European parliament working paper
Download 1.21 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations
3.4. ConclusionCommunity intervention in linguistic matters has hitherto been built upon several legal bases (including 149, 150, 151 and 157) and not just one (though sometimes its action has been limited to official languages). This also applies for the promotion of the so-called regional and minority languages; culture is merely one of the relevant fields. The application of each legal basis has to be studied one by one, to see to what extent existing programme actually contemplate language in general, and all language sin particular; and if they do, to what extent they are sensitive to the diverse needs of languages. Each of the specific bases will have priority over cultural policy, which is much more generic. In linguistic matters, cultural policy is usually secondary or incidental to other more specific policies. As we have seen, Decisions on programmes specifically designed to “promote linguistic diversity” (such as MLIS) have been adopted, with full ECJ assent, without this objective having to be mentioned as such in Article 157 or anywhere else in the Treaty. There is thus no need, in our view, to wait for Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to become incorporated into the Union’s primary law for a specific programme to promote linguistic diversity, in the terms discussed in this Report. We have considered that it is impossible to truly respect cultural and linguistic diversity whilst at the same time excluding from this support the regional and minority languages. Respect entails catering for the specific needs of each language and the community that speaks it, not ignoring their very existence: an example is the special attention to be paid throughout the Lingua Action to promoting the less widely used and less widely taught of the official languages (plus Lëtzebuergesch and Irish)132. We have argued that there are no legal grounds for excluding regional and minority languages from Community actions, which promote linguistic diversity and multilingualism. The search for suitable legal bases has already been done for each of the language policies developed by the Community hitherto: and the exclusion of regional and minority languages from some of them (whether by explicitly limiting access to these programmes, or by being sensitive only to the needs of a limited number of languages) is not in our view justified.
The Union is not neutral with regard to its minority languages. It devotes considerable resources to translation, interpretation and terminological development, which favour some languages and not others. It cannot therefore remain inactive, especially at a time of rapid change, in the new economic and social paradigm emerging in the Information Society. Languages that would remain excluded from the information society would run the risk of a more or less rapid marginalisation, as the Council itself has said133. To bolster Europe’s rich linguistic heritage, so it can contribute to the creative energy that diversity unleashes, active policies are needed. Some Member States cannot be expected to cope on their own: the greater the diversity they can boast, the greater the resources they need to ensure it. Moreover, needs vary enormously: some language groups have entered the information society wholeheartedly, others have more modest needs. The most active among them have TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazines; their language is used in official dealings and the services, in schools and all levels of education, in cross-border and international projects. They have legislation for language promotion and bodies for both language status and corpus planning. Until more directly democratic mechanisms are set up, the main decisions in the Union are taken by the governments of the Member States, through the Council, so it is important to look at their positions vis-à-vis regional and minority languages. To prepare this Report, all 15 EU member states were sent a short questionnaire on their policies. Four States replied: Spain, Sweden, Greece and Austria; and Luxembourg directed the team towards the relevant authorities. A second source of information is the ratification processes of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages134 and the Framework Convention for National Minorities. The Charter, was opened for signature on November 5 1992, and entered into force on March 1 1998, after five ratifications. On September 28 2001, it had been (a) signed and ratified by eight EU members (in order of ratification, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom, Spain, Austria); (b) signed but not yet ratified by three EU members (in order of signature: Luxembourg, France and Italy); and (c) not signed by Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Declarations of some of these states are at least as interesting as the detail of the commitments formalised (see annex). As noted, Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have not signed the Charter. Some of the various reasons are disappearing over time. Portugal recently enacted a law recognising and protecting Mirandese. In the past, Greece firmly negated the existence of minorities other than the Muslims; but many feel that a European Court of Human Rights135 decision rejecting the refusal of the Greek authorities to register a cultural organisation of the Macedonian minority may herald favourable policy changes. Ireland (and Luxembourg) argue that Irish and Lëtzebuergesch are the first languages in both states, and not minority languages; both were exempted from the Committee of the Regions’ Opinion on the Promotion and Protection of Regional and Minority Languages of 13 June 2001136, which calls on other States to sign and ratify the Charter. The Framework Convention for National Minorities137 has achieved rapid success: to date, 13 EU Member States have signed (all except Belgium and France) and 9 have ratified it. Opened for signature on 1/2/1995, it entered into force on 1/2/1998, after 12 ratifications. But it only marginally touches upon language issues, and space prevents a more detailed analysis. Directory: RegData -> etudes -> document travail document travail -> Working paper a single market in financial services RegData -> European commission brussels, XXX RegData -> The european commission RegData -> Provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations Download 1.21 Mb. Share with your friends:
|