{"id":6279,"date":"2013-03-05T15:44:43","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T20:44:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/?p=6279"},"modified":"2025-09-11T10:53:17","modified_gmt":"2025-09-11T14:53:17","slug":"the-failed-promise-of-language-rights-a-critique-of-the-international-language-rights-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2013\/03\/the-failed-promise-of-language-rights-a-critique-of-the-international-language-rights-regime\/","title":{"rendered":"The Failed Promise of Language Rights: A Critique of the International Language Rights Regime"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Major international legal instruments commit international law to protect language\u00a0rights absolutely, irrespective of counter-pressures toward linguistic uniformity. This\u00a0unconditional commitment to language rights is echoed in the writings of prominent\u00a0human rights scholars, who argue that language is a constitutive element of cultural\u00a0identity. This article contrasts the ideals of language rights with the actual record of\u00a0their enforcement. It presents a detailed analysis of the 133 cases that have come before\u00a0the European Court of Human Rights, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the\u00a0Inter-American Court of Human Rights dealing with language issues as they arise in<br \/>\n(i) education, (ii) court proceedings, and (iii) communications with the government.\u00a0The analysis demonstrates that the decisions of international judicial or quasi-judicial\u00a0bodies in language protection cases have consistently favored linguistic assimilation,\u00a0rather than the robust protection of linguistic diversity that is formally espoused.\u00a0Instead of strong language guarantees, only transitional accommodations are offered\u00a0in the public realm for those as yet unable to speak the majority language. This\u00a0jurisprudence treats minority language not as a valuable cultural asset worthy of\u00a0perpetual legal protection, but as a temporary obstacle that individuals must overcome\u00a0in order to participate in society. The legal decisions take a narrowly utilitarian\u00a0approach to language, forcing the state to accept the use of minority languages only\u00a0insofar as they facilitate communication with the majority and with the official\u00a0bodies of the state. The paper concludes with a commentary suggesting that treating\u00a0language interests under the rubric of human rights, however valid and worthy they\u00a0may be, cannot be normatively defended.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/HLI105.pdf\">Read full article (PDF)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Major international legal instruments commit international law to protect language\u00a0rights absolutely, irrespective of counter-pressures toward linguistic uniformity. This\u00a0unconditional commitment to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6281,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[4,190],"class_list":["post-6279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-print-archives","tag-featured","tag-language-rights"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/file5981249389157.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-1Dh","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6279\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}