieflyaddressesthisissue.
I・lM・=■rtl=l11・加工l(li11g,Shortcomi11ga11dConlroversyaproposGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDiffercntParadigm?
tL川tHn111titi(、Sandassociationsinourwell-being.ThattheStatedoesnotlendany
”・l・i;11w(Lighttothenormsofilliberal-Orliberal-grOupS,is,aCCOrdingtohim,
lht・t・SSt・11CeOfwhatitmeanstosaythatasocietyisaliberalsociety.2削 Heis
t・lliti川1()rKymlicka’semphasison‘diversity’and‘autonomy’,fortheyreferto
lnlil・i(・S‖latWOuldsystematicallyenfeeblepreciselythoserightsofindividualsto
l)rりtt・(・tiollagainstgroupsthatliberalStatesshouldguarantee.Andthenheposes
tht-r・iI【lll(1ueStion:“Howcanatheorythatwouldgutliberalprinciplesbeaform
り‖it)t・ralism?’’2リ〉 Hisexpressionismorecandidwhenhesays:“Ifliberalisnot
ヽtH]lt・l)0(Jywhobelievesthatliberalismistrue(withorwithoutinverted
l・01111n;tS).whatisaliberal?”30)And consequently he refuses to recognize
KylnliL・k;t;lSaliberalonthegroundthat:
Herewe refertoKukathasonceagaln.LikeKymlicka,Kukathasisalso
VerymuChconcernedabouttheminoritycommunities,butitdoesnotgivehim
Su疏cientreasontoabandon,mOdify,Orreinterpretliberalism.Accordingtohim,
theveryemphasisofliberalismonindividualrightsandlibertybespeaksnot
hostilitytotheinterestsofcommunitiesbutwarinessofthepowerofthemajority
OVerminorities.Thus,thereisnoneedtolookbralternativestoliberalismorto
throwawaytheindividualismthatliesatitsheart.nerefore,unlikeKymlicka,he
nndsitunnecessarytoaccommodateanyideaofgrouprightstoaddressthe
issuesofminority.Toquotehim:‘Weneed,rather,tOreaSSertthefundamental
importanceofindividuallibertyandindividualrightsandquestiontheideathat
Culturalminoritieshaveco11ectiverights.”27)Thispropositionheavi1ydependson
hisassumptionthatthebasisofcollectiverightsistherightsofindividuals.For
Kukathas,Whiletheinterestsgivenexpressioningroupsdomatter,theymatter
ultimatelyonlytotheextentthattheyaffectactualindividuals.Therefore,grOupS
andcommunitieshavenospecialmoralprimacyinvirtueofsomenaturalpriority.
He criticizes Kymlicka’s emphasis on the value ofculture and cultural
membershipbysayingthatmanyculturalgroupssuppressindividualchoiceand
libertyin the name ofculture.Very often,theinterestsofindividualsare
Subordinatedtothecommunity,andthesecommunitiesdonotplaceindividual
autonomyandchoicehighinthehierarchy ofvalues.Therefore,Kymlicka’s
argumentthatindividual’smembershipinaculturalcommunityhelpshim/herto
develophis/herchoicewhichistheessenceofliberalismisnotcorrect.
‖∧1htLOTYthathastheimplicationthatnationalities(whethertheycontrola
n;‖tLOra Sub-StatePOlity)haveafundamentalrighttoviolateliberal
l)ri=L・il)kLSisnotaliberaltheoryofgrouprights.ItisaniLLiberaltheorywith
l)itり(liberalhand-Writingthrowninasanoptionalextra.”31〉(Emphasis
il(l(lt・(l)
)lt・rt・Ollt・POintdemandsclari茄cation.Weareconvincedwiththeargumentsof
ll州7γ州l(lKukathasonlytotheextentthattheyarecallingKymlicka’stheoryan
lllJbpm11)08iti()n.nrOughoutthepaper,Ihavementionedthattherearegroup
tlLrrt・rt・nli;Itt、【lpracticesinliberaldemocracies;hencealongwithKymlickaand
VJt)ll)yk(L.1donotseeanyvalidreasonnottoaccommodatethisconceptin
lht・川γ,Llowpver,thatdoesnotprovethatKymlicka’stheoryisaliberaltheory.
lll抽・;l(l,(lisぐuSSionsinprecedingsectionshigh1ighttheincompatibilityof
Ky川IiLlk;t’sth(-()ryWith1iberalism.Kymlickastandsbetweenthecommunitarians
l‖lItllt・lil)t・rals,andthereisinsu伍cientreasontocallitaliberaltheory.’mis
169
Similarly,Barryalsovehementlyopposestheideaofpromotlngthese
COmmunalidentitiesbytheStatealthoughherecognizestheroleplayedbythe
168
横浜匝=計経済法竿第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
glVeSbirthtoarelevantquestion:WasKymlickarightindevelopingatheoryto
accommodategrouprightswithinaliberalframework?Ortoputitdifferently:Is
itnecessarytoformulatea‘1iberal’theoryofgrouprights?Thebllowingsection
dealswiththisissue.
l山=宜‖1])(T・rSlanding.ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDifferen(Paradigm?
什…Hぐt、Ptualization ofminority rights.For example,the OSCE High
L■川tHnissioneronNationalMinoritiesdecidedin1993togofortheFramework
LltHtVl・11tionforthe Pr・OteCtionofNationalMinoritiesratherthanthe Protocolto
thl・l亡11r()pean ConventiononHumanrightsputforwardbytheParliamentary
∧佃・111blywithRecommendation1201.Oneauthorcommentsthat”[t]herelevant
O卜し(・:workisnotbasedonthenotionofen正)rCinghumanandminorityrights
川◆r=ポぶtheboardinthenameofdemocracy,butonthemoreambiguousconcept
thiLtぐItrtainsituationmustbecontainedinonewayoranotherastheythreatento
(lt・Vt・lol)intoarmedconflict-SOmeWhatarelayoftheLeagueofNation’sapproach
iltI!)2Os”∴nInarecentinstrumentalworkbyGoldsmithand Posner=狛,the
Mlll=rStOO eXplaintheabsence ofanynormativepullbehind theideaof
いn・l‖Otionandprotectionofhumanrights.Traditionallyalso,itwasnottheWest
l”1;uIthoritarianreglmeSOftheEastthatputforwardboldproposalsfor
hllt・]・niltionalminorityrightsstandardsduringthe ParisPeace Conferenceof
l州帆Illl†draftingoftheUDHR,theICCPRand manymore.Thiscomparison
l岬rh叫)SSuggeStSthat“onecanparadoxicallyhaveademocraticstategrudgingly
.1.JnLtt・(l=)nSubstanceratherthanonprinciplesandanundemocraticstatepro-
Jltlivt・1yt・OnCedeonprinciplesratherthanonactualprotection’1.コ;
、●L●∫.JJ汀IJJん叫・′!/一恒リノ沼′血\.・kⅦ〃げ/′′りJ=タ川〃/川JJィ′りJ∫り…′∫.-
Isitnecessarytoformulateatheoryofgrouprightswithinliberalframework?
RespondingtoParekh’scomparablequestionthat“[h]owisimposingliberalism-
particularlyaformofliberalismwhichprivilegesautonomy-anydi鮎rentfrom
imposingChristianity”,32 KymlickaclaimedthatinWesterndemocracies,mOSt
membersofmostgroupsacceptliberaldemocraticvalues.Toquotehim:‘The
heartofmulticulturalismintheWestisabouthowtointerpretliberaldemocratic
prlnCiples,nOtaboutwhetherthoseprlnCiplesarelegitimate.”33 Howdoeshis
theory,then,fitfornon-1iberalgroupsoutsidetheWest?Andaccordingly,wi11
refusalofliberalprinciplesbygroupsoutsidetheWestjustifyanon-1iberaltheory
ofgrouprights?Kymlicka’sresponseto Parekh’squestiondoesnotgiveusa
COnVincingexplanationforhistoomuchinclinationtoliberalism.Similarly,
Kymlicka’sassumptionthatanemerglng‘consensus’existsintheWestinfavour
Of‘1iberalnationalism’二14)canbequestioned.Thisassumptionpresupposesan
emergenceofa‘generalnorm’ofprotectingminorityrights.Ofcourse,thereare
group-difkrentiatedpracticesintheWesしButthesepracticesdonotnecessarily
setanynormipsojbcto.Kymlickaalsoadmitsitwhilehereferstothegap
betweenliberalpracticeandtheory.Ifthisisthecase,itisdifficultto負ndany
such‘consensus’.On the otherhand,these practiceswithinWestern
democraciescanbeperceivedaspragmaticconcessionstobemadeunder
particularcircumstances ratherthan as aconsequence ofa systematic
170
′1llt・rt)rOre,Kymlicka’sinclinationtoliberalismfordeveloplngatheoryof
P,t)t}rightsisbasedonawrongassumptionthatthereisaconsensusinfavour
1.(1”押一;11isll川rforminorityrights.Perhapsthiswrongassumptionledhimtoput
l両l川il)t・ral’oratleast‘notLSO-1iberal’theorywithina‘1iberal’framework.Liberal一
山川vi(Ill;L]ismisnotananswertoeverything.Anissuelikegrouprightswhichby
Ll-Vl・ryぐIl;traCtergOeSbeyondindividualismcannotbeproperlyaddressedby
M)・・nl[・i[l(livi(lualism.Kymlicka’sotherwise‘sympathetic-tO-grOupS’theoryof
ln[tll川仙川l机1rk・rS血・Omthisinherentflaw.
171
l・lNln=)ll(Ll・rStanding,ShortcomingandControversyaproposGTOupRights:DoWeNeedaDi仇汀entParadjgm?
lllt・Hi=110rePrOblematicwhenheassertsthat
横浜国際経清法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
4.DoWeNeedaDidbrentParadigm?
Groupdifferentiatedpracticesaremorethanrealityeveninliberaldemocracies.
Hence,anyrefusaltorecognizegroupsasright-and-duty-bearing-unitsisnothing
ShortofhypocrlSy.Series ofgroupdifferentiatedpracticesandincreasing
discourseongrouprightsbytheliberalscholarsunderscoretheurgencyof
accommodatinggrouprightsinliberaltheoIY.Butthisurgencyalonedoesnot
allowtheliberalstoaccommodategrouprightswithinliberalframework.Group
rightis somethingbeyondtheambitofliberalrindividualism.Theforegoing
examinationofKymlicka’stheoryofculturalismhigh1ightsthisfact.Despiteall
hissympathyfortheminorityissues,Kymlickafailstoshowwhyhistheory
Shouldbedeemedas aliberaltheory.Ofcourse,thisdoes notruleoutthe
Signincanceofhisassertionsthatgrouprightsshouldbeacknowledgedaswellas
protected.Whatisthewayoutthen?Woulditbeprudenttohaverecourseto
‘1iberal’theoriesofKukathasandBarrylnOurefforttoaccommodategroup
rightsin atheoreticalframework?Even beingsympatheticto theissuesof
minorities,Kukathasdonot丘nditnecessarytoprescribeanyspecialrightfor
groups,forliberalindividualismissufficienttothatend.Heputssomuch
emphasisonthefreedomofassociationthathe丘ndsitunjusti貢edforStatesor
Otherlib(ミralgroupstointerfereintotheinternalaffairsofilliberalgroupsaslong
asmembershiptosuchgroupsisvoluntarY,andhebelievesthisarrangement
glVeS prOteCtion to groups.Thisis theleastpossible thing.Practising
individualismatstatelevelandjustleavingculturalLyvulnerablegroupsontheir
OWnWOuldbethelastmeanstoprotectthem.Kukathashimselfisawareofthis
fact.In one place.he explainedhowthe Maoricommunitieshadbeen
transformedfromaco11ectivesocialliLetoindividualwayofliving.‘Ymeeauseof
thischangewasthepossibilityoflivingthecommunity.”38)IfindKukathas’s
172
l肘groupsarerecognizedashavingrightsasgnups,itismustmoredi疏cult
tojustifymechanismsthatvarytheirpoliticalentitlementswiththeirsizeand
illnuぐnCe.Itisfarbetterthentomaintain anemphasisonthe rights and
]il)(・rtiesofindividual,Whileconcedingthatinstitutionshavetobedesigned
Witllaviewtoprotectingthoselibertiesbyaccommodating(andguarding
叩頭nsL)thevagariesofgrouppower.”二i9
rllli”n’仰1111entishistoricallydisprovedandanypropositionthatallgrouprights
JH▲・・n・山1t:ibletoindividualrightsisnolessthanridiculous.Barry’spositionis
.・Vl・n[111)ntCOnSerVative.Histheoryofgrouprightsismeantforilliberalgroups,
J.・r’l粁nllllHanySuCharrangementforliberalgroupsunnecessary.Toquotehim:
”‖1h=)nlywaysoflifethatneedtoappealtothevalueofculturaldiversity
JLrt・th…ethatnecessarilyinvoIveunjustinequalitiesorrequirepowersof
ilHl川1trhlationandcontrolincompatiblewithliberalisminordertDmaintain
thl・HIS(1Lvl-S.Sincesuchculturesareunfairandoppressivetoatleastsomeof
.lll・h・m川Ibers,itishardtoseewhytheyshouldbekeptaliveartincially.’’40)
111l・()n)I)OSitionthatwithembracingliberalism,grOupSWillgiveuptheirdemand
l.・rN・L)iLl’;Ilt、Culturalrightsisnotcorrect.Boththemajoritiesandminoritiesmay
叫汀I1.11)T]1ib(1ral-democraticprlnCiples,buttheydisagreeontheimplicationsof
lht・M・J)rinciplesforconcretequestionsaboutthedistributionofpower,Orabout
tJ)t・1t・Kiti[n;lぐyOfaf6rmativeaction,andsoon.41)
(iiv(l‖thcreluctaneeofliberalstorecognizetherelevanceofgrouprights
173
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
andtheincompatibilityof‘1iberal’culturalistpositionwithliberalism,Weneedto
deviatefromliberalismtoaccommodategrouprights.Atthesametime,itisalso
necessarytoprotectindividualrightsofthememberssothattheydonothllprey
to unjustifiedtreatmentin thenameofcultureorreligion.Kymlicka’stheory
attemptedtomake suchabalance,butthatwasflawedindeveloplngtheidea
Withinliberalframework.Mostinterestingly,mainstreamliberalshaverefusedto
Callitaliberalposition.AddresslnggrOupneedsonthebasisofsuchan
ambivalenttheorywouldnecessarilymakethewholeprojectquestionable.This
makesobvioustheneedforamoresophisticatedbalancebetweengrouprights
andindividualrightsgoingbeyondliberallegacy.Thus,tOaCCOmmOdategroup
rightsinatheoretical血■ameworkwedoneedtodeviatefromliberal-individualism
andwedoneedadifferentparadigm.Ignoringtheneedforadifferentparadigm
willeventuallyamounttoignoringtheneedforgrouprights,andthiswillbetoo
COStlytoa餓〕rd.However,thedetailsofsuchaparadigmareoutsidethescopeof
thepresentwork.Myendeavourinthispaperwastoportraytheinherent
drawbacksofliberalismasatheorylnaCCOmmOdatinggrouprightsbycritically
examiningtheliberalculturalistpositionofWillKymlicka.HereIdonotintendto
beacriticofliberal-individualismperse;WhatIamsuggestingisthat‘onesize
doesnot丘tall’.
lJM.‖l1.1ll・r*tM](ling,ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights:DoWeNeedaDi鮎rentParadigm?
J仙J..I)l).347-349.
l・・仙〟..I)∴う50.
」〟由Ll)∴う53.
ト)ル軋l).355.
り】JわJ〟..】).357.
1仙 ルJ〟..川).35&359.
1))V.VMll)yke,■CollectiveEntitiesandMoralRights:ProblemsinLiberal-DemocraticThought’in
l.St;Il)IぐtOn(ed.),Grou♪Rights-Fセr*ectiz)eSince1900(meommesPress,Bristol,1995)pp.
1川)-2()0.
):.VMlI)ykぐ,SuPranote2,p.343.
=■ 仙■〟..Ⅰ】∴う(i9.
l・t■ V;‖Ⅰ)ykぐ.5ゆ和nOtell,pp.18&190.
1!■一 V‖‖Ⅰ)ykt1.5坤和nOte2,p.344.
)li・W.Kym】iぐka,Mu[ticu[tura[CitizenshiP:ALibera[771eO7ydMinori秒Rights(OxfordUniversity
l-l■ltヽヽ.()x†(汀(l,1995).
1;W KyTll)iL・ka.Fb[iticsinthe掩macu[ar:Nationa[ism,Mu[ticu[tura[ism,andCitizenshiP(0Ⅹford
tlllivl・rヽilyl】rt・SS,Oxford,2001)pp.51-52.
川・\′′∫川′和J砂上占寝りpp.53-66.
lllヽK’i一・1jLh.L)]turtLisde且nedasasetofinstitutions,COVeringbothpublicandprivatelife,witha
l=川=り11l;Lnguage,Whichhashistoricallydevelopedovertimeonagiventerritory,Which
l,rl,V仙・1l椚叩1ewithawiderangeofchoicesabouthowtoleadtheirlives.
1111粁tl・rmnati()nalminorityisunderstoodherebyKymlickaasgroupswhoforTnedfunctioning
NK’l.・li…川1tht・irhistoricalhomelandspriortobeingincorporatedintoalargerstate.
JIKy川Iil宜l誹呼和nOte17,pp.22-23.
ココIIll‖川・.Ⅰ)avi(l,E乃q〟gわβ5G)〝Cβ用i〃g〃〟椚d〝【加dβ朽fα乃df〃gα〝dC∂〝Cβr〝i〝g7ⅥβP血c砂J錯〆
仙…JJriIpdinC.Kukathas,‘AreThereAnyCulturalrights?’inStapleton,J.(ed.),SuPranote
lI.lI2日.
1†:t・\′′N(NP,N[&(..Kukathas,‘Are′mereAnyCulturalrights?’inStapleton,J.(ed.),Su♪ranotell,
lIいコ≠2!侶.
こ!4仙〟..い.2酬.
:!:・llllnnγ.(.A([hLnandEqua[i&(PolityPress,Cambridge,2001)pp.112-154.
:!li 仙〟..い.1イ川.
コソ K‖kハ仙畔5坤用nO【p23,p.261.
コ宮llM■け.5坤相川)tt▲25,p.125.
ニMJh〟
欄I仙JJ..い.1:12.
1lJ仙J..い.‖朋.
1こ!Kytllliぐk;lJ〟♪和110te17,p.56.
175
★ ′meauthorisanLLM(UniversityofDhaka)andcurrentlyagraduatestudentatInternational
GraduateSchoolofSocialSciences,YokohamaNationalUniversity,Japan.Hewasalso
awardedCheveningFellowshipforastudyonPeaceandConnictResolutionunderUniversity
OfUIster,UK
l)Seegenen[レF.FukuyamarnleEndofHistory’,16771eNationa[Interest(1989).
2)V.Vanr)yke,yn)eTndividuals,theState,and EthnicCommunitiesinPolitical′meory’,29:3
I穐rJdfbJiffc5(1977)pp.343-369.
174
横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号(2007年9月)
33)JムJd.,p.61.
34)According†01iberalnationalism,itisalegitlmatefunctionoftheslatetoprotectandpromote
thenatjonA7(u7turesand)a】1guageSOfthenationswithinitsborders.
35)G.Pentassug】ia,‘MinorityRightsandtheRo)eofl月W:Ref]ectionson¶1emeSOfDiscoursein
Kymlicka’sApproachtoEthnocuJtura)Identity\4JournaLonElhnqf)OliticsandMinon砂
f〃E〟′〃♪β(2002).
36)).L,GoldsmithandE.JLPosner,77zeLimiEsdIntema[ionalLLZW(0ⅩfordUniversityPress,
NewYork,2005).
37)Pentassし】glia.ぶ〟かβnOte35.
38)Kukathas,SuPranote23,p.290.
39)蹴d.,pP.295-29(i.
40)乃最.,p.135.
41)Kylnlicka,5〟♪′βnOte17,p,60.