CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The concern for the plight of minorities and an attempt to safeguard their interests has been an ideal, which has contributed towards the growth and expansion of international law. Although international law primarily operates through the medium of States, minorities generally have no locus standi, the treatment, which the minorities receive from their States, has occasionally become a matter of international concern. International law, however, has historically found it difficult to deal with the issue of minorities. Just like the poor, the weak and the inarticulate, minorities have since time immemorial been the natural victims of persecution and genocide. In an age when wars were ‘just’, religious repression legitimate, and cultural or political dissidence unacceptable, minorities remained the prime target of repression. Even in this contemporary period of relative tolerance and rationality, minorities are often subjected to persecution,

The problem of minority discrimination or marginalization is not a new problem. It has existed for thousands of years. Right from the times of the Israelites’ enslavement in Egypt thousands of years ago, to the passive marginalization of Anglophones in Cameroon by the majority francophone government today, minority groups have been the victims of great injustices. The existence of minorities is no new phenomenon. They have existed since the earliest days of human existence. This has especially been made possible through human evolution/development in terms of language, sex, ethnicity, race, religion.

To put this research into perspective, it will be important to discuss briefly, the development of minority rights under international human rights law[1]. Judge Thomas Buergental of the International Court of Justice[2] defines the International law of Human Rights as “the law that deals with the protection of individuals and groups against violations of their internationally guaranteed rights’’. Since minorities constitute a “group’’ (and a vulnerable one at that) as stated in the definition, it is no wonder that international human rights law is concerned with the plight of minorities. The question “what then is a minority?’’ begs for an answer.

The problem of giving a comprehensive definition of what a minority is, is an age old one. Many attempts have been made over the years by several international law scholars and jurists. Who is a minority? Who defines minority? Who are the beneficiaries of minority rights? These questions have not stopped preoccupying the minds of jurists. As one author points out, “the   one obstacle to the protection of minorities rights, both at international and regional level, may reside in the absence of a generally agreed upon definition of minorities” definitions as irrelevant, while others saw it as non-contributive to the debates concerning the definition of the term ‘minority’. It is clear that there is the difficulty in giving a legally binding definition. Some of the reasons for this problem include: Some people who could be called minorities live in a geographically distinct area separate from the majority, while other minority groups maybe scattered within the majority population. Another reason for the difficulty in coming up with a definition is that some minorities may have a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their distinct identity, while others may not exhibit that much solidarity.

Despite these roadblocks, some definitions of what a minority is have been attempted by international law experts. Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti, while drafting a study in 1977 for the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, formulated a definition. According to him, a ‘minority’ is:

“A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members, being nationals of the State, possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language”.

In 1985, the Sub-Commission submitted to the Commission on Human Rights a text on the definition of ‘minority’ prepared by Jules Deschenes. The definition was, however, not accepted by the Commission. According to this definition, a minority is:

“a group of citizens of a state, consisting of a numerical minority and in a non-dominant position in that state, endowed with ethnic, religious, or linguistic characteristics which differ from those of the majority of the population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if not implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law”.

Although there is some measure of agreement regarding essential elements of the definitions proposed by Capotorti and Deschenes, some of the elements are criticized for being vague, misguiding and inadequate for the diversified minority situations.

Most simply put, the protection of minority rights comprise the various measures put in place to protect ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities from any form of discrimination or marginalization that may be directed against them. The promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live[3]. As a result, the United Nations and other Regional Bodies have put in place a system aimed at ensuring that minorities are not the subject of any form of discrimination or marginalization, either directly or indirectly.

The rights and protection of minorities is one of the major concerns of international human rights law, and rightly so. Marginalization of Minorities has always been, and continues to be a source of conflict around the world. Since one of the foremost aims of the United            Nations and other regional bodies is peace, it is no wonder that these international bodies have come up with laws that protect and promote the rights of minorities within their jurisdiction. Thus, human rights law is seriously concerned with the welfare of minorities.

It is clear from the above the complexity of the issue of defining minorities, and the controversy surrounding the definitions identified above. It should be noted that these definitions, and any other definition that may exist, are not legally binding, and only serve as reference as to what the term minority may mean in international law.

Nevertheless, there exist two widely accepted criteria for identifying a minority group, that is the Objective and the Subjective criteria. While the Objective criteria would involve factual analysis of a group such as a distinct entity within the State possessing ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics that differ from the rest of the population, the Subjective criteria would mean that there exists a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving the distinctive characteristics of the group.

Some criticisms have been put forward against the objective and subjective criteria. The notion of numerical inferiority in identifying minorities is at odds with the fact that some groups of people, though numerically superior, can be called minorities, because of the non-dominant position they live in. A good example of this is the case of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era.

Despite this criticism, the two criteria are the most widely accepted criteria for identifying minorities in the world in general and in Africa in particular. As already stated above, many international law scholars writing on minority rights begin their discourse on the historical development of minority rights from the League of Nations.

However, other scholars, the likes of Thornberry P., contend that the protection of minority rights on an international level began in the early seventeenth century. The protection of minority rights on an international level began in the European continent, and only reached Africa and Asia after colonialism ended. The emergence of the Nation State in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the consequent “ideals of national unity, manifested by a centralization of power, a common language, culture and religion, fundamental to the self-identification of the States”, says Thornberry, “tended to express themselves in intolerant attitudes and repression of those who were perceived as ‘others’”[4]. It is crystal clear that the rise of these nation states in Europe led to antagonism between majority and minority, especially when the minorities had distinct religious, cultural, or linguistic features not shared by the majority. The minorities, in essence were seen as ‘others’. In such a tensed climate, the oppression of minorities by the majority is almost inevitable, therefore necessitating the protection of minorities.

The protection given to minorities during this epoch (early 17 century) was centered primarily on Religious rights and liberties. Indeed, before the advent of the nation state in Europe, people were defined primarily by the religion they adhered to. The effect was that only religious minorities were recognized as indeed minorities. It is no wonder therefore that religious rights and liberties were a major concern of Europe. An example of a treaty with provisions for the protection of religious minority rights was the Treaty or Peace of Oliva (1660)[5], which gave Catholics in Livonia and Prussia a degree of religious freedom.

However, as time progressed, the protection that religious minorities received took a more circular nature, and a less religious nature. This was especially the case in the 19^th century. This trend was reflected in several treaties that were signed at the time, including The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815)[6]. The first article of this Act provides that:

“The Poles, respectively subjects of Russia, Austria and Prussia, shall obtain a representation of their National Institutions regulated according to the mode of political existence that each of these Governments to which they belong will judge useful and appropriate to grant them.”

This article as can be seen was intended to protect Polish minorities in the kingdoms of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. It can also be noted that the article does not make any mention of religious rights and liberties, but is more secular in nature. Another treaty that reflected this trend in minority rights protection was the Treaty of Berlin (1878)[7].

Scholars have criticized the international instruments for minority rights protection that were passed during this epoch. Many contend that these instruments were condemned to fail because of the inadequacy of their scope, the vagueness of their substantive provisions, their ineffectiveness and susceptibility to abuse or violation.

Before, during and after World War One, the world bore witness to the gross injustices that minorities around the world were subjected to. Therefore, after the war, when the allied powers met to clear the mess the First World War had created, one important issue on the table, inter alia, was the protection of racial, linguistic and religious minorities. This explains why the peace settlement that followed had a number of Minority Treaties. The basic purpose of the League’s minority regime was twofold: “to guarantee equality with the majority population for the members of minority groups and to ensure that minorities could preserve their characteristics and tradition for without the latter, the former amounted to little more than assimilation”[8]

The weaknesses that plagued the minority rights regime of the League of Nations were glaring. Thus with the advent of World War Two, and more importantly the United Nations, there was the need to revise the treaty system put in place by the League of Nations to protect the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities around the globe.

After the United Nations replaced the league of Nations, one question to be answered was the fate of legal obligations incurred under the League of Nations’ treaties system. There was a problem of whether the legal obligations that states had incurred during the functioning of the League of Nations, were still valid. A United Nations study held that “between 1939 and 1947 circumstances as a whole changed to such an extent that, generally speaking, the system should be considered as having ceased to exist”[9]. This except from a United Nations document made in this regard shows us that the general sentiment among states was directed toward invalidating the treaties system put in place by the League of Nations, to protect the rights of minorities. This was based on the fact that circumstances surrounding the state of minorities around the world had changed especially as a result of the Second World War.

The idea of universal protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, based on equality and non-discrimination, was very popular at the time when the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights were being drafted which, it was believed that it could protect not only minorities but all human beings in every country; this is the reason why we do not see any direct reference to ‘minorities’ either in the Charter or in the UDHR. But the necessity of special provisions for protection of minorities was felt very soon. This was especially the case because the only UN document dealing with human rights specifically was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as UDHR), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

Despite its importance, the UDHR was not legally binding on the states that had adopted it. It is merely a declaration, and anyone knowledgeable in public international law would understand that only treaties are legally binding and enforceable. Since the UDHR was not a treaty, it had no legal significance. The need was thus felt for the United Nations to go a step further in its mission to protect and preserve the rights and freedoms of persons in general, and minorities in particular.

It was on the basis of this that the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities sought and succeeded, in adding to the draft of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR), a provision dealing specifically with minority rights (the provision to this effect would be analyzed subsequently). 

It is evident from all the above the degree of evolution that minority rights have undergone under international law. From the seventeenth century with the treaties adopted to guarantee the rights and freedoms of religious minorities, to the twentieth century conventions put in place by the United Nations to protect and preserve the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities throughout the world. It is therefore necessary to look more closely, and in the process analyze the provisions of international instruments protecting the rights of persons belonging to minorities. The provisions of United Nations treaties and declarations will be assessed, along with provisions from treaties adopted by the African Union.   

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world’’. While there is widespread acceptance of the importance of human rights, there is some confusion as to their precise nature. The question of what is meant by a “right’’[10] is quite controversial, and is the subject of intense jurisprudential debate. Human rights can be described as the basic rights and freedoms that belong to all human beings from birth to death. These rights are inalienable, and thus cannot be taken away arbitrarily. Human rights can either be personal (pertaining to the individual) or collective (pertaining to a group). Therefore, minority rights are collective rights because they are designed to be enjoyed by a group of people collectively.    

During the early stages of human existence, right up to the 19^thcentury, minority groups did not have any internationally recognized rights. They did not have any organized system of rights even within their geographical confines. In fact, if history has taught us anything, it is that minority groups have suffered in the hands of the majority.

The direct effect of such treatment of minorities has led to the rise of animosity between them and the majority, which in some instances has culminated in all out armed conflict as is the case in Cameroon, South Africa, Mymmar etc.

The importance of protecting minority rights cannot be overstated. If the rights of a minority are guaranteed, then peace in such a state is guaranteed, because animosity between the state majority and the minority will be avoided. The protection of minorities is also a moral obligation of every state in particular, as well as the international community in general.

This research wants to look at how the various policies put in place by the state of Cameroon is protecting minority rights especially those of the anglophone minority. The paper will also address the challenge that hinders the implementation of the various policies protecting the rights of the anglophone minority.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

There is little doubt that international human rights law and relevant mechanisms have gone a long way to ensure that minorities of various types enjoy adequate protection. This is seen in the relevant laws that have been passed to that effect, as well as the mechanisms put in place to ensure state compliance with these laws. International non-governmental organizations have also played a vital role to promote the respect for the rights of minorities, through various activities and programs to that effect.

However, the conflicts between the government forces of Cameroon and secessionists in the Anglophone regions that is the north west and the south west region of the country which have roots in minority rights violations of the Anglophones is a signal that something is wrong somewhere. Be it ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, there is still a large extend of a laissez-faire attitude towards the plight of minorities by the government of Cameroon. This indifference to the rights of minorities has on some occasions led to internal armed conflict between state governments and groups claiming to fight for these minorities. Glaring examples include the armed conflict in Cameroon between armed secessionist groups and government forces. It is thus evident that there is a lacuna or a loophole in the protection of minority rights and policies put in place to protect the rights of the Anglophone minority in Cameroon.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As a result of this problem, this thesis will seek to answer the following questions:

1.3.1 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the various policies/ strategies put in place by the state of Cameroon to protect the rights of the Anglophone minority?

1.3.2 SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the impacts of the various state policies implemented to protect the Anglophone minority in Cameroon?
• What are the challenges faced in the implementation of the various policies put in place to protect the rights of the Anglophone minority and possible solutions to these challenges?

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 The research will seek to examine the following objectives;

1.4.1 MAIN RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

• To examine the various policies/ strategies put in place by the state of Cameroon to protect the rights of the Anglophone minority.

1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Specifically, this research seeks to:

• To examine the impacts of the various state policies protecting the Anglophone minority
• To examine the challenges faced in the implementation of the various policies put in place to protect the Anglophone minority.

. [1] Thomas Buergenthal served as judge at the International Court of Justice at The Hague from 2 March 2000 to his resignation on 6 September 2010.

2 Thomas Buergenthal, Dinah Shelton, and David P. Stewart, International Human Rights in a Nutshell, 3^rd edn. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2002), p. 1.

[3] Preamble of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities

[4] Thormberry, Patrick, International Law and the Right of Minorities: clarendon Paperbacks (1991).

[5] The Treaty or Peace of Oliver (1660).

[6] The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815).

[7] The Treaty of Berlin (1878)

[8] Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice on Minority Schools in Albania (1935) Ser. A/B, No 64, 17.

[9] Study of the Legal Validity Of The Undertaking Concerning Minorities, UN DOC E/CN.4/367 (1997)

[10] The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.