Non-territorial autonomy

Although means of social organization similar to non-territorial autonomy were also present in the distant past (the most famous of them is the millet system of the Ottoman Empire), the modern understanding of non-territorial autonomy is based on the works of Austrian social democrats Karl Renner and Otto Bauer published in the last years of the 19th and first years of the 20th century.

Non-territorial autonomy may be applied in practice or considered suitable in theoretical discussions, for example, to manage diversity inside a state, including for mitigating ethnic conflicts and preventing separatist sentiments among minorities.

In addition, non-territorial autonomy can be one of the power sharing measures that increase the involvement of minority groups in decision making processes.

In general, among political scientists and other researchers of non-territorial autonomy, it is considered most natural to associate this concept with the Austrian social democrat Karl Renner.

[4] Mentioning Renner (and somewhat less often also Otto Bauer) as a pioneer and one of the most important theorists of non-territorial autonomy is standard practice in academic publications on the subject.

As another example, Coakley has described the autonomy of Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which guaranteed them freedom of decision not only in religious, but also in family and economic matters.

[6] The millet system, which existed in the Ottoman Empire from the Conquest of Constantinople in 1453 until the 19th century, is often considered one of the earliest examples of non-territorial autonomy, and sometimes its most successful and long-lasting form.

In addition, according to researchers, the millet system increased the well-being of communities by guaranteeing social and cultural autonomy and legal pluralism.

However, it has been argued that certain elements of the old system were preserved and partially survived in several countries that emerged after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire or later in this area (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey).

[15] The ideas of autonomy based on non-territorial principles emerged in Austria-Hungary, particularly in Cisleithania, against the background of constant national conflicts, which were manifested at several fields of everyday life such as the education system and political representative assemblies.

[20] Renner and Bauer's model was based on the personal principle, according to which national communities would be formed according to the voluntary consent of individuals to belong to them.

[21] The ideas of Renner and Bauer did not find any support in the Austrian Social Democratic Workers' Party, but national cultural autonomy nevertheless did not remain only an object of abstract discussions.

As a result, at the end of and after the First World War, the ideas of non-territorial autonomy were tried to be implemented in several new countries, but the main principle changed.

[26] After the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires in 1917 and 1918, the management of national cultural diversity and ensuring the rights of minorities became particularly relevant in the new countries that emerged on their former territories.

A few months after the end of the war he drew up a plan for an international treaty for the protection of national minorities, which was approved by the Organization in March 1919 and submitted to the Paris Peace Conference.

[36] In 1925, on the initiative of Ewald Ammende, a Baltic German from Estonia, the Congress of European Nationalities was founded, and he was also active as its Secretary General until his death in 1936.

[40][41] Outside of Europe, the idea of non-territorial autonomy attracted little interest in the interwar period, although it did find some attention and support in, for example, India.

[46][47] Political scientist David Smith has argued that these developments in Central Eastern Europe were linked to the democratization process, heightened interest in minority issues due to tense national relations, and efforts to stabilize society.

[1] Against the background of developments in Central Eastern Europe, by the beginning of the 21st century, interest in the theory and practical applications of non-territorial autonomy has increased significantly in academic circles and among policy makers.

[4][55] The presence of remnants of the Ottoman millet system in Bulgaria, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Greece, Cyprus, Lebanon and Turkey has also been mentioned as forms of non-territorial autonomy.

[58] Today's understanding of the purpose of non-territorial autonomy is largely based on the view that national ethno-cultural diversity is important in democratic societies and must be supported and accommodated through various measures.

The collective rights of minority groups can be guaranteed, for example, by regulating the activities of cultural and educational institutions or the public language use.

[60][63][64] Non-territorial autonomy has also been discussed as a potentially suitable tool for the restoration of the rights and protection of the interests of indigenous peoples, and it has also been implemented for this purpose in some countries.

[65] In connection with non-territorial autonomy, the so-called "dilemma of ethno-cultural diversity" has been mentioned, i.e. the question of how to ensure that the recognition of minority rights does not harm the cohesion of society and the integrity of the state.

[71] At the same time, indigenous peoples have a connection to a specific territory and consider it important to restore rights in their original settlements, despite the fact that today the representatives of these communities often live scattered in their countries of residence.

[54] In addition, the culture, traditions and identity of indigenous peoples are strongly tied to the territory, and the rights over the natural resources located in these areas play an important role in their self-identification.

[72] Due to the importance of territorial settlements, other authors argue that non-territorial autonomy is not a suitable solution for indigenous peoples.

The idea of national registries came up in late 19th century Habsburg schooling administration, and was first introduced in provincial elections in Moravia, Bukovina and Bosnia in imperial Austria.

[81] The third option can be the ad hoc electoral rolls drawn up for the elections of representative bodies, in which individuals must still meet specific requirements to register.