Non-Territorial Autonomy

The concept of non-territorial autonomy [hereinafter NTA] does not have a uniform and consistent understanding of what this notion could mean. It is believed that the idea of NTA emerged in the 19th Century and became popular in the early 20th Century as part of minority-related debates in the 1920-30s. Karl Renner was the first who coined a NTA model in 1899, which was based on the ‘personality principle’, that is to say, the idea that communities may be autonomous within a multinational state, regardless of whether they have, or identify with, a particular territory. Though this understanding of NTA was not successful at the time it was developed, this bundle explores the current conception of what is known as NTA, which involves internal organization of a group and the pursuit of its interests on ways other than territorial autonomy.   

NTA has been for the past 30 years a prolific field of academic and policy discussions on an evolving European minority rights regime. Historically, the instruments protecting minorities sought to link rights to a certain territory, an approach which leaves out claims of non-territorial minorities, such as Roma and Sinti. It is in this context that a non-territorial scenario could be proposed as a solution for those situations in which territory is not a constitutive part of group identity, as suggested by Giovanni M. Quer in his contribution to the Special Issue dedicated to NTA by JEMIE. The same author looks at other legal traditions, particularly the Ottoman millet system, in which territory is not an element of protection and from which, in his view, Europe can draw some conclusions.  

Moreover, Alexander Osipov is a regular speaker when it comes to the question of NTA. Along with Jana Growth, Osipov developed a report in 2011 within the framework of a workshop held at the ECMI, which put on the table different perspectives to address the applicability of NTA. Both commentators highlight the recent academic interest kindled by the opportunities that NTA may open for conflict prevention and minority protection, and evaluate also whether NTA may serve as an analytical tool. Besides, in his contribution to the Special Issue published by JEMIE, Osipov pays attention to the popularity of the current conception of NTA in the context of the post-Communist countries, who, paradoxically, do not always have positive attitude towards NTA. The same commentator intends to provide with an answer to the question of whether NTA was, in principle, at odds with the Communist legacies and the authoritarian trends manifesting themselves in the transition period.  

Lastly, and as highlighted by Osipov, contemporary Central and Eastern Europe has been the geographic area par excellence which has drawn more attention to NTA concerning minorities. In this connection, David Smith offers a preliminary comparative analysis of debates and practices around the issue at hand in Hungary, Romania, Estonia and Russia. In his article, Smith seeks to determine inter alia why and by whom NTA has been advocated and applied in each of the aforesaid States, and how it has been received by representatives of ethno-national majorities and minorities.  

 

List of related publications:  

 

ECMI Founders

The German Federal Government
The Danish Government
The Federal State Schleswig-Holstein