Papers by Maddalena Vivona
ETHOS Working Papers, 2019
The present study deals with historical memory, practices of commemoration in public space and as... more The present study deals with historical memory, practices of commemoration in public space and asks about the moral sentiments and moral dilemmas of actors involved. Actors are opinion leaders and other stakeholders, who are involved in debates on commemoration in the public sphere. The study assumes that these actors express different moral sentiments in relation to purposes and functions of commemoration, ranging from the recognition of victimisation, to attracting tourism, to bringing money and image to the city, to denying the need for commemoration against the background of more severe current problems. All these moral sentiments were somehow triggered through the methodology of the present study by confronting the interviewees with a hypothetical scenario on commemoration and asking them to assess the decisions and to express their opinions. The aim of the study is to gain insights into relevant justice claims of these different actors. Relevant justice claims are those, which can be related to recognitive, representative and redistributive justice, as well as issues of historical and restorative justice. Moreover, the study aimed at identifying the relevance of issues of identity, ontological insecurity and moral dilemmas in commemoration.
ETHOS Working Papers, 2018
The present country report on education in Austria focuses on minorities (ethnic and otherwise) a... more The present country report on education in Austria focuses on minorities (ethnic and otherwise) and the challenges they face in accessing education. Generally, vulnerable groups in Austria (including national ethnic minorities, children with disabilities, linguistic minorities including refugees and asylum seekers) are catered to by special measures. For ethnic minorities in Austria, special laws are in place in two provinces, which allow for bilingual schooling. Separated special needs schools are available for children with “special needs for pedagogical support”. Linguistic minorities (i.e. those with a mother tongue that is not German) are supported to foster language acquisition quickly.
Although the educational system is comprehensive, several challenges manifest “on the ground”, as there seems to be a difference between the structural (and legal) provisions given, and the manner in which they are implemented and intended. Two major challenges to access to quality education could be identified across desk research and interviews: socio-economic background and language knowledge.
Due to the district allocation rule, socio-economic background has an impact on those children who live in less well-off districts who are forced into schools largely attended by students from similar backgrounds. Several interviewees backed up this finding with their experience, stating for example that: “The social status. The money. The background. The education of the parents (...) Yes, so this term „education is passed down and non-education is passed down“, that’s still valid. That’s my, one could almost say, my daily perception.”
Also, the role of political and medial discourses frames and labels schools, clustering students who are socio-economically worse off. The so-called “hot spot schools” (“Brennpunktschulen”) are strongly problematized and face public scrutiny, often portraying children with less favourable backgrounds (often vulnerable groups) as challenging and in need of special measures to help attain educational standards. Judging from the interviews, a similar dynamic can be observed for the opposite case - students from “higher standing” backgrounds are more likely to attend (either out of choice or due to allocation) a school of equal better standing. According to interviewees, these often also with more funding available, which enables better educational outcomes. Indeed, the national Report on Education 2015 shows that already in previous years, the “risk of students from socially disadvantaged groups to not achieve educational standards is higher than the risk of the majority population”.
The fact that Austria has been characterized by a higher percentage (20,3%) of students with another language than German as a first language (OECD average is 12,5%), has led to increased political discussion about measures to best accommodate the changing demographic.
Generally, political interests were found to play a significant role in determining the manner in which access to education is framed and realised in practice – similarly, decisions made on a federal level have direct effects on funding, the ideological direction of measures, as well as the formal framework offered. The current strategy of the acting Coalition government (Conservative Party ÖVP and Freedom Party FPÖ) prioritizes a more restrictive approach, as well as performance, testing, and outputs. This shift has taken place with the intention to equalise educational attainment for all groups and particularly affect children who speak German as a second language (or not at all), as well as children who cannot live up to standardised competency levels in general.
According to the interviews held, this political “deficit-orientation” is perceived to miss what is important. Interviewee identify issues like offering more training, support, materials and initiatives for students, parents, teachers, recognising the role of child rights and human rights, as well as acknowledging the changing dynamic of the Austrian demographic as a whole. Interviewees stated that political decisions often manifest very differently in practice and often give rise to new problems altogether. They highlighted the role of individuals in the educational system as being vital influencers of success (or not).
Sen's capability approach, which outlines the ability to make use of opportunities given and to enact individual functions is a useful framework to shed light on the dynamics of the Austrian system in practice. It has emerged that the capability of students to act upon their individual capacities is influenced on the one hand by the system itself - which faces structural and administrative challenges - as well as the actors within the system on various levels - including legislators, administrators, teachers and parents. An important factor influencing capabilities is the political status quo, the manner in which discourses are raised, and the way in which outside opinions and expertise is given voice to.
ETHOS Working Papers, 2018
This research paper is part of a series that analyses how Roma are recognised and represented in ... more This research paper is part of a series that analyses how Roma are recognised and represented in Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Two cross-country studies, the Reference document on the histories of minoritisation in EU member states and Deliverable 5.2 “How does it feel to be a problem?” What we can learn about justice as political representation from empirical case studies, analysing the implications of the findings of the national case studies for justice as political representation, complete the picture.
The paper analyses the disjuncture between the institutionalisation of minority claims for political justice in Austria and how minorities, in particular Roma, experience this disjuncture. It thus aims to identify gaps in the (always historically particular) state institutionalisations of political justice for minorities. Existing policy and legal texts, as well as literature was collected, reviewed and analysed in order to identify the history as well as the current state of institutionalisation of minority policies in general, and Roma policies in particular. Fieldwork research among Roma was then conducted to find out how members of the minority themselves feel accommodated by institutional political justice in Austria.
National minorities, by virtue of their citizenship, are granted a voice in public debates and have the power to influence decisions and processes that concern them on equal footing with all other citizens. ‘Autochthonous’ Roma (i.e. those with Austrian citizenship, born in Austria and who claim ancestral ‘rootedness’ in the region of Burgenland) share the same concerns as other ethnic minorities in Austria, namely recognition of their cultural heritage, and maintenance of their language and culture in Austrian society and media. Nevertheless, interviewed Roma identify factors that weaken the position of Roma compared to other recognised minorities. These factors are linked to issues of misrecognition and misrepresentation in the past, which have been ascribed to them and have brought many members of their community to the present margins of society.
Everyday struggles against discriminatory practices have not only brought Roma to a “journey of self-discovery”, but also to a process of politicisation to be able to fight for change. Formal recognition as a national minority in Austria in ’93 has been vital in acknowledging Roma’s status and in mending ties with national society. With the institution of the Ethnic Advisory Board for Roma an official forum for discussion was offered, in addition to funding to support activities aimed at preserving their culture and rights as a minority. The development of the National Roma Strategy, an initiative that has its origin in EU wide policies, has further strengthened the national framework. The Roma Dialogue Platform was created to concretely discuss and evaluate the national strategy and provide a valuable mechanism for discussing Roma and raise awareness among key stakeholders on concrete issues affecting Roma.
Roma’s fight for recognition however has not ended there: interviewees highlight how anti-gypsyism and stereotypes against Roma are still present in society and continue to affect the lives of many members of the community. The findings of the study show how, in this particular case study, political representation is intimately linked with issues of recognition and redistribution. It also appears that in the case of Roma in Austria their misrepresentation lies at the core of why they are not duly represented in society. It appears thus that in order to foster a better participation of Roma in public life, it is necessary to continue working towards this goal.
FRAME Working Papers, 2016
This report is submitted in connection with Work Package 8 of the FP7 FRAME (Fostering Human Righ... more This report is submitted in connection with Work Package 8 of the FP7 FRAME (Fostering Human Rights Among European Policies) project. The report falls within Cluster Two, tasked to look at the actors in the European Union’s Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Human Rights Engagement. Work Package 8, ‘Coherence Among EU Institutions and Member States’, examines the principles, competences, actions and interactions of EU institutions and the Member States that characterise human rights policies and that lead to coherence or incoherence in the EU and Member States’ promotion of human rights. The potential for ‘horizontal’ coherence and incoherence was examined in the Work Package’s first report, Deliverable 8.1, ‘Report on coherence of human rights policymaking in EU Institutions and other EU agencies and bodies’. The Work Package’s second report, Deliverable 8.2, ‘EU and Member State competences in human rights’, examined ‘vertical’ coherence and incoherence, produced by the interaction between the EU and its institutions and the Member States.
In this report, we try to put a face on the results of previous reports in Work Package 8 and to get a sense of how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of policymakers in EU institutions, the Member States and in their vertical and horizontal interaction. The report is based almost entirely on interviews with policymakers, which includes primarily EU officials, but is interpreted broadly to include also Member States and non-state actors. Given the emphasis on actors for this Cluster and the Work Package, the report maintains the focus on them, in this case both as the basis for the choice of interview subjects and in terms of the research question, with an emphasis on different actors as potential ‘agents of coherence’. The questions that have been posed during the interviews are based on the findings from previous reports in Work Package 8. They begin with the understanding of coherence developed in Deliverable 8.1, which sees incoherence arising from three potential sources: structural, policy (in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes) and interests. Policymakers have been asked specifically about their own experiences of coherence/incoherence in the context of EU human rights policy.
The main body of the report (section II) looks at EU institutions as potential 'agents of coherence' or avenues for incoherence. Through the views of policymakers working in the context of the principal EU institutions, it provides an account of the role of the institutions in promoting or undermining coherence in EU human rights policy, including examples of best practices of coherence, as well as what are considered to be the main sources of incoherence in the views of the policymakers involved. Section III is devoted to Member State policymakers with responsibility for EU policies, and is limited to the analysis of the views of representatives from two Member States interviewed for the present study. Finally section IV is devoted to a thematic case study on 'Coherence in EU Business and Human Rights Policy', which examines how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of EU institutions, the Member States and other actors on the subject of business and human rights.
Overall, the report has found that different types of incoherence emerge in the work of all EU institutions and bodies. Each EU institution has a role as an ‘agent of coherence’ in EU human rights policy, while at the same time at risk of facing different types of incoherence in its work. The same is true for Member States and more generally for policymakers involved in the development of EU human rights policy. All EU institutions show good practices and potential avenues to aid coherence. However, while all EU institutions play a role in the coherence of EU human rights policy, some are institutionally better placed to act as ‘agents of coherence’ in EU human rights policy. In this regard, the report has highlighted best practices as well as limitations and sources of incoherence. Each institution was also found to report potential limitations and shortcomings in the context of the coherence of its human rights work, some of which were found to be more irresolvable than others. Further, different EU institutions show very different levels and sources of incoherence, whether structural, policy or interest-based.
On the whole structural incoherence dominates the accounts of interviewees, which in turn may give rise to other sources of incoherence, including policy or interest-based incoherence. The complexities of the institutional set up of EU human rights policymaking clearly emerges and provides a perhaps worrying picture of competing processes, structures and mandates overwhelming the policymakers themselves. On one hand, there appear to be too many processes taking place at the same time, with some overlap. On the other hand, the resources to follow all such processes as well as carrying out the necessary human rights related work were regularly reported to be limited and insufficient. Further, interviewees often reported to be working in a context of 'information overload' in which keeping on top of all relevant knowledge was a challenge in itself. At the same time communication barriers within and between institutions made it impossible to attain full knowledge of all competing processes.
The issue of policy incoherence, in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes, received some attention from the interview subjects. The most prominent example reported by many interviewees was the fundamental rights/human rights divide, which resulted from the internal/external aspect of incoherence in EU human rights policy. This theme was also related to the role of international human rights instruments and standards, on one hand receiving insufficient attention from EU policymakers and institutional actors, on the other providing a useful avenue to avoid the internal/external disconnect in EU human rights policy. The issue of interest-based incoherence, which by definition requires more in depth thematic studies, received less attention from interviewees. The case study on business and human rights (section IV) presents a useful example of the type of research necessary to fully investigate issues of interest-based incoherence, which remains a problem for numerous other areas of human rights and other institutions. The case study investigates the role of a wide multiplicity of actors in relation to one cross-cutting theme, including how they relate to the different policy frameworks, and how they relate to each other in relation to a specific theme and push forward the debate, issues and ultimately human rights policy.
Overall a varied picture of challenges and recommendations emerges from the accounts of the different actors involved, who offer a range of practical solutions to overcome the sources of incoherence which often underlie their work. A number of concrete recommendations - emerging from the views of the interviewees and informed by our own analysis - have been put forward on each institution and are listed in the final section of this report (section V).
FRAME Working Papers, 2014
The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators system... more The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators systems, and identify their objectives, target audience and methodology.
Human rights indicators are an essential instrument for planning, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of human rights protection and promotion. On the international, regional, national and local levels, numerous mechanisms for measuring human rights have been developed; some of them were already applied in practice with varying degrees of success, while others remained theoretical attempts. Such mechanisms usually resort to qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to measure the current state and/or progress of particular human rights or assess the impacts of policies/measures in a defined geographical area within a given time-frame.
The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators systems, and identify their objectives, target audience and methodology. This is done in order to formulate objectives for human rights indicators to be used in the European Union’s human rights (internal and external) policies. Up until now, several EU institutions have taken initiatives to measure human rights or have at least underlined the necessity to do so. Human rights measurements may indeed be utilised by the EU to ground its policies on a solid base of evidence and further help backing EU actions with increased legitimacy. When identifying meaningful and applicable mechanisms to measure human rights, the EU may well build on the existing work on human rights indicators. However, a comparison of the EU’s attempts to develop human rights indicators reveals considerable discrepancies in the approaches taken. These differences are often closely linked with the specific purposes and objectives of the producers and users of human rights indicators.
This study starts with an analysis of the current application of human rights indicators in the European Union’s internal and external action, their legal and political framework, as well as their rationale. It further assesses, through qualitative fieldwork research, the needs of key European stakeholders towards a human rights indicator system.
An extensive mapping of various mechanisms for measuring human rights was done. The mapping results encompass instruments produced by a variety of actors, based on different rationales, data sources and with different areas of application. The focus has been put on those mechanisms which are developed and applied by the organisations mentioned in respective EU documents, i.e. the UN institutions and the Council of Europe.
In order to find out if those mechanisms are suitable for further adaption and use by the EU, their intrinsic quality has been evaluated first. This was then finally matched with the requirements of EU bodies. The selection criteria do primarily reflect relevance, appropriateness and reliability. Therefore, established quality criteria for the identification of human rights indicators are key for the selection. Additionally, pragmatic criteria such as being already used in practice, taking into account data availability and user-friendliness are considered. Due to the variety of purposes of human rights measurement, the range of requirements that should be measured demand a comparative, but also differentiated analysis. The methodology needs to be consistent and broadly accepted. Flexible frequency of application must be ensured. The instruments need to enable the proof of causality between measure and impact.
The report concludes with the selection of the structure-process-outcome model by the OHCHR. This model is designed to measure the extent to which human rights dimensions respect, protect, fulfil and promote human rights standards in any given environment. As a human rights indicator model it does fulfil all of the mentioned criteria. In order to give EU stakeholders a pragmatic tool at hand for their daily work, it is proposed that an easy to access ‘instant information tool’, i.e. an information database on compliance including a compilation of existing indicators and related data sets, should be developed.
FRAME Working Papers, 2015
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information is based substantially on the information gathered t... more The Access Guide to Human Rights Information is based substantially on the information gathered through interviews with EU officials from the Commission, the Parliament and the Fundamental Rights Agency, reflected in the Baseline Study on Human Rights Indicators in the Context of the European Union, and on the other hand on the workshop results with international experts, held in Graz in April 2015.
The common findings were that firstly, EU officials require genuine human rights information for their manifold tasks. Secondly, it was found that the methodology by the OHCHR of indicating the human rights commitments, implementation and situation on the ground is appropriate to satisfy the information needs. Thirdly, it was shown that there is a broad spectrum of existing data and information relevant to human rights. However, the information is not easily accessible for two reasons. One the one hand it requires expertise on human rights and skills for assessment. On the other hand, information resources are scattered and often, while relevant to human rights, not genuinely collected and offered as human rights information.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information therefore aims to provide EU officials with easy-to-access information on existing human rights indicators, human rights related data, as well as human rights compliance information provided by international and regional human rights bodies. For this purpose, the guide briefly discusses the pros and cons of these sources, shows exemplarily how to understand existing information and how to relate it to the normative content of the respective human rights provisions.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information provides the available human rights specific information based on the example of the prohibition of torture, the freedom of expression, the rights of the child, as well as on social indicators. Information sources are structured along a typology derived from the purpose they were processed for. Accordingly, a differentiation is made between the application of the OHCHR-model, compliance information provided by human rights bodies, as well as indicator-based human rights-related information.
The Access Guide provides step-by-step guidance on the most effective retrieval and utilisation of existing human rights information based on exemplary research requests.
ETHOS Working Papers, 2018
The material contained in this document comes from ETHOS WP5 on justice as lived experience, and ... more The material contained in this document comes from ETHOS WP5 on justice as lived experience, and more specifically from the work conducted for Deliverable 5.2 on institutionalised political justice and (mis)recognition.
For this joint publication, research teams were asked to draft national case studies detailing state attempts to respond to minority claims for political recognition and justice, and the context for these responses given the national history of state formation and bordering.
For each national case study researchers wrote a history of minoritization in their respective countries, its relation to state formation and to how states institutionalised claims for political justice. The material produced for this historical context was extremely rich and an important context for other ETHOS workpackages as well as a resource for other researchers interested in the historical roots of minoritisation in the UK, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands and Austria. To keep the national case studies conducted as part of the D5.2 work focussed and retain this important material, WP5 co-ordinators requested that national teams present directly Roma relevant material only for their case study, and edited the additional material to produce this reference document.
We do not attempt to make a particular theoretical point and have not developed an overarching narrative for this case study material. Nevertheless, it provides useful background information for the analysis of inclusion/exclusion processes in selected European countries.
Die vorliegende Untersuchung präsentiert die Ergebnisse des zweiten Teils des Forschungsprojekts ... more Die vorliegende Untersuchung präsentiert die Ergebnisse des zweiten Teils des Forschungsprojekts „Bringing Home Human Rights Standards: The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms“. Sie knüpft an die Ergebnisse des ersten Projektteils an, welcher sich mit dem Zusammenspiel internationaler, regionaler und nationaler Monitoringorgane zur Folterprävention, sowie deren Ähnlichkeiten und Besonderheiten in Mandat und Praxis auseinandersetzte. Diese Arbeit wird hier hinsichtlich der Frage nach den vom österreichischen NPM zur Anwendung gebrachten Standards vertieft. Am Beispiel Österreichs soll untersucht werden, welche Relevanz internationale Standards für die Präventionsmaßnahmen auf nationaler Ebene haben und welche Rolle sich diesbezüglich für den NPM ergibt. Diese Untersuchung basiert zunächst auf einer Analyse der relevanten Rechtsnormen, einer Auswertung bestehender Literatur, sowie der Auseinandersetzung mit den öffentlich zugänglichen Materialien der VA. Um tiefergehende Einblicke darüber zu erlangen, welche Standards der NPM für seine Präventionsarbeit heranzieht, welche Bedeutung diese internationalen Vorgaben für seine Arbeit haben, und zu welcher Relevanz er internationalen Standards in Österreich verhelfen kann, wurden im Zeitraum von Juli bis Oktober 2016 insgesamt 11 leitfadengestützte Interviews mit KommissionsleiterInnen des NPM,
GeschäftsbereichsleiterInnen der VA, VertreterInnen der befassten Ministerien und ParlamentarierInnen durchgeführt. Dieser methodische Ansatz ermöglichte es, einen näheren Einblick in den praktischen Umgang des NPM mit präventiven Standards zu erlangen. Die Rolle des MRB bei der Standardsetzung ergibt sich aus den veröffentlichten Stellungnahmen auf der Webseite der VA und wird in dieser Untersuchung nicht vertiefend dargestellt. Es ist dem Erkenntnisinteresse und dem methodischen Ansatz geschuldet, dass die hier präsentierten Ergebnisse die diesbezüglichen Wahrnehmungen und Einschätzungen der Interviewpartner widerspiegeln.
In July 2012, the Austrian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), consisting of the Austrian Ombuds... more In July 2012, the Austrian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), consisting of the Austrian Ombudsman Board (AOB) and its regional Commissions, took up its mandate to monitor all places where persons are deprived of their liberty. Thereby, a national layer of preventive monitoring has been added to existing international and regional monitoring mechanisms, namely the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) and the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). The establishment of the NPM in Austria raises numerous questions regarding the interaction of the monitoring bodies, which is subject to an in-depth research in the project “Bringing Home Human Rights Standards: The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms”, which is supported by funds of the Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Anniversary Fund, project number: 16041).
Uploads
Papers by Maddalena Vivona
Although the educational system is comprehensive, several challenges manifest “on the ground”, as there seems to be a difference between the structural (and legal) provisions given, and the manner in which they are implemented and intended. Two major challenges to access to quality education could be identified across desk research and interviews: socio-economic background and language knowledge.
Due to the district allocation rule, socio-economic background has an impact on those children who live in less well-off districts who are forced into schools largely attended by students from similar backgrounds. Several interviewees backed up this finding with their experience, stating for example that: “The social status. The money. The background. The education of the parents (...) Yes, so this term „education is passed down and non-education is passed down“, that’s still valid. That’s my, one could almost say, my daily perception.”
Also, the role of political and medial discourses frames and labels schools, clustering students who are socio-economically worse off. The so-called “hot spot schools” (“Brennpunktschulen”) are strongly problematized and face public scrutiny, often portraying children with less favourable backgrounds (often vulnerable groups) as challenging and in need of special measures to help attain educational standards. Judging from the interviews, a similar dynamic can be observed for the opposite case - students from “higher standing” backgrounds are more likely to attend (either out of choice or due to allocation) a school of equal better standing. According to interviewees, these often also with more funding available, which enables better educational outcomes. Indeed, the national Report on Education 2015 shows that already in previous years, the “risk of students from socially disadvantaged groups to not achieve educational standards is higher than the risk of the majority population”.
The fact that Austria has been characterized by a higher percentage (20,3%) of students with another language than German as a first language (OECD average is 12,5%), has led to increased political discussion about measures to best accommodate the changing demographic.
Generally, political interests were found to play a significant role in determining the manner in which access to education is framed and realised in practice – similarly, decisions made on a federal level have direct effects on funding, the ideological direction of measures, as well as the formal framework offered. The current strategy of the acting Coalition government (Conservative Party ÖVP and Freedom Party FPÖ) prioritizes a more restrictive approach, as well as performance, testing, and outputs. This shift has taken place with the intention to equalise educational attainment for all groups and particularly affect children who speak German as a second language (or not at all), as well as children who cannot live up to standardised competency levels in general.
According to the interviews held, this political “deficit-orientation” is perceived to miss what is important. Interviewee identify issues like offering more training, support, materials and initiatives for students, parents, teachers, recognising the role of child rights and human rights, as well as acknowledging the changing dynamic of the Austrian demographic as a whole. Interviewees stated that political decisions often manifest very differently in practice and often give rise to new problems altogether. They highlighted the role of individuals in the educational system as being vital influencers of success (or not).
Sen's capability approach, which outlines the ability to make use of opportunities given and to enact individual functions is a useful framework to shed light on the dynamics of the Austrian system in practice. It has emerged that the capability of students to act upon their individual capacities is influenced on the one hand by the system itself - which faces structural and administrative challenges - as well as the actors within the system on various levels - including legislators, administrators, teachers and parents. An important factor influencing capabilities is the political status quo, the manner in which discourses are raised, and the way in which outside opinions and expertise is given voice to.
The paper analyses the disjuncture between the institutionalisation of minority claims for political justice in Austria and how minorities, in particular Roma, experience this disjuncture. It thus aims to identify gaps in the (always historically particular) state institutionalisations of political justice for minorities. Existing policy and legal texts, as well as literature was collected, reviewed and analysed in order to identify the history as well as the current state of institutionalisation of minority policies in general, and Roma policies in particular. Fieldwork research among Roma was then conducted to find out how members of the minority themselves feel accommodated by institutional political justice in Austria.
National minorities, by virtue of their citizenship, are granted a voice in public debates and have the power to influence decisions and processes that concern them on equal footing with all other citizens. ‘Autochthonous’ Roma (i.e. those with Austrian citizenship, born in Austria and who claim ancestral ‘rootedness’ in the region of Burgenland) share the same concerns as other ethnic minorities in Austria, namely recognition of their cultural heritage, and maintenance of their language and culture in Austrian society and media. Nevertheless, interviewed Roma identify factors that weaken the position of Roma compared to other recognised minorities. These factors are linked to issues of misrecognition and misrepresentation in the past, which have been ascribed to them and have brought many members of their community to the present margins of society.
Everyday struggles against discriminatory practices have not only brought Roma to a “journey of self-discovery”, but also to a process of politicisation to be able to fight for change. Formal recognition as a national minority in Austria in ’93 has been vital in acknowledging Roma’s status and in mending ties with national society. With the institution of the Ethnic Advisory Board for Roma an official forum for discussion was offered, in addition to funding to support activities aimed at preserving their culture and rights as a minority. The development of the National Roma Strategy, an initiative that has its origin in EU wide policies, has further strengthened the national framework. The Roma Dialogue Platform was created to concretely discuss and evaluate the national strategy and provide a valuable mechanism for discussing Roma and raise awareness among key stakeholders on concrete issues affecting Roma.
Roma’s fight for recognition however has not ended there: interviewees highlight how anti-gypsyism and stereotypes against Roma are still present in society and continue to affect the lives of many members of the community. The findings of the study show how, in this particular case study, political representation is intimately linked with issues of recognition and redistribution. It also appears that in the case of Roma in Austria their misrepresentation lies at the core of why they are not duly represented in society. It appears thus that in order to foster a better participation of Roma in public life, it is necessary to continue working towards this goal.
In this report, we try to put a face on the results of previous reports in Work Package 8 and to get a sense of how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of policymakers in EU institutions, the Member States and in their vertical and horizontal interaction. The report is based almost entirely on interviews with policymakers, which includes primarily EU officials, but is interpreted broadly to include also Member States and non-state actors. Given the emphasis on actors for this Cluster and the Work Package, the report maintains the focus on them, in this case both as the basis for the choice of interview subjects and in terms of the research question, with an emphasis on different actors as potential ‘agents of coherence’. The questions that have been posed during the interviews are based on the findings from previous reports in Work Package 8. They begin with the understanding of coherence developed in Deliverable 8.1, which sees incoherence arising from three potential sources: structural, policy (in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes) and interests. Policymakers have been asked specifically about their own experiences of coherence/incoherence in the context of EU human rights policy.
The main body of the report (section II) looks at EU institutions as potential 'agents of coherence' or avenues for incoherence. Through the views of policymakers working in the context of the principal EU institutions, it provides an account of the role of the institutions in promoting or undermining coherence in EU human rights policy, including examples of best practices of coherence, as well as what are considered to be the main sources of incoherence in the views of the policymakers involved. Section III is devoted to Member State policymakers with responsibility for EU policies, and is limited to the analysis of the views of representatives from two Member States interviewed for the present study. Finally section IV is devoted to a thematic case study on 'Coherence in EU Business and Human Rights Policy', which examines how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of EU institutions, the Member States and other actors on the subject of business and human rights.
Overall, the report has found that different types of incoherence emerge in the work of all EU institutions and bodies. Each EU institution has a role as an ‘agent of coherence’ in EU human rights policy, while at the same time at risk of facing different types of incoherence in its work. The same is true for Member States and more generally for policymakers involved in the development of EU human rights policy. All EU institutions show good practices and potential avenues to aid coherence. However, while all EU institutions play a role in the coherence of EU human rights policy, some are institutionally better placed to act as ‘agents of coherence’ in EU human rights policy. In this regard, the report has highlighted best practices as well as limitations and sources of incoherence. Each institution was also found to report potential limitations and shortcomings in the context of the coherence of its human rights work, some of which were found to be more irresolvable than others. Further, different EU institutions show very different levels and sources of incoherence, whether structural, policy or interest-based.
On the whole structural incoherence dominates the accounts of interviewees, which in turn may give rise to other sources of incoherence, including policy or interest-based incoherence. The complexities of the institutional set up of EU human rights policymaking clearly emerges and provides a perhaps worrying picture of competing processes, structures and mandates overwhelming the policymakers themselves. On one hand, there appear to be too many processes taking place at the same time, with some overlap. On the other hand, the resources to follow all such processes as well as carrying out the necessary human rights related work were regularly reported to be limited and insufficient. Further, interviewees often reported to be working in a context of 'information overload' in which keeping on top of all relevant knowledge was a challenge in itself. At the same time communication barriers within and between institutions made it impossible to attain full knowledge of all competing processes.
The issue of policy incoherence, in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes, received some attention from the interview subjects. The most prominent example reported by many interviewees was the fundamental rights/human rights divide, which resulted from the internal/external aspect of incoherence in EU human rights policy. This theme was also related to the role of international human rights instruments and standards, on one hand receiving insufficient attention from EU policymakers and institutional actors, on the other providing a useful avenue to avoid the internal/external disconnect in EU human rights policy. The issue of interest-based incoherence, which by definition requires more in depth thematic studies, received less attention from interviewees. The case study on business and human rights (section IV) presents a useful example of the type of research necessary to fully investigate issues of interest-based incoherence, which remains a problem for numerous other areas of human rights and other institutions. The case study investigates the role of a wide multiplicity of actors in relation to one cross-cutting theme, including how they relate to the different policy frameworks, and how they relate to each other in relation to a specific theme and push forward the debate, issues and ultimately human rights policy.
Overall a varied picture of challenges and recommendations emerges from the accounts of the different actors involved, who offer a range of practical solutions to overcome the sources of incoherence which often underlie their work. A number of concrete recommendations - emerging from the views of the interviewees and informed by our own analysis - have been put forward on each institution and are listed in the final section of this report (section V).
Human rights indicators are an essential instrument for planning, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of human rights protection and promotion. On the international, regional, national and local levels, numerous mechanisms for measuring human rights have been developed; some of them were already applied in practice with varying degrees of success, while others remained theoretical attempts. Such mechanisms usually resort to qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to measure the current state and/or progress of particular human rights or assess the impacts of policies/measures in a defined geographical area within a given time-frame.
The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators systems, and identify their objectives, target audience and methodology. This is done in order to formulate objectives for human rights indicators to be used in the European Union’s human rights (internal and external) policies. Up until now, several EU institutions have taken initiatives to measure human rights or have at least underlined the necessity to do so. Human rights measurements may indeed be utilised by the EU to ground its policies on a solid base of evidence and further help backing EU actions with increased legitimacy. When identifying meaningful and applicable mechanisms to measure human rights, the EU may well build on the existing work on human rights indicators. However, a comparison of the EU’s attempts to develop human rights indicators reveals considerable discrepancies in the approaches taken. These differences are often closely linked with the specific purposes and objectives of the producers and users of human rights indicators.
This study starts with an analysis of the current application of human rights indicators in the European Union’s internal and external action, their legal and political framework, as well as their rationale. It further assesses, through qualitative fieldwork research, the needs of key European stakeholders towards a human rights indicator system.
An extensive mapping of various mechanisms for measuring human rights was done. The mapping results encompass instruments produced by a variety of actors, based on different rationales, data sources and with different areas of application. The focus has been put on those mechanisms which are developed and applied by the organisations mentioned in respective EU documents, i.e. the UN institutions and the Council of Europe.
In order to find out if those mechanisms are suitable for further adaption and use by the EU, their intrinsic quality has been evaluated first. This was then finally matched with the requirements of EU bodies. The selection criteria do primarily reflect relevance, appropriateness and reliability. Therefore, established quality criteria for the identification of human rights indicators are key for the selection. Additionally, pragmatic criteria such as being already used in practice, taking into account data availability and user-friendliness are considered. Due to the variety of purposes of human rights measurement, the range of requirements that should be measured demand a comparative, but also differentiated analysis. The methodology needs to be consistent and broadly accepted. Flexible frequency of application must be ensured. The instruments need to enable the proof of causality between measure and impact.
The report concludes with the selection of the structure-process-outcome model by the OHCHR. This model is designed to measure the extent to which human rights dimensions respect, protect, fulfil and promote human rights standards in any given environment. As a human rights indicator model it does fulfil all of the mentioned criteria. In order to give EU stakeholders a pragmatic tool at hand for their daily work, it is proposed that an easy to access ‘instant information tool’, i.e. an information database on compliance including a compilation of existing indicators and related data sets, should be developed.
The common findings were that firstly, EU officials require genuine human rights information for their manifold tasks. Secondly, it was found that the methodology by the OHCHR of indicating the human rights commitments, implementation and situation on the ground is appropriate to satisfy the information needs. Thirdly, it was shown that there is a broad spectrum of existing data and information relevant to human rights. However, the information is not easily accessible for two reasons. One the one hand it requires expertise on human rights and skills for assessment. On the other hand, information resources are scattered and often, while relevant to human rights, not genuinely collected and offered as human rights information.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information therefore aims to provide EU officials with easy-to-access information on existing human rights indicators, human rights related data, as well as human rights compliance information provided by international and regional human rights bodies. For this purpose, the guide briefly discusses the pros and cons of these sources, shows exemplarily how to understand existing information and how to relate it to the normative content of the respective human rights provisions.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information provides the available human rights specific information based on the example of the prohibition of torture, the freedom of expression, the rights of the child, as well as on social indicators. Information sources are structured along a typology derived from the purpose they were processed for. Accordingly, a differentiation is made between the application of the OHCHR-model, compliance information provided by human rights bodies, as well as indicator-based human rights-related information.
The Access Guide provides step-by-step guidance on the most effective retrieval and utilisation of existing human rights information based on exemplary research requests.
For this joint publication, research teams were asked to draft national case studies detailing state attempts to respond to minority claims for political recognition and justice, and the context for these responses given the national history of state formation and bordering.
For each national case study researchers wrote a history of minoritization in their respective countries, its relation to state formation and to how states institutionalised claims for political justice. The material produced for this historical context was extremely rich and an important context for other ETHOS workpackages as well as a resource for other researchers interested in the historical roots of minoritisation in the UK, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands and Austria. To keep the national case studies conducted as part of the D5.2 work focussed and retain this important material, WP5 co-ordinators requested that national teams present directly Roma relevant material only for their case study, and edited the additional material to produce this reference document.
We do not attempt to make a particular theoretical point and have not developed an overarching narrative for this case study material. Nevertheless, it provides useful background information for the analysis of inclusion/exclusion processes in selected European countries.
GeschäftsbereichsleiterInnen der VA, VertreterInnen der befassten Ministerien und ParlamentarierInnen durchgeführt. Dieser methodische Ansatz ermöglichte es, einen näheren Einblick in den praktischen Umgang des NPM mit präventiven Standards zu erlangen. Die Rolle des MRB bei der Standardsetzung ergibt sich aus den veröffentlichten Stellungnahmen auf der Webseite der VA und wird in dieser Untersuchung nicht vertiefend dargestellt. Es ist dem Erkenntnisinteresse und dem methodischen Ansatz geschuldet, dass die hier präsentierten Ergebnisse die diesbezüglichen Wahrnehmungen und Einschätzungen der Interviewpartner widerspiegeln.
Although the educational system is comprehensive, several challenges manifest “on the ground”, as there seems to be a difference between the structural (and legal) provisions given, and the manner in which they are implemented and intended. Two major challenges to access to quality education could be identified across desk research and interviews: socio-economic background and language knowledge.
Due to the district allocation rule, socio-economic background has an impact on those children who live in less well-off districts who are forced into schools largely attended by students from similar backgrounds. Several interviewees backed up this finding with their experience, stating for example that: “The social status. The money. The background. The education of the parents (...) Yes, so this term „education is passed down and non-education is passed down“, that’s still valid. That’s my, one could almost say, my daily perception.”
Also, the role of political and medial discourses frames and labels schools, clustering students who are socio-economically worse off. The so-called “hot spot schools” (“Brennpunktschulen”) are strongly problematized and face public scrutiny, often portraying children with less favourable backgrounds (often vulnerable groups) as challenging and in need of special measures to help attain educational standards. Judging from the interviews, a similar dynamic can be observed for the opposite case - students from “higher standing” backgrounds are more likely to attend (either out of choice or due to allocation) a school of equal better standing. According to interviewees, these often also with more funding available, which enables better educational outcomes. Indeed, the national Report on Education 2015 shows that already in previous years, the “risk of students from socially disadvantaged groups to not achieve educational standards is higher than the risk of the majority population”.
The fact that Austria has been characterized by a higher percentage (20,3%) of students with another language than German as a first language (OECD average is 12,5%), has led to increased political discussion about measures to best accommodate the changing demographic.
Generally, political interests were found to play a significant role in determining the manner in which access to education is framed and realised in practice – similarly, decisions made on a federal level have direct effects on funding, the ideological direction of measures, as well as the formal framework offered. The current strategy of the acting Coalition government (Conservative Party ÖVP and Freedom Party FPÖ) prioritizes a more restrictive approach, as well as performance, testing, and outputs. This shift has taken place with the intention to equalise educational attainment for all groups and particularly affect children who speak German as a second language (or not at all), as well as children who cannot live up to standardised competency levels in general.
According to the interviews held, this political “deficit-orientation” is perceived to miss what is important. Interviewee identify issues like offering more training, support, materials and initiatives for students, parents, teachers, recognising the role of child rights and human rights, as well as acknowledging the changing dynamic of the Austrian demographic as a whole. Interviewees stated that political decisions often manifest very differently in practice and often give rise to new problems altogether. They highlighted the role of individuals in the educational system as being vital influencers of success (or not).
Sen's capability approach, which outlines the ability to make use of opportunities given and to enact individual functions is a useful framework to shed light on the dynamics of the Austrian system in practice. It has emerged that the capability of students to act upon their individual capacities is influenced on the one hand by the system itself - which faces structural and administrative challenges - as well as the actors within the system on various levels - including legislators, administrators, teachers and parents. An important factor influencing capabilities is the political status quo, the manner in which discourses are raised, and the way in which outside opinions and expertise is given voice to.
The paper analyses the disjuncture between the institutionalisation of minority claims for political justice in Austria and how minorities, in particular Roma, experience this disjuncture. It thus aims to identify gaps in the (always historically particular) state institutionalisations of political justice for minorities. Existing policy and legal texts, as well as literature was collected, reviewed and analysed in order to identify the history as well as the current state of institutionalisation of minority policies in general, and Roma policies in particular. Fieldwork research among Roma was then conducted to find out how members of the minority themselves feel accommodated by institutional political justice in Austria.
National minorities, by virtue of their citizenship, are granted a voice in public debates and have the power to influence decisions and processes that concern them on equal footing with all other citizens. ‘Autochthonous’ Roma (i.e. those with Austrian citizenship, born in Austria and who claim ancestral ‘rootedness’ in the region of Burgenland) share the same concerns as other ethnic minorities in Austria, namely recognition of their cultural heritage, and maintenance of their language and culture in Austrian society and media. Nevertheless, interviewed Roma identify factors that weaken the position of Roma compared to other recognised minorities. These factors are linked to issues of misrecognition and misrepresentation in the past, which have been ascribed to them and have brought many members of their community to the present margins of society.
Everyday struggles against discriminatory practices have not only brought Roma to a “journey of self-discovery”, but also to a process of politicisation to be able to fight for change. Formal recognition as a national minority in Austria in ’93 has been vital in acknowledging Roma’s status and in mending ties with national society. With the institution of the Ethnic Advisory Board for Roma an official forum for discussion was offered, in addition to funding to support activities aimed at preserving their culture and rights as a minority. The development of the National Roma Strategy, an initiative that has its origin in EU wide policies, has further strengthened the national framework. The Roma Dialogue Platform was created to concretely discuss and evaluate the national strategy and provide a valuable mechanism for discussing Roma and raise awareness among key stakeholders on concrete issues affecting Roma.
Roma’s fight for recognition however has not ended there: interviewees highlight how anti-gypsyism and stereotypes against Roma are still present in society and continue to affect the lives of many members of the community. The findings of the study show how, in this particular case study, political representation is intimately linked with issues of recognition and redistribution. It also appears that in the case of Roma in Austria their misrepresentation lies at the core of why they are not duly represented in society. It appears thus that in order to foster a better participation of Roma in public life, it is necessary to continue working towards this goal.
In this report, we try to put a face on the results of previous reports in Work Package 8 and to get a sense of how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of policymakers in EU institutions, the Member States and in their vertical and horizontal interaction. The report is based almost entirely on interviews with policymakers, which includes primarily EU officials, but is interpreted broadly to include also Member States and non-state actors. Given the emphasis on actors for this Cluster and the Work Package, the report maintains the focus on them, in this case both as the basis for the choice of interview subjects and in terms of the research question, with an emphasis on different actors as potential ‘agents of coherence’. The questions that have been posed during the interviews are based on the findings from previous reports in Work Package 8. They begin with the understanding of coherence developed in Deliverable 8.1, which sees incoherence arising from three potential sources: structural, policy (in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes) and interests. Policymakers have been asked specifically about their own experiences of coherence/incoherence in the context of EU human rights policy.
The main body of the report (section II) looks at EU institutions as potential 'agents of coherence' or avenues for incoherence. Through the views of policymakers working in the context of the principal EU institutions, it provides an account of the role of the institutions in promoting or undermining coherence in EU human rights policy, including examples of best practices of coherence, as well as what are considered to be the main sources of incoherence in the views of the policymakers involved. Section III is devoted to Member State policymakers with responsibility for EU policies, and is limited to the analysis of the views of representatives from two Member States interviewed for the present study. Finally section IV is devoted to a thematic case study on 'Coherence in EU Business and Human Rights Policy', which examines how coherence or incoherence appears in practice in the activities and discourse of EU institutions, the Member States and other actors on the subject of business and human rights.
Overall, the report has found that different types of incoherence emerge in the work of all EU institutions and bodies. Each EU institution has a role as an ‘agent of coherence’ in EU human rights policy, while at the same time at risk of facing different types of incoherence in its work. The same is true for Member States and more generally for policymakers involved in the development of EU human rights policy. All EU institutions show good practices and potential avenues to aid coherence. However, while all EU institutions play a role in the coherence of EU human rights policy, some are institutionally better placed to act as ‘agents of coherence’ in EU human rights policy. In this regard, the report has highlighted best practices as well as limitations and sources of incoherence. Each institution was also found to report potential limitations and shortcomings in the context of the coherence of its human rights work, some of which were found to be more irresolvable than others. Further, different EU institutions show very different levels and sources of incoherence, whether structural, policy or interest-based.
On the whole structural incoherence dominates the accounts of interviewees, which in turn may give rise to other sources of incoherence, including policy or interest-based incoherence. The complexities of the institutional set up of EU human rights policymaking clearly emerges and provides a perhaps worrying picture of competing processes, structures and mandates overwhelming the policymakers themselves. On one hand, there appear to be too many processes taking place at the same time, with some overlap. On the other hand, the resources to follow all such processes as well as carrying out the necessary human rights related work were regularly reported to be limited and insufficient. Further, interviewees often reported to be working in a context of 'information overload' in which keeping on top of all relevant knowledge was a challenge in itself. At the same time communication barriers within and between institutions made it impossible to attain full knowledge of all competing processes.
The issue of policy incoherence, in terms of competing concepts and visions or policy regimes, received some attention from the interview subjects. The most prominent example reported by many interviewees was the fundamental rights/human rights divide, which resulted from the internal/external aspect of incoherence in EU human rights policy. This theme was also related to the role of international human rights instruments and standards, on one hand receiving insufficient attention from EU policymakers and institutional actors, on the other providing a useful avenue to avoid the internal/external disconnect in EU human rights policy. The issue of interest-based incoherence, which by definition requires more in depth thematic studies, received less attention from interviewees. The case study on business and human rights (section IV) presents a useful example of the type of research necessary to fully investigate issues of interest-based incoherence, which remains a problem for numerous other areas of human rights and other institutions. The case study investigates the role of a wide multiplicity of actors in relation to one cross-cutting theme, including how they relate to the different policy frameworks, and how they relate to each other in relation to a specific theme and push forward the debate, issues and ultimately human rights policy.
Overall a varied picture of challenges and recommendations emerges from the accounts of the different actors involved, who offer a range of practical solutions to overcome the sources of incoherence which often underlie their work. A number of concrete recommendations - emerging from the views of the interviewees and informed by our own analysis - have been put forward on each institution and are listed in the final section of this report (section V).
Human rights indicators are an essential instrument for planning, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of human rights protection and promotion. On the international, regional, national and local levels, numerous mechanisms for measuring human rights have been developed; some of them were already applied in practice with varying degrees of success, while others remained theoretical attempts. Such mechanisms usually resort to qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to measure the current state and/or progress of particular human rights or assess the impacts of policies/measures in a defined geographical area within a given time-frame.
The aim of this study is to critically assess and analyse existing human rights indicators systems, and identify their objectives, target audience and methodology. This is done in order to formulate objectives for human rights indicators to be used in the European Union’s human rights (internal and external) policies. Up until now, several EU institutions have taken initiatives to measure human rights or have at least underlined the necessity to do so. Human rights measurements may indeed be utilised by the EU to ground its policies on a solid base of evidence and further help backing EU actions with increased legitimacy. When identifying meaningful and applicable mechanisms to measure human rights, the EU may well build on the existing work on human rights indicators. However, a comparison of the EU’s attempts to develop human rights indicators reveals considerable discrepancies in the approaches taken. These differences are often closely linked with the specific purposes and objectives of the producers and users of human rights indicators.
This study starts with an analysis of the current application of human rights indicators in the European Union’s internal and external action, their legal and political framework, as well as their rationale. It further assesses, through qualitative fieldwork research, the needs of key European stakeholders towards a human rights indicator system.
An extensive mapping of various mechanisms for measuring human rights was done. The mapping results encompass instruments produced by a variety of actors, based on different rationales, data sources and with different areas of application. The focus has been put on those mechanisms which are developed and applied by the organisations mentioned in respective EU documents, i.e. the UN institutions and the Council of Europe.
In order to find out if those mechanisms are suitable for further adaption and use by the EU, their intrinsic quality has been evaluated first. This was then finally matched with the requirements of EU bodies. The selection criteria do primarily reflect relevance, appropriateness and reliability. Therefore, established quality criteria for the identification of human rights indicators are key for the selection. Additionally, pragmatic criteria such as being already used in practice, taking into account data availability and user-friendliness are considered. Due to the variety of purposes of human rights measurement, the range of requirements that should be measured demand a comparative, but also differentiated analysis. The methodology needs to be consistent and broadly accepted. Flexible frequency of application must be ensured. The instruments need to enable the proof of causality between measure and impact.
The report concludes with the selection of the structure-process-outcome model by the OHCHR. This model is designed to measure the extent to which human rights dimensions respect, protect, fulfil and promote human rights standards in any given environment. As a human rights indicator model it does fulfil all of the mentioned criteria. In order to give EU stakeholders a pragmatic tool at hand for their daily work, it is proposed that an easy to access ‘instant information tool’, i.e. an information database on compliance including a compilation of existing indicators and related data sets, should be developed.
The common findings were that firstly, EU officials require genuine human rights information for their manifold tasks. Secondly, it was found that the methodology by the OHCHR of indicating the human rights commitments, implementation and situation on the ground is appropriate to satisfy the information needs. Thirdly, it was shown that there is a broad spectrum of existing data and information relevant to human rights. However, the information is not easily accessible for two reasons. One the one hand it requires expertise on human rights and skills for assessment. On the other hand, information resources are scattered and often, while relevant to human rights, not genuinely collected and offered as human rights information.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information therefore aims to provide EU officials with easy-to-access information on existing human rights indicators, human rights related data, as well as human rights compliance information provided by international and regional human rights bodies. For this purpose, the guide briefly discusses the pros and cons of these sources, shows exemplarily how to understand existing information and how to relate it to the normative content of the respective human rights provisions.
The Access Guide to Human Rights Information provides the available human rights specific information based on the example of the prohibition of torture, the freedom of expression, the rights of the child, as well as on social indicators. Information sources are structured along a typology derived from the purpose they were processed for. Accordingly, a differentiation is made between the application of the OHCHR-model, compliance information provided by human rights bodies, as well as indicator-based human rights-related information.
The Access Guide provides step-by-step guidance on the most effective retrieval and utilisation of existing human rights information based on exemplary research requests.
For this joint publication, research teams were asked to draft national case studies detailing state attempts to respond to minority claims for political recognition and justice, and the context for these responses given the national history of state formation and bordering.
For each national case study researchers wrote a history of minoritization in their respective countries, its relation to state formation and to how states institutionalised claims for political justice. The material produced for this historical context was extremely rich and an important context for other ETHOS workpackages as well as a resource for other researchers interested in the historical roots of minoritisation in the UK, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands and Austria. To keep the national case studies conducted as part of the D5.2 work focussed and retain this important material, WP5 co-ordinators requested that national teams present directly Roma relevant material only for their case study, and edited the additional material to produce this reference document.
We do not attempt to make a particular theoretical point and have not developed an overarching narrative for this case study material. Nevertheless, it provides useful background information for the analysis of inclusion/exclusion processes in selected European countries.
GeschäftsbereichsleiterInnen der VA, VertreterInnen der befassten Ministerien und ParlamentarierInnen durchgeführt. Dieser methodische Ansatz ermöglichte es, einen näheren Einblick in den praktischen Umgang des NPM mit präventiven Standards zu erlangen. Die Rolle des MRB bei der Standardsetzung ergibt sich aus den veröffentlichten Stellungnahmen auf der Webseite der VA und wird in dieser Untersuchung nicht vertiefend dargestellt. Es ist dem Erkenntnisinteresse und dem methodischen Ansatz geschuldet, dass die hier präsentierten Ergebnisse die diesbezüglichen Wahrnehmungen und Einschätzungen der Interviewpartner widerspiegeln.