Ybkohama’LawReview （YokohamaKokusaiKeizaiH6gaku）

Volume16Numberl

SepterTlber2007

Contents ArtICles

RethinkingofTheDoubleStandardTheory MasaomlKIMIZUKA

CanweestabllShaFreeTradeAgreementoftheAsLa－PacIfic（FTAAP）？ Hlroml KABASHlMA

RelationsbetweentheGovernmentSect10nandtheEconomcandScIentlflCSect10n ofGHQ／SCAPlntheProcessofConstltutionalReformInJapan FocusslngOnthePerLOdfromtheBeginnlngtheAllledOccupat10ntO

CompletIOnOfso－CalledMacArthurDraftConstltut10n Koan－JeongKIM

Note

DleRechtsnaturderGarantlehaftung

Taku WATANABE

ConstltutIOnallSmln mOdern Chlna TheAcceptanceofConstltut10naIISmInNon－WesternCountrIeS

Naoyukl MATSUl AstudyofthedraftbankruptcylawofTalWan．2004

You KOUKA

LLberalUnderstandlng．Shortcomlng．andControversyaproposGroupRLghts DoWeNeedaDrfferentParadigmワ

Mohammad SHAHABUDDIN

Matenal

CNilLawinthePeopIelsRepubIFCOfChina（Draft）：PersonalRlghtLaw

withtwoludlClaryFnterPretat10naboutpersonaldamagebytheSupremeCourllnChina EIIChilCHIKAWA

l）し直Ii＼】1しし111＼

Association oflnternationaland Businessl，aW

TnttlrnatioTla］（ir；ldu；ltt－SぐhoolofS（）CialSぐit，lnL、tlS

YokohヱIm；lNationiIILTniversitv

［二重亘二〕

LiberalUnderstanding，Shortcoming，and

ControversyaproposGroupRights：

DoWtNeedaDifLtrentParadigm？

Mohammad Shahabuddin＊

1．Prologue：

Liberalattitudetowardsgrouprightsisadubiousone．Forquitealongtime，

1iberalsconsideredanyideaofgroupidentityathreattoindividualism；hence

therewasnojusti負cation正）rdevolvinganyrightto‘groups’．Historyofmankind

ismarkedwithincidentsofbrutalityagainstindividuals，eSpeCiallywomen，inthe

name ofrelig10nOrCulture．Onceliberalismcamewiththe messageof

emancipationforindividuals，therewasnoreasontoletreligious and cultural

dogmasruleover血・eedomagain．Historical1y，Ontheotherhand，Variousminority

groupshadbeenvictimsofmqJOrityoppression・Therefore，itwasalsofelt

necessarytoprotecttheseminoritygroupsforthe sakeofhumanityorfor

internationalornationalstability．ThePeaceofAugsburg（1555），thePactof

Warsaw（1573），andtheEdictofNantes（1598）aresomeoftheearlymechanisms

forprotectingreligiousminorities．However，withtheemergenceofliberal

155

横浜国際緑済法学第16巻第1号（2007年91」）

ideologyasadominantphilosophyintheinternationalplane，theideaofminority

rightsstartedtobeconsideredredundant，Instead，itwasbelievedthatliberal－

individualismcould effectivelyguaranteenecessaryprotectionsforvarious

minoritygroupsbeitreligious，1inguistic，Culturalorethnic．Sincethen，aSharp

lineofdistinctionhasbeenvisiblekeepingliberals（advocatesofindividual

rights）andcommunitarians（proponentsofgrouprights）intwosidesoftheline．

Forliberals，individualismoreimportantthancommunityandcommunityis

important only aslong asit contributes toindividualwe11－being．For

COmmunitarians，Ontheotherhand，COmmunitycomesfirstasindividualwell－

beingandautonomyisdeeplyrootedincommunitylife．

LiberalUnderstanding，ShorteomingandCon［roversyaproPOSGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm？

individualismandcomeupwithanaccommodativeliberalh・ameWOrktoaddress

theissuesofgrouprights．Consequently，thesharplineofdistinctionbetween

communitariansandlibertariansstartedgettingblurredwiththeemergenceofan

accommodativeconceptionthatindividualrightsandgrouprightsarenot

mutuallyexclusiveanditispossibletoaccommodategrouprightswithinliberal

framework．Theproponentsofthisargument，YaelTamir，JosephRaz，andWill

Kymlicka，aCknowledgethattherearecompellinginterestsrelatedtocultureand

identitywhicharefu11yconsistentwithliberalprinciplesoffreedomandequality，

andwhichjustifygrantingspecialrightstominorities．Kymlickacallsthisthe

‘1iberalculturalist’position．

ThecollapseofBerlinWallwasconsideredalandslidevictoryofliberal

ideology．HopewassohighthatFukuyamaevencalleditthe‘endofhistory’as

hesawtheprogressionofhumanhistoryasastrugglebetweenideologies

eomingtoanendwiththeworldsettlingonliberaldemocracya氏ertheendofthe

ColdWar．1）Butthishopewasshort－1ived．EthniccleanslnginformerYugoslavia

andRwandaputabigquestionmarktothathope．EveninWesterndemocracies

likeCanada，Belgium，andSpain，grOupreSentmentisverYmuChprevalent．Even

afteralmostonedecadeofsigningtheBelLastPeaceAgreement，ethnictensions

inNorthernIrelandsometimestakespaceinthepagesofnewspapers．Besides，

VariousdiasporaswithinWestern democraciesarenowmoreorganizedthan

beforeasaresultofincessanttechnologicalinventionsthathelpedinreviving

ethnicidentitybyprovidingwithcheaperwayofcommunications．Atthesame

time，marketeconomyhasbroughthomeethnictelevisionchannelsoreven

ethnicfoods．Thehopethatinthisincreasinglyglobalizedworldvariouscultures

Willconvergeintooneculturehasbeenreducedtoabsurdity．Perhaps，allthese

reallife experiencesprovokedliberalsto revisitthewholeideaofliberal－

156

lnthefollowingsections，Iwillcriticallyexaminethis‘1iberalculturalist’

positionofWillKymlickawithaviewtodemonstratingthateventhismoderate

positionisincompatible，atleasttheoretically，Withtheideaofgrouprights・One

Obviousimplicationofthisassertionisthatweneedadifferentparadigmto

addressthisvitalshortcoming．ThescopeOfthispaperislimitedtothisaspect

only，andnodetaileddiscussiononanyalternativeparadigmismadehere．

2．‘Can Liberalism Accommodate Group Rights？’－A

CommunitarianCha11engeforKymlickn：

VernonVanDyke2，aVeteranCOmmunitarian，anSWerSthisquestioninnegative・

HepresentsahistoricalaccountofhowliberalpoliticaltheoristslikeHobbes，

Locke，andRousseaueliminated anypoliticalidentitybetween Stateand

individuals．HefindsthesamephenomenonintheworkofRawIswho put

individualsinthe‘0riginalpositions’．HiscriticismgoestoMillandBarkeraswell

fortheirindividualisticapproach十 Unlikethem，VanDykefindshistoric

157

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

precedentsexistandcontemporarypracticesarefollowedthatgoagainstliberal

individualisticposition；theestablishmentoftheStateitselfisonesuchgreat

historicprecedence．lnhiswords：

LiberalUnderstanding，ShortcomlngandControversyaproposGroupRightsニDoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm？

doesnot軋”7 Thesameanalogyappliestoothercountrieswherethereisa

practice ofgrantinggroup rights．Eveninthe US，COmmunity rightis

acknowledgedforIndians．“IJegislationconcerningtheIndiansrenectsdifferent

andcontradictoryprinciples，butsomeofitassumesthatthetribesarelike

sovereignstatesinbeingirreducibleright－and－duty－bearingunits．”H｝ Wecanadd

manymoretoVanDyke’sexamples．Malaysiahasbeensuecessfu11ypursulng

thispolicyformanyyearstokeepharmonyamongethnicMalays，Chinese，and

Indiancommunities．IJebanonisanotherexample．

“【T］henotionthatallindividualssomehowconsenttothejurisdictionofthe

Stateisanobvioustiction．Amoretenableposition（…）isthathumanneeds

existatvariouslevels（．，．）．andthattheexistenceofneedsinlPliesarightto

meetthem”・．Thisprinciplejusti負esindividualrights，anditalsojustiBesthe

rightsofcommunities，includingthecommunities（orthecommunitiesof

COITmlunities）thatconstitutestates．Atnolevelaretherightsabsolute．At

eachlevelandbetweenlevels，rightsandtheirexercisearelimitedbyother

rights・Withinlimitsreachedafterconsideringtherelevantrights，the

meetingoftheneedsofcommunity－Orthepromotionofthegoodofthe

COmmunity－justi丘esrestrictionsonthebehaviourofindividuals，Whether

theyconsentornot．”6）

Defendinghissecondassumptionthatrightsthatshouldbeaccordedto

groupsshouldalsobethoughtofasreflectingmoralclaims，VanDykequestions：

“Whyshouldthepossibilityberu1edoutthattheauthorityofthestateshouldbe

limitednotonlybythemoralrightsofindividuals（“inalienable”orhuman

rights），butalsobythemoralrightsofgroups？”L巨 Heassertsthatthegrantof

legalstatusandrightstogroupsinmanycountriesmaywellbeinresponsetoa

moralclaim．Similarly，therighttoselfdeterminationasamoralrightisglVentO

groups，and mostimportantlythisgrouprightisnotconnictingwithindividual

rights．Toquotehim：‘′nlereisneverathoughtthatwhenapeopleexerciseits

righttoselidetermination，theoutcomemightviolateanindividualright．No

violationoccurseveninthecaseofthosewhoopposetheoutcome．Theyretain

therighttoleavethegroup，buttheyhavenorightofprotectionagainstthe

group’sdecision，andnorightofredress・・・TheforegolngSuggeStthatitisthe

corporateunitthatenJOyStheright；themostthatanindividualeanclaimisa

righttoparticipateinthecorporatechoice．”10）Inadifferentworkll），hecriticises

liberalattitudetowardstherighttoself－determinationbysaylngthatliberalswho

Championthisrightfornationsorpeoplestendtothinkofanationorpeoplenot

asaeollectiveentitybutasanaggregationofindividuals．Hedismantlesthis

159

Hisargumentinfavourofgrouprightshasitsbaseontwoassumptions：

瓜rst，thecommunitieshaverightsasseparateunitsandinsomecasesthese

rightsarenotreducibletotherightsofindividualsasmembers，andsecond，

theserightsmayrenectmoralclaims．Heexempli鮎dtheBrstassumptionwith

theBritishpracticeinmanyofhercolonieswhereBritishconferredlegalrights

tocommunities．Britishpracticeforcoloniesisevidentinmanyindependent

COuntries．InBelglum，rightshavebeendevoIvedtolinguisticcommunities．In

Fiji，SpeCiallandrightisguaranteedfortheFijianintheconstitution．He

COmmentSOnthisarrangementthatitis“obviouslycommunal，glVlnglandrights

tothecommunityassuchonaco11ective，COrpOratebasis．rIbseektoreduce

thesecommunalrightstoindividualrightsistostraintopreserveaparadigmthat

158

L，JH・m［＝Il血s（aIlding，ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights＝DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm？

舶rt（・（1with：Canliberalismaccommodategrouprights．Toquotehim：

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号 t2007年9月）

COnCeptionandassertsthatthoughindividualshaveinterestinbeinggrouped，

thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattherelatedrightgoestoindividuals．

VanDyke’scriticismextendedtopluralistsaswell．Likesomeliberalists，

heargues，mOStOfthepluralistsconsidervariousinterestgroupsbetween

individualandstates．Butethniccommunitiesfailedtoattracttheirattention．The

problemwithinterestgrouplnSuChapositionisthattheypursue，inVanDyke’s

term，’individualisticvalues’．Giventhisbackground，hisassertionisjusti茄ed：

“Theliberalconception－anindividualistconception－isundulylimited‥・

Consideringtheheterogeneityofmankindandofthepopulationofvirtuallyevery

existingstate，itisalsonecessarytothinkofethniccommunitiesandcertain

Otherkindsofgroups，andtoincludethemamongthekindsofright－and－duty－

bearingunitswhoseinterrelationshiparetobeexplored．”12iHisanotherattack

Onliberal－individualismcomesinthefollowingway：

“【T］heliberal，mOVedbyhumanconcerns，hastofavoursomekindofa

special，prOteCtiveregimefor【indigenouspeople］－perhapsestablishing

territorialreseTVeSfromwhich othersareexcluded．Butthisiscontraryto

）iberaldoctrine，Whichisatleastintegrationistifnotassimilationist；

pcrmanentcommunalismisunacceptable・Andsotheliberalistorn・Whathe

usuallydoesistosaythatthespecialmeasuresfortheindigenousare

transitory，pendingdevelopmentsthatpermitintegration・Butifindependence

isimpractical，permanentCOmmunalismmaybeexactlywhattheindigenous

Want…

・lnetroubleisthattheliberalhasnoplaceinhistheoryforpeoplesasdistinct

t）Oliticalunitswithinthestate・Individualsaretheunits，andwhenindividuals

aredividedupforgovernmentalpurposes，itmustbeonaterritorialbasisand

notonthebasisofethnicdifferences．‖Thereseemstobenoplaceinthe

liberal，sthoughtforthepossibilitythatanindigenouspopulationmightwant

t（）preSerVeitsdistinctiveidentityinde丘nitely・”14’

“1tisunjusttoacceptorassume statusand rightsforstates，nations，and

“peoples，”buttorejectthemforethniccommunitiesthatarealsohistorically

COnStituted．Anditisevenunjusttoindividualstosaythatthosewhobelong

todominantgroupscanenjoytheattendantadvantagesandsatisfactions，

whereasthosewhobelongtonondominantandminoritygroupsmusteither

abandontheircultureoracceptsecondclassstatus．”13） ′nlisishowVanDykeexplainsliberalshortcomingsindealingwithgroup

riKhls．Itisnotthatliberalsdonotcareaboutgroups；buttheproblemistheway

lhcytendtorespondtogroupneeds，i・e・theindividualisticapproach，isvery

o（I（1ndisprovedbypractice・Thisgapbetweentheoryandpractice・in

c（）mmunitarianunderstanding，markstheinherentlackinginliberalr

individualism．Andthisisexactlywherecommunitarianstakeasolidstandby

；l＄Sertingthatindividualismalonecannotbeaproperresponsetogrouprights；

ht・nCetheobviousconclusionasdrawnbyVanDykeisthat“1iberalismneeds

161

VanDykeportraysinherentdrawbacksinliberalismwiththecaseofliberal

responsetoindigenouscommunities．Liberalsacknowledgerightsforpersons

belongingindigenouscommunities，Ontheotherhand，historyshowsthatthe

indigenousareasarulenotcapableofupholdingeithertheirrightsortheir

interestsin血・eeandopenindividualisticcompetitionwiththeirmoreadvanced

COunterpartS．HiscommentonthiscontrastisavitalresponsetothequestionI

160

川，t・ll＝Tll（lL－rStanding，ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRigtltS：DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm？

l・lowthegapbetweenpracticeandtheory－tOSeeifhecould丘ndanadequate

両州血tionwithinliberaltheoryforthisdifferentialtreatment．171Nowrecalling

VMlI）yke’scriticismofliberal－individualism，WeSeethatthisisexactlywhathe

w；111tlLdtheliberalstoexplain．Kymlickapickedtherightchallenge，indeed．

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

Supplementing”．15TheproposedsupplementistorecognlZetheexistenceof

groupsaswellasrightsforthosegroups．Wesuppose，bysupplementinghedid

notmeanadifferentreadingofliberalthought．Rather，giventhetheoretical

limitationsofliberal－individualism，heurgedforadistinctsetofprinciplesthat

recognizes groupexistence and group rights．Herewe find adefinite

COmmunitariananswertoourquestionthatliberalismcannot，intheory，

accommodategrouprights；andpragmaticpracticesofgroupdi鮎rentiatedrights

byliberalsstrikeattheveryrootoftheirtheory．Tnefollowingsectionswi11trace

howKymlickarespondstothischallengeputforwardbythecommunitariansand

WhataretheshortcomlngSOfsuchresponse．

Inhisventureofclosingthegapbetweenliberaltheoryandpractice，

Kymlicka’sliberaljustificationfordifferentiatedtreatmentfornationalminority

KrOupSgOeSthisway18）：mOdernstatesinvariablydevelopandconsolidatea

societalculture’一針whichrequiresthestandardizationanddi仇1Sionofacommon

］；L叩uage，andthecreationanddiffusionofcommoneducational，pOlitical，and

ll、Kalinstitutions．Indeed，thestateistheleadingforcebehindtheseefforts．

’111t・SL、SOCietalculturesareprofoundlyimportanttoliberalismasliberalvaluesof

行t・t・（l川Ilandequalitymustbedefinedandunderstoodinrelationtosuchsocietal

‖11t11作S．I．iberalismrestsonthevalueofindividualautonomybutwhatenables

ttlisM）rtOrautOnOmyisthefactthatoursocietalculturemakesvariousoptions

ilV；lilat）ll・tOuS．Freedomistheabilitytoexploreandrevisethewaysoflifewhich

；H・ぐIll；l（lL、aVailablebyoursocietalculture．Similarly，equalityofopportunityis

；l‖Ottll・rPillarofliberalism，butwhatmakesthisequalitypossibleisthedi凪1Sion

or；I川111mOnlanguageandinstitutionthroughoutsociety．Equalityis，inthe貢rst

iIl＄t；川Ct・，a matterOfequalopportunitytoparticipateinthesecommon

ill＄tituti（mS．Therefore，tOenSurefreedomandequalityforallcitizensinvoIves，

iHLpraLia，enSurlngthattheyhaveequalmembershipin，andaccessto，the

oL）I）（）rtunitiesmadeavailablebythesocietalculture．Hence，membershipina

ヽl）（・it、t；11cultureisnecessaryforliberalfreedomandequality．Inthisconnection，

rrt・l・（lomandequalityforimmigrantsrequlreSfreedomandequalitywithin

ln誼11＄trt！aminstitutionsbypromotinglinguisticandinstitutiona＝ntegration，On

thl・川Il・hand，andbyreformingthosecommoninstitutions，Ontheother，SOthat

163

3．LiberalCulturalism：AnInsufficient Response to

CommunitarianCritique

LiberalpoliticalphilosopherWillKymlickaputforwardhisfamoustheoryof

‘1iberalculturalism’inhisseminalworkMuLticulturaLCitizensh妙6∫whichhas

beencriticizedbyboththeliberalandcommunitarianschooIs．Hisargument

StartSWiththeassertionthatinvirtual1yallliberaldemocracies，adistinctionis

drawnbetweenimmigrantsand nationalminorities．InWesterndemoeracies，

immigrantsareexpectedtointegrateintothemainstreamsociety，andthis

expectationisbackedupwiththeforceoflawsandpublicpolicies．Ontheother

hand，nationalminoritiesareviewedinadifferentway．Unliketheeighteenthand

nineteenthcenturypractices，OVerthecourseofthiscenturyanewattitudehas

developedwhichallowed states toaccord nationalminoritiesvariousself－

governmentpOWerS．Inotherwords，KymlickapointsthatWesterndemocracies

havealongstandingpracticeofgrantingdifferentiatedtreatmentfornational

minorities．TTlerefore，themotivationforhisbookwastoseewhetherhecould

162

横浜国際凝牒法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

1inguistic andinstitutionalintegrationdoes notrequire denialoftheir

ethnoculturalidentities．Butinthecaseofnationalminoritiesコ（】∴thecaseisquite

difEerent．Thesegroupsalreadypossessedasocietalcultureandtheyhavefought

tomaintaintheseinstitutions．Theirdemandsforspeciallanguagerightsand

reg10nalautonomyhaveincreasinglybeenaccepted byliberaldemocracies．

Group－differentiatedtreatmentofthissortisnotavi01ationofliberalprlnCiples，

fortoexpectthemembersofnationalminoritiestointegrateintotheinstitutions

OfthedominantCultureisneithernecessarynorfair．FreedomfortheminvoIves

theabilitytoliveandworkintheirownsocietalculture．Inshort，theaimofa

liberaltheoryofminorltyrightsisto definefairtermsofintegration for

immigrants，andtoenablenationalminoritiestomaintainthemselvesasdistinct

societies．

hlNlr；11u11derstanding，ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDi鮎rentParadignl？

（llIile a straightforward one：“Minorityrights are consistentwithliberal

ttHIIuralismif（a）theyprotectthe血・eedomofindividualswithinthegroup；and（b）

tlll－yPrOmOterelationsofequality（non－dominance）betweengroups，’’21）Inother

WOrds．accordingtothistheory，minoritygroupscanassertrightasagainstthe

軸11（、OrOthergroups，butwithinthegroupindividualrightswi11prevailover

灯l）ul）rights．7bisarrangementisquiteobviousaslongasKymlickacal1sita

●1il）t－raltheory’．However，Kymlicka’sideaofsubjectinggrouprightstothe

t・11）OymentOfliberalrightsbytheindividualmemberscanbecriticizedfrom

Ll（）111111u11itarianperSpeCtiveas“itisalltooeasytojudgesocietiesbystandards

lllt・y（l（）nOtreCOgnlZe”．22）The precondition thatKymlicka set，in fact，

HIl（ltlrnlinesmanyformsofculturalcommunity，eSpeCiallythosethatfailintheir

I）rIILliL・L－Sloconformtoliberalprinciples．Thisisnotauniformliberalposition．

∧tlt）1hllraCClaimedliberalscholarChandran Kukathasj3OptSfora different

；LIJl）11）；lLth．UnlikeKymlicka，Kukathasdoesnotsetanypreconditionforthe

l・nJ．｝yl11（tntOfgrouprights．Actually，thereisnogrouprな加inhisthesis．His

llll・OrYtW）1elydependson‘individualchoice’．Aslongasindividualschooseto

rH11雨11Withagroup，1iberalorilliberal，OutSidesocietyisnotentitledtointervene

iHlhl・intL、rnalaffairsofthatgroup．Yet，withthisindividualism，hebelieves，

川‖lH）unitiL†Saregivenaconsiderableamountofpowerovertheindividuals．If

‖l・nlI）t・rShiptoaculturalcommunityisvoluntary，andiftheoutsidesocietyhas

rll）ri山Ill（）interveneintheinternalaffairsofthatcommunity，itfollowsthatto

rtLnli血IaSamemberofthatcommunity．individualsmuststicktotherulesofthat

（・o‖munily．Therebre，heexempli丘es，aSaCitizenofaliberalsociety，aMuslim

h；L＝righ10ffreespeech；butasaMuslim，however，hehasnorighttochallenge

lヽl；Inl’s（11ndamentaltenet．Kukathasbelievesthatinthiswaysomeprotectionis

か椚Iloculturalcommunitieswithoutdeviatingfrombasicliberalprinciples．

“l′rIht－Primacyof血・eedomofassociationisa11－important；ithastotakepriority

165

Kymlicka■stheorylSSignificantforitseffortstoaccommodategrouprights

Withinaliberalframework．Mostimportantly，likecommunitarians，Kymlicka

recognizedthegapbetweentheoryandpracticeaproposgrouprightsinliberal

SOCieties，and urgedforincorporatinggrouprightswithinthetheoretical

framework．However，Kymlieka’sliberalculturalistpositionisnotsufficientin

itself．Weidentifyatleastthreeinherentshortcomingsinhistheorythatdonot

allowittobeasu疏cientresponsetocommunitarianchallenge．Thesubsequent

SeCtionstouchupontheseshortcomlngS．

．？．J．小川／ん・A（バイ〟〃，川J／一品可…〃ヾ′・†′′－〃／〃，川ノ／－√；J川小ヾ．・

WhatisKymlick’sresponsetowardgroupsthatare‘illiberal’？Inotherwords，tO

WhatextentKymlickaisreadytocompromisebasicliberalrightsofindividual

membersofagrouptoaccommodaterightforthatgroup？Hisresponsetothisis

164

横浜国際程漸去学第16巻第1冒・（2007年9月）

OVerOtherliberties－SuChasthoseofspeechorworship－Whichliesatthecoreof

theliberaltradition．”24E ThisargumentbyKukathasisnotbeyonddebate，butthe

pointtobemadehereisthatKymlicka’sresponseto‘illiberal’groupsviolatesthe

liberalprinciplebygivingpreferencetoliberalism．Liberalismissupposedtobe

colour－blind．

l」tN・r；I＝Ill（lerstanding．ShortcorningandControversyaproposGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDifferentParadigm？

個l八・ぐt．butitcannotlogicallydismantletheothersideofthestory．

However，ifwecompareKymlicka’sresponseto‘illiberal’groupswith

thtIドl・OfKukathasandBarry，itishardtocallita‘1iberal’position．Totheextent

什川IKymlickasets‘liberal’standardtograntrightto‘illiberal’groups，itgoes

ilKainstliberalprineiple，foritgivesanequalrighttoadespoticstatetoput

il［il〉ltraldogmasatthesameposition．

WeaknessofKymlickals‘1iberal’responseto‘illiberal’groupsbecomes

morevisibleifwejuxtaposeitwithamoreconservativepropositionbyanother

eminentliberaltheoristBrianBarry．251LikeKukathas，Barryalsobelievesthatit

isnopartofliberalismtoinsistthateverygroupmustconformtoliberal

prlnCiplesinitsinternalstruCture．Inhisunderstanding，thefundamentalliberal

positionongrouprightsisthatindividualsshouldbefreetoassociatetogetherin

anywaytheylikeprovidedthattheirtakingpartintheactivitiesofthegroup

Shouldcomeaboutasaresultoftheirvoluntarydecisionandtheyshouldbefree

toceasetotakepartwhenevertheywantto．26WhatmakesBarrydistinct血・Om

KukathasisBarry’sdeepunderstandingoftheterm‘voluntariness’．Whena

memberofagroupquitsorremainswiththegroupLvoluntarily’，Variousfactors

actuallyworkbehindthatapparently‘voluntary’decision．Letusconsidera

hypotheticalcasehere：afatherbelongingtoaminoritycommunitymightnot

貢nditcost－effectiveforhissontolearnethniclanguage．Hemightwanthissonto

learndominantlanguageandgetassimilatedtomainstreamcultureassoonas

possibletoseeureabetterfuture．Ifallthefathersstartthinkinginthisway，that

minorityculturewillceasetoexistverysoon．Canitbecalled avoluntary

decision？‘Voluntariness’canbeexaminedfromtheoppositeaspeCtaSWell．Here

Oneindividualremainsasamemberofanilliberalgroup‘voluntarily’．But，in

reality，thisindividualisnotwillingtoshoulderthecoststhatwillfollowhis

decisiontoleavethatgroup．Beingaliberal，nOdoubt，BarTyisinterestedinthis

166

：l．2．克」砂∽Jわ烏α7協βざブざCb∽♪αf蕗Jβ紺地⊥加和Jブざ椚7

’［lltlnlissionofKymlicka’stheoryofliberalculturalismistoclose thegap

I）t・tW＝、11theoryandpractice．Inalmostallliberalsocietiestherearegroup－

（‖（t・‖・l両；ltぐdpractices．Ontheotherhand，1iberal－individualismasatheorydoes

11111‖・‖明11izegrouprights．Kymlicka’stheorytendstoclosethisgapbyclaimlng

tl川tilllibt、raldemocracieswhileasocietalculturesponsoredbytheState

］II・01110t（LSthelanguageandinstitutionsofmainstreamculture，itwi11bean

i11jtI8ti（1（－tOeXpeCtmembersofminorityculturestospendtheirownresourcesto

‖JlhltiLi11theirculture．InKymlicka’sunderstandingitgoesagainsttheverybasic

IIIl‖（HOPhyofliberalism；henceminorityrightsmustberecognizedand

J川H・Mltt・（t（lwithinliberalism．Groupscanenjoyspecialrightsaslongasthese

rIJht＄（lonoIviolatetheindividualrightsofmembers．WhatmakesKymlicka

lLi（（l・rl・‖t fromacommunitarianisthathegivesaliberaljustincationforgroup－

1日lt・r川ti；山・d practicesinliberaldemocracieswithhiscentralargumentthat

th・I）rivi咽nlinoritiesoftheirrightswillbeaviolationofliberalprlnCiplesof

JHll川い川yandequality．Nodoubt，histheorytendstomakeabalancebetween

iHtivillLl；Llandgrouprights．However，Otherliberalsthinkthatthistheory

HITnl）nu］］isぐdliberalprlnCiplestoaccommodategrouprights．Theybringback

ll1．・．ILll（h－l〉atぐOfcompatibilityofgrouprightswithliberaltheoYy．Thissection

167

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

brieflyaddressesthisissue．

I・lM・＝■rtl＝l11・加工l（li11g，Shortcomi11ga11dConlroversyaproposGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDiffercntParadigm？

tL川tHn111titi（、Sandassociationsinourwell－being．ThattheStatedoesnotlendany

”・l・i；11w（Lighttothenormsofilliberal－Orliberal－grOupS，is，aCCOrdingtohim，

lht・t・SSt・11CeOfwhatitmeanstosaythatasocietyisaliberalsociety．2削 Heis

t・lliti川1（）rKymlicka’semphasison‘diversity’and‘autonomy’，fortheyreferto

lnlil・i（・S‖latWOuldsystematicallyenfeeblepreciselythoserightsofindividualsto

l）rりtt・（・tiollagainstgroupsthatliberalStatesshouldguarantee．Andthenheposes

tht－r・iI【lll（1ueStion：“Howcanatheorythatwouldgutliberalprinciplesbeaform

り‖it）t・ralism？’’2リ〉 Hisexpressionismorecandidwhenhesays：“Ifliberalisnot

ヽtH］lt・l）0（Jywhobelievesthatliberalismistrue（withorwithoutinverted

l・01111n；tS）．whatisaliberal？”30）And consequently he refuses to recognize

KylnliL・k；t；lSaliberalonthegroundthat：

Herewe refertoKukathasonceagaln．LikeKymlicka，Kukathasisalso

VerymuChconcernedabouttheminoritycommunities，butitdoesnotgivehim

Su疏cientreasontoabandon，mOdify，Orreinterpretliberalism．Accordingtohim，

theveryemphasisofliberalismonindividualrightsandlibertybespeaksnot

hostilitytotheinterestsofcommunitiesbutwarinessofthepowerofthemajority

OVerminorities．Thus，thereisnoneedtolookbralternativestoliberalismorto

throwawaytheindividualismthatliesatitsheart．nerefore，unlikeKymlicka，he

nndsitunnecessarytoaccommodateanyideaofgrouprightstoaddressthe

issuesofminority．Toquotehim：‘Weneed，rather，tOreaSSertthefundamental

importanceofindividuallibertyandindividualrightsandquestiontheideathat

Culturalminoritieshaveco11ectiverights．”27）Thispropositionheavi1ydependson

hisassumptionthatthebasisofcollectiverightsistherightsofindividuals．For

Kukathas，Whiletheinterestsgivenexpressioningroupsdomatter，theymatter

ultimatelyonlytotheextentthattheyaffectactualindividuals．Therefore，grOupS

andcommunitieshavenospecialmoralprimacyinvirtueofsomenaturalpriority．

He criticizes Kymlicka’s emphasis on the value ofculture and cultural

membershipbysayingthatmanyculturalgroupssuppressindividualchoiceand

libertyin the name ofculture．Very often，theinterestsofindividualsare

Subordinatedtothecommunity，andthesecommunitiesdonotplaceindividual

autonomyandchoicehighinthehierarchy ofvalues．Therefore，Kymlicka’s

argumentthatindividual’smembershipinaculturalcommunityhelpshim／herto

develophis／herchoicewhichistheessenceofliberalismisnotcorrect．

‖∧1htLOTYthathastheimplicationthatnationalities（whethertheycontrola

n；‖tLOra Sub－StatePOlity）haveafundamentalrighttoviolateliberal

l）ri＝L・il）kLSisnotaliberaltheoryofgrouprights．ItisaniLLiberaltheorywith

l）itり（liberalhand－Writingthrowninasanoptionalextra．”31〉（Emphasis

il（l（lt・（l）

）lt・rt・Ollt・POintdemandsclari茄cation．Weareconvincedwiththeargumentsof

ll州7γ州l（lKukathasonlytotheextentthattheyarecallingKymlicka’stheoryan

lllJbpm11）08iti（）n．nrOughoutthepaper，Ihavementionedthattherearegroup

tlLrrt・rt・nli；Itt、【lpracticesinliberaldemocracies；hencealongwithKymlickaand

VJt）ll）yk（L．1donotseeanyvalidreasonnottoaccommodatethisconceptin

lht・川γ，Llowpver，thatdoesnotprovethatKymlicka’stheoryisaliberaltheory．

lll抽・；l（l，（lisぐuSSionsinprecedingsectionshigh1ighttheincompatibilityof

Ky川IiLlk；t’sth（－（）ryWith1iberalism．Kymlickastandsbetweenthecommunitarians

l‖lItllt・lil）t・rals，andthereisinsu伍cientreasontocallitaliberaltheory．’mis

169

Similarly，Barryalsovehementlyopposestheideaofpromotlngthese

COmmunalidentitiesbytheStatealthoughherecognizestheroleplayedbythe

168

横浜匝＝計経済法竿第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

glVeSbirthtoarelevantquestion：WasKymlickarightindevelopingatheoryto

accommodategrouprightswithinaliberalframework？Ortoputitdifferently：Is

itnecessarytoformulatea‘1iberal’theoryofgrouprights？Thebllowingsection

dealswiththisissue．

l山＝宜‖1］）（T・rSlanding．ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDifferen（Paradigm？

什…Hぐt、Ptualization ofminority rights．For example，the OSCE High

L■川tHnissioneronNationalMinoritiesdecidedin1993togofortheFramework

LltHtVl・11tionforthe Pr・OteCtionofNationalMinoritiesratherthanthe Protocolto

thl・l亡11r（）pean ConventiononHumanrightsputforwardbytheParliamentary

∧佃・111blywithRecommendation1201．Oneauthorcommentsthat”［t］herelevant

O卜し（・：workisnotbasedonthenotionofen正）rCinghumanandminorityrights

川◆r＝ポぶtheboardinthenameofdemocracy，butonthemoreambiguousconcept

thiLtぐItrtainsituationmustbecontainedinonewayoranotherastheythreatento

（lt・Vt・lol）intoarmedconflict－SOmeWhatarelayoftheLeagueofNation’sapproach

iltI！）2Os”∴nInarecentinstrumentalworkbyGoldsmithand Posner＝狛，the

Mlll＝rStOO eXplaintheabsence ofanynormativepullbehind theideaof

いn・l‖Otionandprotectionofhumanrights．Traditionallyalso，itwasnottheWest

l”1；uIthoritarianreglmeSOftheEastthatputforwardboldproposalsfor

hllt・］・niltionalminorityrightsstandardsduringthe ParisPeace Conferenceof

l州帆Illl†draftingoftheUDHR，theICCPRand manymore．Thiscomparison

l岬rh叫）SSuggeStSthat“onecanparadoxicallyhaveademocraticstategrudgingly

．1．JnLtt・（l＝）nSubstanceratherthanonprinciplesandanundemocraticstatepro－

Jltlivt・1yt・OnCedeonprinciplesratherthanonactualprotection’1．コ；

、●L●∫．JJ汀IJJん叫・′！／一恒リノ沼′血＼．・kⅦ〃げ／′′りJ＝タ川〃／川JJィ′りJ∫り…′∫．－

Isitnecessarytoformulateatheoryofgrouprightswithinliberalframework？

RespondingtoParekh’scomparablequestionthat“［h］owisimposingliberalism－

particularlyaformofliberalismwhichprivilegesautonomy－anydi鮎rentfrom

imposingChristianity”，32 KymlickaclaimedthatinWesterndemocracies，mOSt

membersofmostgroupsacceptliberaldemocraticvalues．Toquotehim：‘The

heartofmulticulturalismintheWestisabouthowtointerpretliberaldemocratic

prlnCiples，nOtaboutwhetherthoseprlnCiplesarelegitimate．”33 Howdoeshis

theory，then，fitfornon－1iberalgroupsoutsidetheWest？Andaccordingly，wi11

refusalofliberalprinciplesbygroupsoutsidetheWestjustifyanon－1iberaltheory

ofgrouprights？Kymlicka’sresponseto Parekh’squestiondoesnotgiveusa

COnVincingexplanationforhistoomuchinclinationtoliberalism．Similarly，

Kymlicka’sassumptionthatanemerglng‘consensus’existsintheWestinfavour

Of‘1iberalnationalism’二14）canbequestioned．Thisassumptionpresupposesan

emergenceofa‘generalnorm’ofprotectingminorityrights．Ofcourse，thereare

group－difkrentiatedpracticesintheWesしButthesepracticesdonotnecessarily

setanynormipsojbcto．Kymlickaalsoadmitsitwhilehereferstothegap

betweenliberalpracticeandtheory．Ifthisisthecase，itisdifficultto負ndany

such‘consensus’．On the otherhand，these practiceswithinWestern

democraciescanbeperceivedaspragmaticconcessionstobemadeunder

particularcircumstances ratherthan as aconsequence ofa systematic

170

′1llt・rt）rOre，Kymlicka’sinclinationtoliberalismfordeveloplngatheoryof

P，t）t｝rightsisbasedonawrongassumptionthatthereisaconsensusinfavour

1．（1”押一；11isll川rforminorityrights．Perhapsthiswrongassumptionledhimtoput

l両l川il）t・ral’oratleast‘notLSO－1iberal’theorywithina‘1iberal’framework．Liberal一

山川vi（Ill；L］ismisnotananswertoeverything．Anissuelikegrouprightswhichby

Ll－Vl・ryぐIl；traCtergOeSbeyondindividualismcannotbeproperlyaddressedby

M）・・nl［・i［l（livi（lualism．Kymlicka’sotherwise‘sympathetic－tO－grOupS’theoryof

ln［tll川仙川l机1rk・rS血・Omthisinherentflaw．

171

l・lNln＝）ll（Ll・rStanding，ShortcomingandControversyaproposGTOupRights：DoWeNeedaDi仇汀entParadjgm？

lllt・Hi＝110rePrOblematicwhenheassertsthat

横浜国際経清法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

4．DoWeNeedaDidbrentParadigm？

Groupdifferentiatedpracticesaremorethanrealityeveninliberaldemocracies．

Hence，anyrefusaltorecognizegroupsasright－and－duty－bearing－unitsisnothing

ShortofhypocrlSy．Series ofgroupdifferentiatedpracticesandincreasing

discourseongrouprightsbytheliberalscholarsunderscoretheurgencyof

accommodatinggrouprightsinliberaltheoIY．Butthisurgencyalonedoesnot

allowtheliberalstoaccommodategrouprightswithinliberalframework．Group

rightis somethingbeyondtheambitofliberalrindividualism．Theforegoing

examinationofKymlicka’stheoryofculturalismhigh1ightsthisfact．Despiteall

hissympathyfortheminorityissues，Kymlickafailstoshowwhyhistheory

Shouldbedeemedas aliberaltheory．Ofcourse，thisdoes notruleoutthe

Signincanceofhisassertionsthatgrouprightsshouldbeacknowledgedaswellas

protected．Whatisthewayoutthen？Woulditbeprudenttohaverecourseto

‘1iberal’theoriesofKukathasandBarrylnOurefforttoaccommodategroup

rightsin atheoreticalframework？Even beingsympatheticto theissuesof

minorities，Kukathasdonot丘nditnecessarytoprescribeanyspecialrightfor

groups，forliberalindividualismissufficienttothatend．Heputssomuch

emphasisonthefreedomofassociationthathe丘ndsitunjusti貢edforStatesor

Otherlib（ミralgroupstointerfereintotheinternalaffairsofilliberalgroupsaslong

asmembershiptosuchgroupsisvoluntarY，andhebelievesthisarrangement

glVeS prOteCtion to groups．Thisis theleastpossible thing．Practising

individualismatstatelevelandjustleavingculturalLyvulnerablegroupsontheir

OWnWOuldbethelastmeanstoprotectthem．Kukathashimselfisawareofthis

fact．In one place．he explainedhowthe Maoricommunitieshadbeen

transformedfromaco11ectivesocialliLetoindividualwayofliving．‘Ymeeauseof

thischangewasthepossibilityoflivingthecommunity．”38）IfindKukathas’s

172

l肘groupsarerecognizedashavingrightsasgnups，itismustmoredi疏cult

tojustifymechanismsthatvarytheirpoliticalentitlementswiththeirsizeand

illnuぐnCe．Itisfarbetterthentomaintain anemphasisonthe rights and

］il）（・rtiesofindividual，Whileconcedingthatinstitutionshavetobedesigned

Witllaviewtoprotectingthoselibertiesbyaccommodating（andguarding

叩頭nsL）thevagariesofgrouppower．”二i9

rllli”n’仰1111entishistoricallydisprovedandanypropositionthatallgrouprights

JH▲・・n・山1t：ibletoindividualrightsisnolessthanridiculous．Barry’spositionis

．・Vl・n［111）ntCOnSerVative．Histheoryofgrouprightsismeantforilliberalgroups，

J．・r’l粁nllllHanySuCharrangementforliberalgroupsunnecessary．Toquotehim：

”‖1h＝）nlywaysoflifethatneedtoappealtothevalueofculturaldiversity

JLrt・th…ethatnecessarilyinvoIveunjustinequalitiesorrequirepowersof

ilHl川1trhlationandcontrolincompatiblewithliberalisminordertDmaintain

thl・HIS（1Lvl－S．Sincesuchculturesareunfairandoppressivetoatleastsomeof

．lll・h・m川Ibers，itishardtoseewhytheyshouldbekeptaliveartincially．’’40）

111l・（）n）I）OSitionthatwithembracingliberalism，grOupSWillgiveuptheirdemand

l．・rN・L）iLl’；Ilt、Culturalrightsisnotcorrect．Boththemajoritiesandminoritiesmay

叫汀I1．11）T］1ib（1ral－democraticprlnCiples，buttheydisagreeontheimplicationsof

lht・M・J）rinciplesforconcretequestionsaboutthedistributionofpower，Orabout

tJ）t・1t・Kiti［n；lぐyOfaf6rmativeaction，andsoon．41）

（iiv（l‖thcreluctaneeofliberalstorecognizetherelevanceofgrouprights

173

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

andtheincompatibilityof‘1iberal’culturalistpositionwithliberalism，Weneedto

deviatefromliberalismtoaccommodategrouprights．Atthesametime，itisalso

necessarytoprotectindividualrightsofthememberssothattheydonothllprey

to unjustifiedtreatmentin thenameofcultureorreligion．Kymlicka’stheory

attemptedtomake suchabalance，butthatwasflawedindeveloplngtheidea

Withinliberalframework．Mostinterestingly，mainstreamliberalshaverefusedto

Callitaliberalposition．AddresslnggrOupneedsonthebasisofsuchan

ambivalenttheorywouldnecessarilymakethewholeprojectquestionable．This

makesobvioustheneedforamoresophisticatedbalancebetweengrouprights

andindividualrightsgoingbeyondliberallegacy．Thus，tOaCCOmmOdategroup

rightsinatheoretical血■ameworkwedoneedtodeviatefromliberal－individualism

andwedoneedadifferentparadigm．Ignoringtheneedforadifferentparadigm

willeventuallyamounttoignoringtheneedforgrouprights，andthiswillbetoo

COStlytoa餓〕rd．However，thedetailsofsuchaparadigmareoutsidethescopeof

thepresentwork．Myendeavourinthispaperwastoportraytheinherent

drawbacksofliberalismasatheorylnaCCOmmOdatinggrouprightsbycritically

examiningtheliberalculturalistpositionofWillKymlicka．HereIdonotintendto

beacriticofliberal－individualismperse；WhatIamsuggestingisthat‘onesize

doesnot丘tall’．

lJM．‖l1．1ll・r＊tM］（ling，ShortcomingandControversyaproposGroupRights：DoWeNeedaDi鮎rentParadigm？

J仙J．．I）l）．347－349．

l・・仙〟．．I）∴う50．

」〟由Ll）∴う53．

ト）ル軋l）．355．

り】JわJ〟．．】）．357．

1仙 ルJ〟．．川）．35＆359．

1））V．VMll）yke，■CollectiveEntitiesandMoralRights：ProblemsinLiberal－DemocraticThought’in

l．St；Il）IぐtOn（ed．），Grou♪Rights－Fセr＊ectiz）eSince1900（meommesPress，Bristol，1995）pp．

1川）－2（）0．

）：．VMlI）ykぐ，SuPranote2，p．343．

＝■ 仙■〟．．Ⅰ】∴う（i9．

l・t■ V；‖Ⅰ）ykぐ．5ゆ和nOtell，pp．18＆190．

1！■一 V‖‖Ⅰ）ykt1．5坤和nOte2，p．344．

）li・W．Kym】iぐka，Mu［ticu［tura［CitizenshiP：ALibera［771eO7ydMinori秒Rights（OxfordUniversity

l－l■ltヽヽ．（）x†（汀（l，1995）．

1；W KyTll）iL・ka．Fb［iticsinthe掩macu［ar：Nationa［ism，Mu［ticu［tura［ism，andCitizenshiP（0Ⅹford

tlllivl・rヽilyl】rt・SS，Oxford，2001）pp．51－52．

川・＼′′∫川′和J砂上占寝りpp．53－66．

lllヽK’i一・1jLh．L）］turtLisde且nedasasetofinstitutions，COVeringbothpublicandprivatelife，witha

l＝川＝り11l；Lnguage，Whichhashistoricallydevelopedovertimeonagiventerritory，Which

l，rl，V仙・1l椚叩1ewithawiderangeofchoicesabouthowtoleadtheirlives．

1111粁tl・rmnati（）nalminorityisunderstoodherebyKymlickaasgroupswhoforTnedfunctioning

NK’l．・li…川1tht・irhistoricalhomelandspriortobeingincorporatedintoalargerstate．

JIKy川Iil宜l誹呼和nOte17，pp．22－23．

ココIIll‖川・．Ⅰ）avi（l，E乃q〟gわβ5G）〝Cβ用i〃g〃〟椚d〝【加dβ朽fα乃df〃gα〝dC∂〝Cβr〝i〝g7ⅥβP血c砂J錯〆

仙…JJriIpdinC．Kukathas，‘AreThereAnyCulturalrights？’inStapleton，J．（ed．），SuPranote

lI．lI2日．

1†：t・＼′′N（NP，N［＆（．．Kukathas，‘Are′mereAnyCulturalrights？’inStapleton，J．（ed．），Su♪ranotell，

lIいコ≠2！侶．

こ！4仙〟．．い．2酬．

：！：・llllnnγ．（．A（［hLnandEqua［i＆（PolityPress，Cambridge，2001）pp．112－154．

：！li 仙〟．．い．1イ川．

コソ K‖kハ仙畔5坤用nO【p23，p．261．

コ宮llM■け．5坤相川）tt▲25，p．125．

ニMJh〟

欄I仙JJ．．い．1：12．

1lJ仙J．．い．‖朋．

1こ！Kytllliぐk；lJ〟♪和110te17，p．56．

175

★ ′meauthorisanLLM（UniversityofDhaka）andcurrentlyagraduatestudentatInternational

GraduateSchoolofSocialSciences，YokohamaNationalUniversity，Japan．Hewasalso

awardedCheveningFellowshipforastudyonPeaceandConnictResolutionunderUniversity

OfUIster，UK

l）Seegenen［レF．FukuyamarnleEndofHistory’，16771eNationa［Interest（1989）．

2）V．Vanr）yke，yn）eTndividuals，theState，and EthnicCommunitiesinPolitical′meory’，29：3

I穐rJdfbJiffc5（1977）pp．343－369．

174

横浜国際経済法学第16巻第1号（2007年9月）

33）JムJd．，p．61．

34）According†01iberalnationalism，itisalegitlmatefunctionoftheslatetoprotectandpromote

thenatjonA7（u7turesand）a】1guageSOfthenationswithinitsborders．

35）G．Pentassug】ia，‘MinorityRightsandtheRo）eofl月W：Ref］ectionson¶1emeSOfDiscoursein

Kymlicka’sApproachtoEthnocuJtura）Identity＼4JournaLonElhnqf）OliticsandMinon砂

f〃E〟′〃♪β（2002）．

36））．L，GoldsmithandE．JLPosner，77zeLimiEsdIntema［ionalLLZW（0ⅩfordUniversityPress，

NewYork，2005）．

37）Pentassし】glia．ぶ〟かβnOte35．

38）Kukathas，SuPranote23，p．290．

39）蹴d．，pP．295－29（i．

40）乃最．，p．135．

41）Kylnlicka，5〟♪′βnOte17，p，60．