Language education policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo - Different path towards...

© Verlag Österreich 2014

Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen

Beiträge

Language education policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo

Different path towards separate roads: The language education policies resulting from the Dayton,

Ohrid and Ahtisaari comprehensive agreements

José-María Arraiza

Abstract Language education policy in the former Yugoslavia is characterized by a physical separation between students according to language (and consequently ethnicity). Such separation does not necessarily amount to segregation in the legal sense and may be a feature of functional autonomy. However, it can arguably pre-vent reconciliation and long-term social cohesion. The comprehensive peace (and/or status) agreements in place in Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have led to similar practices of separation following different models. The article compares from an institutional design perspective the territorial decentralization, devolution of education competences and language recognition features of the Dayton Accords, the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the Ahtisaari Proposal. The main differences between the three cases relate to the devolution of education competences at central and local levels. Their commonalities consist of a con-stitutionally entrenched delineation of boundaries, minority language rights and the absence of integration as an explicit goal of legislation. Such features do not, however, necessarily prevent the implementation of integration programs seeking a middle ground between accommodation and the outright creation of difference.

Thanks to Shqipe Hajredini for her useful comments.

José-María Arraiza, L.L.M., E.MAPlaza de Colon, 1, III Floor, Door 12, 28220 Majadahonda, Madrid, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

EJM 7 (2014) 1: 8–29

B1ejm7_1_14 arraiza.indd 8 02.04.2014 18:15:04

9Language education policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo

1. Introduction

Where does the will to prevent conflicts through institutional design collide with long-term stability? If the physical separation of ethnic groups prevents reconcili-ation, do post-conflict policies of language rights recognition, territorial decen-tralization and devolution of competences in education inevitably lead to such an outcome? In this article, I use a comparative approach to assess the language and education laws and policies derived from the institutional design implicit in three comprehensive agreements currently in place in Southeastern Europe: the 1995 General FrameworkAgreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as the “Dayton Accords”), the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement for Macedonia1, and the “Comprehensive Proposal for a Status Settlement in Kosovo” as prepared by the UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari in 2007 (hereinafter re-ferred to as the “Ahtisaari Proposal”).2 In all three cases, and for different reasons, persons belonging to different communities are in practice educated separately and have few opportunities to interact with each other and/or to learn each other’s language, culture and (common) history.3 In terms of methodology, I first compare how international norms are reflected in the legal framework of each case, and I then compare how each state has developed its laws and policies in the areas of decentralization, language rights and bilingual education.4 “Bilingual education” refers here to a broad variety of models by which educational institutions provide their services in more than one language.5

Taking as a starting point Gordon W. Allport’s “contact hypothesis”, it is as-sumed here that separation prevents reconciliation and leads to a lack of integra-tion of society with an arguable risk of ethnic polarization.6 In contrast, consocia-

1 I use the term “Macedonia” to refer to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and “Kosovo” to refer to Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

2 The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as the “Dayton Accords”), December 14, 1995, the Ohrid Framework Agreement, August 13, 2001, and the Comprehensive Proposal for a Status Settlement in Kosovo, March 26, 2007, S/2007/168/Add. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ahtisaari Proposal”). Ahtisaari, Ohrid and Dayton are substantially different type of agreements, the Dayton Accords and the Ohrid Framework Agreement being good examples of framework peace agreements resulting from peace talks (though at significantly different stages of the conflict, the Ohrid Framework Agreement drafted during the peace-building phase) while the Ahtisaari Proposal represents a proposed framework agreement aimed at reaching a compromise on the political status of Kosovo and its administration, rather than at ending a conflict.

3 Clark 2010, 345.4 Eberle 2009, 451–486. 5 Arzoz 2012, 8. 6 Clark 2010, 350. George W. Allport’s “contact hypothesis” contained four prerequisite elements

for contact to reduce intergroup conflict and achieving intergroup harmony: equal status within the contact situation, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and support of authorities, law, or custom. Dovidio/Gaertner/Kawakami 2003, 7; Allport 1954. I use the term “polarization” in line with Charles Tilly’s proposal in Tilly 2003, 84.


10 J.-M. Arraiza

tional theory proposes that power is shared by the elites of the main ethnic groups and that cultural rights are recognized as a method to build trust and prevent conflicts.7

Paradoxically, ethnic-based elites empowered through consociational struc-tures may seek ethnic differentiation as a general policy which leads to further polarization. Such elites have an implicit interest in reproducing their national identity and their understanding of history through the school system to maintain a power base where ethnicity is used as a symbolic platform. Hence, the logic of nation-building in language and education policy by groups in ethnically diverse societies is no different from that undertaken by ethnic majorities. Indeed, the creation of educational systems runs parallel to the birth of the modern nation-states.8 In this sense, children tend not only to be taught to understand society, but rather to “approve of it, to be or become good citizens of the USA or Spain or Honduras or Iraq”.9 “Nationalizing states” are those that are at an early stage in the process of creating or becoming nation-states.10 A primary aim of teaching and studying history in such contexts is to “awaken national consciousness” and to present the “past life of the nation”.11

Unsurprisingly, consociationalist policies have been criticized for too quickly accepting the reality of division, locking individuals into specific ethnic identities and promoting the domination of conservative forces within groups. In this sense, proponents of integrationist or “centripetalist” policies maintain that building a common identity based on civic values while at the same time respecting diversity may be a better principle to achieve democratic governance and long-term stability.12

Physical separation versus segregation from a legal point of view: Physical separation on a linguistic basis may be technically necessary to some extent in or-der to provide instruction in the mother tongue and/or to ensure bilingual educa-tion. Hence, before analyzing and comparing the agreements, it is useful to make an analytical distinction within the context of language and education policy: a distinction between “discrimination” as legally defined by international standards, and “separation” as a de facto situation arising in various multilingual education contexts which is necessary for practical purposes when teaching in different lan-guages. The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that the fight against discrimination is an international legal obligation as well, while the separation of students on linguistic grounds is not forbidden by international law per se, being rather a mere policy option.

7 Daskalovski 2002, 28.8 Bartulović 2006, 56; Gellner 1997. 9 Bartulović 2006, 57. 10 Brubaker 1996; Gutmann 1987, 23.11 Bartulović 2006, 65. “Nation-building” is an intrinsic phenomenon to the modern state,

Anderson 1983.12 Lijphart 1977; Horowitz 2000.



Thus, while policymakers often use the term “segregation” to refer to the placement of students in separate classes or schools according to their language, in order for “segregation” to legally be present on a linguistic basis, the practice or the norm must amount to discrimination suffered in the enjoyment of the right to education.13 In order for discrimination to take place there need to be other ele-ments in place apart from the simple physical separation of students by language. Article 2(b) of the 1960 UNESCO International Convention against Discrimina-tion in Education says:

When permitted in a State, the following situations shall not be deemed to constitute discrimina-tion, within the meaning of Article 1 of this Convention: […] b) The establishment or mainte-nance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents or legal guardians, if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional and if the education provided conforms to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authori-ties, in particular for education of the same level.14

Separating students in order to accommodate the linguistic needs, or to ensure instruction of or in the mother tongue, may even be necessary to a certain extent in order to fulfill the undertaking reflected in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), as well as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), to recognize a limited right of per-sons belonging to national minorities to learn their minority language or receive instruction in such a language, without prejudice to the learning of the official language.15 International standards on the matter allow for separation on the basis of language as long as it does not involve the elements which would make such separation discriminatory (lower quality, not in keeping with the wishes of the pupils’ parents) and does not prejudice the learning of the official language(s) of the state. Domestic policies on minority languages may opt to not have students separated according to language. Hence, Catalonia recognizes the right of students “not to be separated into centers or different class groups on the basis of their habitual language of use”.16

Moreover, from an administrative point of view, international minority rights have been interpreted as allowing for “functional autonomy” to exist. This con-sists in the provision of adequate linguistic services to a minority population (e.g., concerning education) through special administrative units within the regular public administration.17 This is the case in Finland’s bilingual educational system

13 Kreso 2008, 353–374; Bartulović 2006, 54. 14 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Convention

Against Discrimination in Education, December 14, 1960. Discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to education may be direct or indirect.

15 Art 14, Council of Europe FCNM, CETS 157, February 1, 1995; Arzoz 2010, 102–122. Art 8, Council of Europe ECRML, CETS 148, March 1, 1998.

16 Art 35(3), 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. Pons 2012, 172. 17 Suksi 2008, 195–225.


12 J.-M. Arraiza

in Finnish and Swedish, as well as in other jurisdictions, such as – to mention some examples – the Basque Country (Basque and Castilian Spanish), Sweden (the Sami schools) or Canada (French and English). The implementation of functional autonomy requires a certain degree of separation according to language within the administration. Such separation should in principle not be considered discrimina-tory unless the conditions referred to above concerning discrimination are met (i.e., forcefulness, unequal quality). It is, however, debatable as to what extent the effective implementation of such type of autonomy does or does not require the existence of certain shared values and a common understanding of the political community.

2. Bosnia and Herzegovina: language recognition reinforcing separation on an ethnic basis

The priority in the 1995 Dayton negotiations was to find terms which would end the war, rather than creating a socially-cohesive democracy. The Dayton drafters were more worried about territorial control than the societal impact that the agree-ment’s provisions would have over the longer term. This is clear from the focus on ethnic divisions and power distribution between groups as opposed to a more integrative focus on common values and individual rights. As a result, the Dayton Accords differ from the Ahtisaari Proposal and the Ohrid Framework Agreement, in which veto mechanisms are weaker in scope and the territorial organization does not go as far as creating separate entities with quasi-state powers. Territorial boundaries were defined following military conquest and demographic concen-trations resulting from the infamous “ethnic cleansing” (leading to a majority of Serbs in the Republika Srspka, and Bosniaks and Croats in the predominantly mono-ethnic cantons of the Federation). Where clear majorities could not be es-tablished, competences were devolved to sub-cantonal authorities.18 The Dayton arrangements are solidly entrenched in the legal framework.19

Unlike in Kosovo and Macedonia, language and education policy matters did not figure prominently within the provisions of the comprehensive agreement. These would only be legislated at a later stage. In this regard, the territorial arran-gements and the power-sharing system contributed to the development of a highly compartmentalized language policy and education system(s), grounded on ethnic/linguistic differences.

18 Fischer 2006, 301.19 Amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex IV of the Dayton Accords)

require a decision by the Parliamentary Assembly, including a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in the House of Representatives. Art 10, Annex IV, Dayton Accords.



2.1 Language differences in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Language education policy is a Janus-faced undertaking: it is both a tool for the recognition of diverse identities and for the creation of linguistic and national identities. Indeed, nation-building processes are behind the structuring of lan-guages as separate units and their teaching. Such is the case concerning the rec-ognition of Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin as separate languages against the previously accepted notion of Serbo-Croatian as a language.20 The only language provisions in the Dayton Accords relate to the right to not be discrimi-nated against on the grounds of language21, the right to not be deprived of citi-zenship on language grounds22 and the recognition of the ECRML, the FCNM and the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of National Minorities as applicable instruments.23 The word “education” is only mentioned as part of the general list of human rights.24

The Dayton Accords also did not expressly determine the official language(s) of the state. However, as early as 1992, the first Constitution of the Republika Srp-ska recognized Serbian as the only official language.25 Similarly, the 1994 Wash-ington Agreements had led to the drafting of a constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which declared Bosnian and Croatian to be the official languages. As a result, the “Constituent Peoples” decision of the Constitutional Court in 2000 asserted the principle of “collective equality” of the three Con-stituent Peoples (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks). The three languages and both the

20 The modern understanding of Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and lately Montenegrin as separate languages has taken place as part of a longer and wider nation-building and a parallel language-standardization process with its heights in the nineteenth century. The language(s) spoken in the area follow three basic variants: Kajkavian (Kajkavski) and Chakavian (Čakavski) both spoken in modern Croatia and the more extensively used Shtokavian (Štokavski) spoken in the wider former Yugoslavia. These dialects were named after the form in which the pronoun “what” (Što, Kaj, Ča) is translated. Within Shtokavian, there are three subgroups: Ekavian (ekavski), Ijekavian (ijekavski), and Ikavian (ikavski), named after the phonological variation between e, ije, and i (e.g.: “milk” may be mljeko, mleko or mliko). Currently, Ijekavian is the dialect considered to be standard Croatian and Ekavian is the dialect considered to be standard Serbian. This is so, even though there are more similarities between Ijekavian and Ekavian than between these and Chakavian and Kajkavian (both spoken in modern-day Croatia). Language differences do not strictly follow political (or for that matter ethnic) boundaries. The development of Bosnian as a language is a later occurrence related first to the recognition of the Muslim Slavs as a constituent nation in 1968. Somdeep 2009, 509–530; Kovacic 2005, 195–204; Jozic 2012, 35; Zabarah 2012, 552; Mc Lennan 1996.

21 Art II, 4, Annex IV, Dayton Accords. 22 Art I, 7b, Annex IV, Dayton Accords. 23 Art 14, 15, Annex I, Annex IV, Dayton Accords.24 Art II, 3 (l), Annex IV, Dayton Accords.25 Art 7, Constitution of the Republika Srpska, as amended. Art 6 of the Constitution of the

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as amended.


14 J.-M. Arraiza

Latin and the Cyrillic scripts were made official in both entities.26 Moreover, lan-guage is a matter of “vital interest”, subject to a constitutionally entrenched veto mechanism.27 Language rights for Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks include the right to use these languages before public authorities, including judicial authorities.28 The language rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s seventeen “national minorities” are codified in a special law and subject to a number of undertakings under the ECRML (these do not apply to Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks).29

2.2 Territorial decentralization and devolution of competences in the area of education

The highly decentralized territorial organization, with thirteen Ministers of Edu-cation plus the central level Ministry of Civil Affairs, has served to accommodate the wish to educate members of the three Constituent Peoples separately and to facilitate the teaching of three different versions of history (often using teaching materials from neighboring Serbia and Croatia).30 School management is in the hands of school boards which are heavily influenced by the main political parties within their area.31 Within such a context, the recognition of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian as official languages has functioned as an argument to defend the func-tioning of separate schools or the attendance in different classes and morning and afternoon shifts according to language/ethnic identity.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the competence over education is devolved to the cantons, as well as to the municipalities “if the majority of popu-lation in the municipality or city is other than that of the canton as a whole.”32 As a

26 Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Partial Decision of July 1, 2000, U 5/98 III, July 1, 2000. According to the Venice Commission, this aims to avoid a dispute over the names of the languages. Venice Commission: Opinion on the Implementation of the Decision U/598 (“Constituents Peoples”) by the Amendments to the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, CDL (2002), 137.

27 Art 17a, Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Art 70, Constitution of the Republika Srspka. Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Decision No. U-8/04, June 25, 2004 (Official Gazette of BiH 40/04), 48. Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Decision No. U 5/98 Partial Decision IV, August 18, 2000, Art 7(1).

28 Arts 34 and 112, Constitution of the Republika Srpska. 29 These languages are Albanian, Montenegrin, Czech, Italian, Hungarian, Macedonian, German,

Polish, Romanian, Rysin, Slovak, Slovene, Turkish, Ukrainian and Jewish (Yiddish and Ladino). Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on September 21, 2010, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Bosnia and Herzegovina Law on the Rights of National Minorities, April 12, 2003.

30 OMiBiH 2005, 11; Magill 2010. Advisory Committee on the FCNM: Second Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, ACFC/OP/II(2008)005, October 9, 2008, 170.

31 UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Vernor Muñoz: addendum: mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (September 24–October 2, 2007), May 27, 2008, A/HRC/8/10/Add. 4. Magill 2010, 36.

32 Arts III, 4(b) and V(2)2, Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.



result, and due to the practice of parents sending their children to schools without regard to catchment areas, schools are mono-ethnic and monolingual (Croatian or Bosnian). Moreover, the Federation is home to the phenomenon of “two schools under one roof”. This covers firstly schools within a building with two separate administrations, and secondly, instances where the main school operates with one curriculum and one or more branches operate on different curricula. There are also cases where a branch of a main school is in itself “two schools under one roof”. As the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina states, “words cannot do justice” to the complexity of situations found throughout the Federation’s schools.33

The phenomenon is primarily linked to local demography that resulted from the forced displacement of ethnic “others” during the war.34 Within the context of the return of those displaced, returnees’ children of (relative) minority Constituent Peoples were placed in separate schools since their parents were unwilling to mix them with other ethnic groups and have them learn their (ethnified) curriculum. Later on, through the intervention of the OSCE, they were transferred to the local schools that operated under different shifts, using separate school administrations and sometimes entering through different doors. Hence, education in ethnically mixed areas gave rise to the approximately 54 cases of “two schools under one roof”. This is often characterized as segregation, notwithstanding the fact that the elements of forcefulness and comparatively lower quality may not always nec-essarily be present. Indeed, the existence of separate schools and administrative boards according to language may be considered in itself a form of “functional autonomy” that is present in other countries.35 However, the informal character of the arrangement creates legal uncertainty. Moreover, differences in the quality of education offered are not acceptable under international standards. The Municipal Court in Mostar determined in April 2012 that certain “two schools under one roof” in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton led to discrimination due to the lower quality of the services offered to non-Croats.36

In the Republika Srpska, competences over education are centralized, with a limited role for the municipalities.37 The entity school authorities are supposed to abide by a 2002 Interim Agreement on Accommodation of Specific Needs and Rights of Returnee Children signed between all education ministers in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srspka, binding both entities. The agreement pro-vided for a right to receive education in the “national group of subjects” (language,

33 OMiBiH 2007b, 10–11, 24. 34 Art 2(3), 1994 Washington Agreements. Art 4(b), Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina; Art 102(5), Constitution of the Republika Srpska. 35 Suksi 2008.36 Mostar Municipal Court, Decision No. 58/0/PS/085653/11/PS, Mostar, April 27, 2012. Prior

efforts to address the 54 cases of “two schools under one roof” were not successful. A 2003 set of Instructions on Administrative and Legal Unification was not implemented due to political resistance. OMiBiH 2005, 16.

37 Arts 68 and 102, Constitution of the Republika Srspka.


16 J.-M. Arraiza

literature, history, natural science, social studies and religious instruction) of the parent’s choice, subject to a minimum threshold of eighteen students.38 The main problem is the usual practice of busing students by their parents on a daily basis to study in mono-ethnic schools of their group across the inter-entity boundary lines.39 Since the end of the war, the OSCE, the European Union and the Council of Europe have unsuccessfully attempted to influence local policymakers towards the creation of a more integrated education system.40 UN bodies have condemned “two schools under one roof” as segregation.41

Some legislative reforms have promoted integration in education. Such was the purpose of the 2002 Framework Law on Primary and Secondary Education. It in-cluded the removal of offensive content in textbooks, the harmonization of curric-ula throughout the state and the establishment of a single system of certificates and diplomas. It established that schools would use the languages of the Constituent Peoples and ensure the learning of both alphabets. Also, it mandated a “Common Core Curriculum” which establishes common elements to be included in all cur-ricula. An Agency for Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education is in charge of developing it and evaluating its implementation. The national groups of subjects are not within such common elements.42 This is a problem, because the curricula used in ethnic majority schools by relative minorities is one of the reasons that lead parents to disregard catchment areas. Material considered slanderous or hurtful to other ethnic groups continues to create tensions.43

An alternative model is found in the District of Brčko, an internationally ad-ministered condominium formally part of both entities as a result of a 1999 arbi-tration agreement.44 The Final Award included a commitment to the creation of a

38 Interim Agreement on Accommodation of Specific Needs and Rights of Returnee Children, March 5, 2002.

39 OMiBiH 2003. Arts 3 and 23, 2002 Interim Agreement on Accommodation of Specific Needs and Rights of Returnee Children and Implementation Plan. Interview with OSCE staff, May 23, 2013.

40 Efforts included supporting the development of an “Education Reform Strategy” in 2002 aiming to “depoliticize” education. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI): Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina, CRI(2011)2, February 8, 2011. European Union: 2012 Progress Report, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brussels, October 10, 2012 SWD(2012) 335 final. 18. Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE (PACE): Opinion No. 234 (2002).

41 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD): Concluding Observations, August 27, 2010, CERD/C/BIH/CO/7–8, 11.

42 Arts 7, 10, 13, 42, Bosnia and Herzegovina Framework Law on Primary and Secondary Education. Art 6, Bosnia and Herzegovina Law on Agency for Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education, Official Gazette 88, November 20, 2007. Art 3(d), Bosnia and Herzegovina Framework Law on Primary and Secondary Education. OMiBiH 2005, 12.

43 A “Textbook Commission for the Development of Guidelines for Authors of History and Geography” was established in 2004. OMiBiH 2005, 13.

44 Final Award of the Arbitration Tribunal for the Dispute over the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in Brčko Area, March 5, 1999.



multiethnic society, a notion absent in the Dayton Accords.45 Under international supervision, educational reforms have led to an integrated system where students of different ethnic backgrounds attend most classes together (only the subjects from the “national group” are taught separately according to student’s choice) and teachers are obliged to follow a multiethnic policy by offering (and accommodat-ing) their services to all students without distinction.46 Students have the freedom to use their own language, documents will be issued in the language/alphabet re-quested by the student or parent and the ethnic composition of the teachers must reflect that of the school.

Finally, a Framework Law on Higher Education has been in place since 2007 which leaves universities the competence to determine “one or more languages of the Constituent Peoples as their official languages”.47 In addition to the Frame-work Law, the Republika Srpska and the ten cantons of the Federation, as well as the District of Brčko have their own laws, which have not yet been harmonized with the state law.48 Some university statutes, such as those of the Džemal Bijedic University in Mostar, expressly establish the free use of languages by students and teachers. Other university statutes, such as those of the University of Banja Luka define one official language (Serbian) and allow the use of other Constituent Peoples’ languages.49 Higher education institutions are in practice monolingual.50

3. Macedonia’s Ohrid Framework Agreement: a mixed personal/territorial model leading to monolingual

schooling

The accommodation of the rights of the ethnic Albanians was one of the main grievances expressed by the rebels during the 2001 conflict. Hence, the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) introduced important entitlements concerning lan-guage and education, as part of its broader system of power-sharing and minority rights. The agreement contained a series of constitutional amendments and other legislative reforms aimed at entrenching its provisions within the legal frame-

45 Annex to the Final Award, August 18, 1999, 11.46 OMiBiH 2007a. 47 Art 22, Bosnia and Herzegovina Framework Law on Higher Education, September 30, 2007.

Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Decision U-8/04, June 25, 2004, para 49.48 European Commission: Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, July 2012. 49 Art 20, Statute of the Džemal Bijedic University in Mostar (2012); Art 14, Statute of the University

of Eastern Sarajevo (2011); Art 12, Statute of the University of Banja Luka (2010). 50 The University of Mostar uses Croatian, the University of Sarajevo and the Džemal Bijedic

University in Mostar Bosnian and the Universities of Eastern Sarajevo and Banja Luka Serbian. Council of Europe: Initial periodical report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Art 15 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Strasbourg, July 30, 2012, MIN-LANG/PR (2012) 5, paras 45, 46.


18 J.-M. Arraiza

work.51 Changes to the constitution require a two-thirds majority of the members of the parliament.52

The will to instruct younger generations in a particular identity and view of history is as prominent as in its Balkan neighbors. Both ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian elites have important common interests such as joining the EU and the NATO; however, the contradictions in their respective nation-building projects give rise to continuous political tensions. The Macedonian government has increased its nation-building activities through the Skopje 2014 project. This includes the remodeling of public buildings and the erecting of a number of stat-ues commemorating Alexander the Great and his era. The project aims to create a continuum between the Classic Age and the modern Macedonia, strategically excluding any reference to the Albanian culture or to the country’s Yugoslavian past.53 It has increased the sense of grievance.

3.1 Recognition of language rights

Language rights were one of the main points of contention during the Ohrid ne-gotiations, with the ethnic Albanian elites demanding equal official status for their language and the ethnic Macedonian parties seeing a threat to national sover-eignty in such demand. More than ten years after the signature of the agreement, it remains a controversial point due to the lack of application of certain provisions and conflicting interpretations.54

The OFA’s comprehensive set of language rights provisions represents a sig-nificant shift from the silence of the Dayton Accords on this issue. Language rights are defined territorially through a 20 percent demographic threshold at the local level (which is only met by Albanian speakers) which makes a municipality bilingual.55 This is similar to the system used in Finland for the qualification of bilingual or monolingual municipalities (where a threshold of 8 percent or 3,000 Swedish-speaking inhabitants makes a municipality bilingual).56 Languages spo-ken by less than 20 percent of a municipality’s population (i.e., Turkish, Serbian, Roma, Vlach) may also be given a degree of recognition by the municipal council.57

51 Annexes A and B, Ohrid Framework Agreement. 52 Art 131, Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. 53 Kubiena 2012, 78–99. 54 International Crisis Group 2011, 15, 16, 18. Popetrevski/Latifi 2004. 55 Arts 7 and 48, Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. 56 Section 2(1), Finland Language Act (423/2003). 57 Art 80, Republic of Macedonia Law on Local Self-Government. Art 6(6), Ohrid Framework

Agreement. These rights were further defined through the Law on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Members of the Communities which are Less than 20 percent of the Population of the Republic of Macedonia in July 2008; Law on the Use of Languages spoken by 20 percent of the population of the Republic of Macedonia and in the Units of Local Self-Government, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, 101/08.



Language rights are also defined personally, as “rights of the members of the nationalities”.58 A 2008 “Law on the Use of a Language spoken by at least 20 per-cent of the citizens in the Republic of Macedonia and in the Units of Local Self-Government” regulates such rights comprehensively. Inter alia, there is a right to use Albanian in Parliament, a right of submission and reply in Albanian to main offices of the central government, a right to interpretation in civil and criminal proceedings as well as a right to personal documents in both Macedonian and Albanian.59

The Ohrid Framework Agreement recognized the right to primary, secondary and higher education instruction in Albanian. Moreover, state funding was se-cured for university level education and a “positive discrimination” policy adopted in the enrollment in state universities to ensure an equitable representation. Wider language rights are guaranteed at both local and central levels.60 The constitution recognizes the right to instruction in the mother tongue in primary and secondary education. The law develops such a right (pertaining in practice only to Albanian-speakers) and establishes the mandatory teaching of Macedonian and its Cyrillic script from fourth grade onwards.61 The Higher Education Act ensures minority language education in Albanian, as well.62

3.2 Territorial decentralization and devolution of competences over education

Unlike in Bosnia and Herzegovina, education remains clearly a central competence regarding the content of the curriculum. This includes the drafting and approval of the curricula and syllabi for preschool, elementary and public secondary education. This is undertaken by the central level Bureau for Education Development. The Ministry of Education is usually accompanied by a Deputy Minister of Albanian ethnicity. Such arrangements are, however, informal and not reflected in law.63

At the local level, municipalities were re-delineated taking ethnic criteria into consideration.64 They were given certain competences in school administration which in the case of bilingual municipalities amounts to a degree of functional

58 Arts 7 and 48, Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, as amended. (Annex A, Ohrid Framework Agreement).

59 Section 6, Annex B, Art 7, Ohrid Framework Agreement; Art 3, Republic of Macedonia Law on the Use of a Language spoken by at least 20 percent of the citizens in Republic of Macedonia and in the Units of Local Self-Government.

60 Also with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality.61 Art 9, Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education; Art 4, Republic of Macedonia Law on

Secondary Education. 62 Advisory Committee on the FCNM (ACFC): Third Opinion on “the former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia”, ACFC/OP/III(2011)001, adopted on March 30, 2011, 2, 7. 63 Section 6, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM): Lund Recommendations

on the Effective Participation of National Minorities. 64 Art 3(2), Ohrid Framework Agreement.


20 J.-M. Arraiza

autonomy.65 Hence, competences include the establishment of primary and sec-ondary schools.66 This implies the power to define the language of instruction in accordance with law.67 Competences also include participation in school boards and appointment of school principals (following a proposal by the board).68 These are composed by representatives of parents (3), the founder/municipality (2), edu-cation professionals (3) and the Ministry of Education (1).69 School boards further define the language of instruction in primary and secondary schools (e.g., adopt-ing the school statute).70 Schools may be named in Albanian or other languages, but the name of the school must then also be displayed in the Macedonian lan-guage.71 The language of instruction is already determined in the act establishing the school and is reflected in its statute.72 The law provides for catchment areas, but parents may enroll their children elsewhere if the host school consents.73

The model is therefore a mixed personal and territorial one.74 The result is a highly decentralized system leading to monolingual schools in either Macedonian or Albanian (as long as the mandatory learning of Macedonian is respected), a small number of Turkish schools and an even smaller number of Serbian (primary) schools.75

Seventy-five percent of primary and secondary schools are mono-ethnic. Only in certain mixed localities, such as Kičevo and Tetovo, do students from Albanian and Macedonian ethnicities attend the same school. There, shifts are organized in a similar manner as those in Central Bosnia’s “two schools under one roof”.76 There are no joint classes, with exceptional cases where physical education is given

65 Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 103/08 as of August 19, 2009; Law on Secondary Education, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 52/02 dated July 11, 2002; OSCE Mission to Skopje: Survey on Decentralization 2008, Education and Decentralization 2006.

66 Art 22(8), Republic of Macedonia Law on Local Self-Government. 67 Arts 16(2) and 19(1), Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education. 68 Art 132(2), Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education. Secondary School principals are

appointed by the Ministry at the proposal of the School Board. Art 102, Republic of Macedonia Law on Secondary Education.

69 Art 124(2), Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education. 70 Art 17(24), Republic of Macedonia Law on Local Self-Government; Art 100, Republic of

Macedonia Law on Secondary Education; Arts 21, 25, 124, Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education.

71 Art 11, Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education. 72 Art 19(1) Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education.73 Art 50 Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education.74 Réaume 2007, 271-296.75 Art 42(5), Republic of Macedonia Law on Primary Education. Center for Human Rights and

Conflict Resolution (CHRC): Interethnic Integration in Education Project, Baseline Research Regarding the Inter-Ethnic Integration in the Education, USAID, Macedonian Civic Education Center, 2012. Optional subjects on the language and culture of the Bosniaks, Vlachs and Roma are offered in some schools attended by significant numbers of pupils belonging to these national minorities.

76 School segregation sparks Macedonian Debate, Balkaninsight, February 10, 2009.



to mixed groups. Hence, where demographics do not lead naturally to monolin-gual schools, parental choices lead to the same result. The resulting ethnic separa-tion is strikingly similar to the situation of primary and secondary schools in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite the broader degree of decentraliza-tion in existence there.

Lack of contact is seen as a future source of conflict.77 The government, with the financial and political support of international organizations and donors, has implemented a number of programs aimed at promoting integration. These con-sist mainly of extracurricular activities which are largely implemented as a part of projects by external organizations and therefore lack systematization. Within this context, an interesting model has been put into practice by the Nansen Dialogue. This Norwegian NGO complements the official curriculum with its own version of integrated education for primary and secondary schools. It consists of a model in which education is provided within the same school for members of all ethnic groups with classes in Macedonian, in Albanian and in both languages for some subjects.78 Notwithstanding Nansen Dialogue’s project (which covers only a very small number of schools), there are no joint classes or systematic efforts at com-bining shifts in a manner that would maximize contact.

International actors have repeatedly spoken against polarization, division and parallel societies evidenced in the Macedonian education system. The Advisory Committee on the FCNM and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minor-ities (HCNM) have made recommendations towards integration, although without proposing a substantial change of the education model. Emphasis has been placed on strengthening the knowledge of the majority language (Macedonian). In 2010, the government adopted a “Steps towards Integrated Education” policy, drafted with support from the OSCE HCNM. It focused on the promotion of integration through joint activities, teacher qualification, school management and early state language acquisition.79 However, it did not address the fundamental question of ensuring instruction in mother tongue and Macedonian without separating stu-dents (e.g., as in the Brčko District).80

4. Language and education in Kosovo: separation and parallel structures

The legal framework in Kosovo reflects almost a decade of legislation by the Unit-ed Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). In the early 2000’s, the UNMIK created the “Provisional Institutions of Self-Government”. These

77 Koneska 2012, 28–50. 78 Nansen Model for Integrated Education, available at http://www.nmie.org/index.php/en/

nansen-model/about-the-nansen-model, accessed on February 24, 2014.79 Output 1(1), Steps Towards Integrated Education in the Education System of the Republic of

Macedonia, Ministry of Education, October 2010, 14. 80 Selected Strategies and Approaches on Integrated Education including Bilingual and Multilingual

Education, OSCE Mission to Skopje, April 2012.


22 J.-M. Arraiza

institutions served as a basis for the design of institutional arrangements in the Ahtisaari Proposal. The declaration of independence of February 17, 2008 signi-fied the enactment of the Constitution of the new Republic of Kosovo modeled on the Ahtisaari Proposal.81 Amendments to the Constitution require the approval by two-thirds of all deputies of the Assembly including two-thirds of those deputies holding reserved or guaranteed seats (Serbs and other minorities).82

The language and education policies in place have followed an institution-al design strategy of recognition and decentralization, including the creation of new municipalities on an ethnic basis and devolving competences over education while establishing mechanisms for cooperation with the kin-state (the Republic of Serbia) of Kosovo’s Serbs. This would have normally resulted in a situation similar to that of Macedonia or Bosnia and Herzegovina (monolingual/mono-ethnic schools). However, due to the lack of agreement on status, there are parallel administrative structures in the area of education (administered by the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo, respectively).

4.1 Recognition of language rights

The legal framework pertaining to language follows the logic of the recognition of linguistic rights of minorities, in line with European regional standards. The will to ensure international support (including from Serbia and Russia) in accepting Kosovo’s independence led international policymakers to introduce a comprehen-sive package of minority rights and power-sharing measures within the Ahtisaari Proposal, such as the recognition of the rights of “communities” (i.e., minorities), decentralization and the protection of religious and cultural heritage.83

The Ahtisaari Proposal bears a resemblance to the Ohrid Agreement in several aspects (decentralization and enhanced municipal competences, double or “Bad-inter” majority84). The provisions concerning language rights go even further than the Ohrid’s terms, as they include (by entrenching a previously adopted Law on the Use of Languages) maintaining the full co-officialdom for the Serbian and Albanian languages throughout Kosovo’s territory, despite the comparative low percentage of ethnic Serbs (approximately 5 percent of the population).85 More over,

81 Marko 2008, 437–450; Weller 2006/2007, 496. 82 Minorities were named “communities” in the Kosovo legal framework during the UN

administration period prior to the independence for reasons of status neutrality. Art 144, Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

83 Annexes II, III and V of the Ahtisaari Proposal deal with the rights of communities, decentralization and religious and cultural heritage respectively.

84 Named after the French Jurist Robert Badinter. 85 The reform was introduced in July 2006 through Assembly of Kosovo Law 02/L-37 On the Use

of Languages, July 27, 2006. See United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK): Regulation 2006/51 on the Promulgation of the Law on the Use of Languages adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo. Art 5, Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo; Art 2(2), Assembly of Kosovo Law 02/L-37 On the Use of Languages.



Turkish, Bosnian and Roma are official at the municipal level if a 5 percent de-mographic threshold is met.86 A 3 percent threshold is sufficient to make Turkish, Bosnian or Roma “in official use” in a municipality and activates a right to reply and use it in public meetings.87 Moreover, the Turkish language is official in the municipality of Prizren regardless of demography.88

As in Macedonia, the language policy model is of a mixed personal and ter-ritorial character. At the central level, the recognition of Serbian as a full official language throughout the territory is based on political considerations rather than demography and demand (where Serbs make up approximately 5 percent of the population and were barely participating in the political structures at the time of the drafting of the language laws). Moreover, the full officialdom (regardless of thresholds) of Serbian and Albanian throughout Kosovo places considerable obligations on municipalities. Furthermore, the thresholds that activate official use at the municipal level (for Turkish, Roma, and Bosnian languages) are low (5 and 3 percent) in comparison with Macedonia’s 20 percent. Low thresholds have resource implications. Although these may be feasible in highly developed coun-tries with generous minority language policies (e.g., the threshold in Finland for a municipality to be bilingual in Swedish and Finnish is 8 percent,89 Slovakia will reduce its 20 percent threshold to 15 percent in 2021) the same standard may be costly for an underdeveloped Kosovo municipality.

Recognized language rights include the right to use the official languages be-fore central and local institutions, to access official documents in such languages, to submit and receive oral and written replies, to the display of names, toponyms and other signs; to impart and receive education, to its use in judicial proceedings, and to access and provide media services in minority languages. The provisions on the recognition of languages are entrenched in the constitution: The Law on the Use of Languages is considered “legislation of vital interest” and thus requires a double majority for its amendment (that of the Assembly as well as the minority MPs occupying the 20 reserved seats).90 An “Office of the Language Commis-sioner”, modeled on the Irish Language Commissioner, was recently created. The new mechanism is supposed to ensure the enforcement of language legislation, as well as raise public awareness on linguistic rights.91

86 Art 5(2), Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. Arts 2(3) and 2(4), Republic of Kosovo Law on the Use of Languages.

87 Art 8, Republic of Kosovo Law on the Use of Languages.88 Art 2(3), Republic of Kosovo Law on the Use of Languages. 89 Art 5(2), Finland Language Act (403/2003). 90 Art 81, Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. 91 Government of the Republic of Kosovo, Regulation 07/2012 On the Office of the Language

Commissioner.


24 J.-M. Arraiza

4.2 Territorial decentralization and devolution of competences in education

The legal framework on education is also heavily influenced by the status nego-tiations and the lack of agreement. As mentioned above, since the beginning of the UN administration, Serb and Albanian students have attended parallel sys-tems of education: one administered by the Republic of Serbia and another created through the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) framework and later transformed into a fully independent Republic of Kosovo educational system.

The Ahtisaari Proposal attempted to provide a solution to the problem of par-allel educational structures by creating new municipalities, devolving competences over education, regulating education in the Serbian language and establishing for-mal channels for financial and technical assistance and curriculum development by the Republic of Serbia. Hence, the Ahtisaari Plan re-draws municipal bounda-ries. The new municipalities of Parteš/Partesh, Klokot/Kllokot and Ranilug/Ra-nillug turn former ethnic minorities into relative majorities, in one case resulting in ethnically homogeneous units (Parteš/Partesh). Serb majority municipalities have additional “enhanced municipal competences” and mechanisms to receive support from the Republic of Serbia.92 The result of the reform is not territorial autonomy, as the municipalities do not have lawmaking powers, but rather a form of local autonomous administration combined with privileged relations with the kin-state. Hence, the planned municipality of North Mitrovica has formal compe-tences over higher education, regulating the provision of financial and technical assistance from the Republic of Serbia and affirming the autonomous character of the University of Mitrovica, thus regularizing the situation of the “Displaced University of Pristina located in Kosovska Mitrovica”.93 The Ahtisaari Proposal attempts to address this situation by giving North Mitrovica competency over higher education. Such a framework has, however, not been put in place as of yet.

Similarly, at the local level the Ahtisaari Proposal creates an institutional mech-anism to ensure that financial and technical assistance is provided under the ap-proval of the Kosovo Ministry of Education.94 Hence, the “Law on Education in the Municipalities of Kosovo” gives municipalities

full and exclusive competence insofar as it concerns the local interest, while respecting the stand-ards set forth in applicable legislation, with respect to primary and pre-primary and secondary education, including registration and licensing of education institutions, recruitment, payment of salaries and training of education instructors and administrators.95

92 Arts 17(1), 22, 23, Kosovo Law on Local Self-Government, Section 19. OSCE HCNM: Lund Recommendations. Republic of Kosovo Law 03/L-47 On the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Communities and their Members, March 13, 2008.

93 Art 14, Law 03-L068 On Education in the Municipalities of Kosovo.94 Art 7, Annex III, Ahtisaari Proposal. Arts 12 and 13, Law 03-L068 On Education in the

Municipalities of Kosovo.95 Art 4(1), Republic of Kosovo Law on Education in the Municipalities of Kosovo.



This includes the use of the curriculum and teaching materials produced by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia upon notification and approval by the Ministry of Education of Kosovo. If the Kosovo Ministry were to object to a particular teaching material, an Independent Commission formed by three Ministry of Education members, three Serb MPs and an international official, is supposed to review it and make decisions by majority vote.96 The Independent Commission was formed and issued on its own initiative a report highlighting the incompatibilities of textbooks used by schools administered by the Republic of Serbia on issues such as geography, history, literature.97

Due to the non-implementation of these measures, Serb students attend schools administered by the Republic of Serbia. Students attending the Republic of Kosovo schools (the majority) do so in the Albanian language with the excep-tion of certain schools in the Prizren region which teach in the Turkish and in the Bosnian languages. According to the current Curriculum Framework, Albanian students are taught English from the third grade and another language from the sixth grade. This may be one of the “community languages” (Serbian, Bosnian, Turkish) or, as an alternative, it may be French, Italian, Spanish or a classical lan-guage (Latin, Greek).

Theoretically, non-Albanian students have the right to primary and secondary education in their mother tongue and the option to learn Albanian from the third grade.98 In reality, there are virtually no Serb students attending the Republic of Kosovo schools. Only ethnic Turks, Roma, Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians and Bosniaks are attending such schools. The only education offered in the mother tongue other than Albanian is in the abovementioned schools in the Prizren re-gion (in Bosnian and Turkish). In mixed schools, shifts are organized to ensure that this is possible, similar to the systems found in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Macedonia. The system for the organization of such shifts is informal and left to the discretion of the school boards.99

Students from both the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo curric-ula have little or no opportunities to interact with each other or, more importantly, to critically understand the roots of this dysfunctional situation. As in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Macedonia, there is no segregation in the formal sense. Theoretically, an Albanian student could enroll in a Serb-administered school and vice versa. There are no in-depth comparative studies as to the differences in quality between the schools administered by Serbia or Kosovo.

96 Art 13, Republic of Kosovo Law on Education in the Municipalities of Kosovo. 97 Independent Commission for Reviewing the Serbian Language Teaching Materials,

Comprehensive Report, June 24, 2010. 98 Kosovo Curriculum Framework, Ministry of Education, 54. Assembly of Kosovo Law 04/L-

32 On Pre-University Education in Kosovo. Art 8, Assembly of Kosovo Law 03-L47 On the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Communities and their Members in Kosovo.

99 Such as the Primary School “Mustafa Bakija” in Prizren. Interview with OSCE staff, February 21, 2013.


26 J.-M. Arraiza

The situation of the Bosniak/Gorani community in the municipality of Dragaš/Dragas is telling, as there, Bosnian-speaking students may opt for a Ser-bian or Kosovo-administered education sometimes within the same building. The administrations of both Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia have threatened school teachers with sanctions (e.g., loss of pension rights) if they are loyal to the other. Conflicts over the use of keys and the closure of premises during national holidays are recurrent. Meanwhile, actual segregation of Roma, Ashkali and (Bal-kan) Egyptian pupils also takes place.

In April 2013, the governments of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo signed an agreement brokered by the EU in which they committed to the establishment of an “Association/Community of Serb majority municipalities in Kosovo”. According to the agreement, Serb majority municipalities would “be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Associa-tion collectively”. This would include competences over education.100 The imple-mentation of such an agreement could have an impact on education in Kosovo addressing outstanding issues.

5. Conclusions

While the three sets of language and education policies assessed here are derived from very different agreements and present different institutional characteristics concerning the recognition of language rights, territorial decentralization and the devolution of competences over education, they have ultimately led equally to a complete physical separation of students on a linguistic (and thus ethnic) basis. Therefore, none of the models described here, with the exception of the Brčko District, support integration in line with Allport’s “contact hypothesis”. Rather, the three models constitute different paths leading to a similar outcome.

Common traits include firstly institutional rigidity, where arrangements are entrenched at the constitutional level, secondly the formalization of territorial ethnic boundaries through re-delineation and thirdly the recognition of minority language rights (be it personally, territorially or both). The area where the models differ is primarily the devolution of competences over education at the central and/or local level. Such a difference, though, does not directly impact on whether students are taught jointly or separated, and thus it does not directly affect this aspect of integration in education. In all the three cases, physical separation ac-cording to linguistic choice takes place regardless of the devolution or not of com-petences over education.

Thus, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the devolution of competences in the Fed-eration and the centralization of such competences in the Republika Srpska virtu-ally makes no difference as to the degree of ethnic separation. In the Republika Srpska, Bosniak parents send their children to mono-ethnic schools in the Fed-

100 First Agreement on Principles Concerning the Normalization of Relations, April 19, 2013.



eration. In the Federation, decentralization leads to mono-ethnic schools equally. The central competences and the limited devolution at the municipal level and the recognition of minority language rights existing in Macedonia do not address separation either. Finally, in Kosovo, the establishment of separate schools in the Serbian language and kin-state support is legalized through the Ahtisaari Proposal legislation. However, a lack of agreement between Serbia and Kosovo leads to separation plus the coexistence of two legally unrelated education systems.

None of these diverse approaches leads to a single unified (i.e., integrated) system where students of different ethnicities or language backgrounds interact with each other on a daily basis (e.g., through common classes, as in the Nansen Dialogue model applied in Macedonia). In this sense, the international commu-nity’s approach in Macedonia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been to “soften the edges” of such a separation (e.g., through state legislation in Bosnia and Herze-govina, through the “Integrated Education Strategy” in Macedonia) while in Ko-sovo the Ahtisaari mechanisms opt to openly formalize such separation. It would be useful to expand the range of educational models available in these countries and to add a degree of flexibility in policymaking.

Another similarity between the three agreements analyzed is that they all lack a clear and unambiguous objective of pursuing societal cohesion through integrated education practices. When such policies are nominally in place, as in Macedonia, they fail to address the core issue of separation in the classroom. Moreover, in all three scenarios, teaching respect for cultural diversity and a multi-perspective ap-proach to history are lacking.

Although a policy of separating students according to language may to a cer-tain extent be necessary to ensure education in the mother tongue, this should be balanced with the equally important goal of ensuring social cohesion and prevent-ing inter-ethnic tensions. In practical terms, bilingual education does not mean that students have to always be separated or that they have to be housed in dif-ferent buildings. From a legal standpoint, while such practices do not necessar-ily amount to segregation, they also do not contribute to mutual understanding if unaccompanied by measures aimed at promoting tolerance and intercultural contacts. Allowing institutions to be flexible enough to adopt a middle ground between both tendencies (e.g., through joint classes in certain subjects, teaching tolerance and intercultural values and a more systematic approach to extracur-ricular activities) could help accommodate cultural diversity and prevent tensions.

Bibliography

Allport, Gordon W. [1954]: The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge. Anderson, Benedict [1983]: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Na-

tionalism, London.Arzoz, Xabier [2010]: Accommodating Linguistic Difference: Five Normative Models of Language

Right, in: 6 European Constitutional Law Review, 2010, pp 102–122.


28 J.-M. Arraiza

Arzoz, Xabier [2012]: Legal Education in Bilingual Contexts: A Conceptual, Historical and Com-parative Introduction, in: Arzoz, Xabier (ed.): Bilingual Higher Education in the Legal Context: Group Rights, State Policies and Globalisation, Leiden, p 8.

Bartulović, Alenka [2006]: Nationalism in the Classroom: Narratives of the war in Bosnia-Hercegovi-na (1992–1995) in the History Textbooks of the Republic of Srspka, 6 Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism (2006), p 51–72.

Brubaker, Rogers [1996]: Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge.

Clark, Janine Natalya [2010]: Education in Bosnia-Hercegovina: The Case for Root-and-Branch Re-form, in: 9 Journal of Human Rights (2010), pp 344–362.

Daskalovski, Zhidas [2002]: Language and Identity: The Ohrid Framework Agreement and Liberal Notions of Citizenship and Nationality in Macedonia, in: Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe (1/2002), p 28.

Dovidio, John F./Gaertner, Samuel L./Kawakami, Kerry [2003]: Intergroup Contact: The Past, Present, and the Future, in: 6(5) Group Processes Intergroup Relations, pp 5–21.

Eberle, Edward J. [2009]: The Method and Role of Comparative Law, in: Washington University Global Studies Review (2009), pp 451–486.

Fischer, Astrid [2006]: Integration or Segregation? Reforming the Education Sector, in: Fischer, Martina (ed.): Ten Years after Dayton: Peacebuilding and Civil Society in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Berlin, pp 297–393.

Gellner, Ernest [1997]: Nations and Nationalism, Oxford.Gutmann, Amy [1987]: Democratic Education, New Jersey.Horowitz, Donald [2000]: Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley. International Crisis Group [2011]: Macedonia: Ten Years after the Conflict, Brussels, August 2011,

pp 15, 16, 18. Jozić, Željko [2012]: Linguistic (Un)reality in Contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: Balkan

Encounters, Old and New Identities in South Eastern Europe, 41 Slavica Helsingiensia (2012), pp 34–46.

Koneska, Cvete [2012]: Vetoes, Ethnic Bidding, Decentralisation: Post-Conflict Education in Mac-edonia, in: 11(4) Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe (2012), pp 28–50.

Kovacić, Marko [2005] Serbian and Croatian, Language or Languages?, in: 6(2) Jezikoslovije (2005), pp 195–204.

Kreso, Adila P. [2008]: The War and Post-War Impact on the Educational System of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: 54 International Review of Education (2008), pp 353–374.

Kubiena, Michael [2012]: Skopje 2014 – Musealizing the City, Re-inventing History?, in: 2(1) The Western Balkans Policy Review (2012), pp 78–99.

Lijphart, Arend [1977]: Democracy in Plural Societies, A Comparative Exploration, New Haven/London.

Magill, Clare [2010]: Education and Fragility in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: Research Papers Inter-national Institute for Education Planning/UNESCO.

Marko, Joseph [2008]: The Kosovo Constitution in a Regional Comparative Perspective, in: 33 Re-view of Central and East European Law (2008), pp 437–450.

Mc Lennan, Sean [1996]: Sociolinguistic Analysis of Serbo-Croatian, in: 18 Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics (1996).

OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OMiBiH) [2003]: Bussing children to mono-ethnic schools in BiH must stop, OSCE Mission says, Press Release, 13 March 2003.

OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OMiBiH) [2005]: Raising Debate: Is BiH Respecting its International Commitments in the Field of Education? Questions for the Citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OMiBiH) [2007a]: Lessons from Education Reform in the District of Brčko, October 2007.



OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OMiBiH) [2007b]: Tailoring Catchment Areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, September 2007, pp 10–11.

Pons, Eva [2012]: Bilingual Legal Education in Catalonia, in: Arzoz, Xabier (ed.): Bilingual Higher Education in the Legal Context: Group Rights, State Policies and Globalisation, Leiden, p 172.

Popetrevski, Vasko/Latifi, Veton [2004]: The Ohrid Framework Agreement Negotiations, Conflict Studies Research Centre.

Réaume, Denise G. [2007]: Beyond Personality: the Territorial and Personal Principles of Language Policy Reconsidered, in: Kymlicka, Will/Patten, Alan (eds.): Language Rights and Political The-ory, Oxford, pp 271–296.

Somdeep, Sen [2009]: Cyrillization of Republika Srpska, 8(2/3) Perspectives on global development and technology, p 509–530.

Suksi, Markku [2008]: Functional Autonomy: The case of Finland with Some Notes on the Basis of International Human Rights Law and Comparison with Other Cases, in: 15 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights (2008), pp 195–225.

Tilly, Charles [2003]: The Politics of Collective Violence, Cambridge.Weller, Marc [2006/2007]: The Kosovo Constitution and Provisions for the Minorities of Kosovo, in:

6 European Yearbook of Minority Issues (2006/2007), p 496. Zabarah, Dareg [2012]: The language that unites and the Language that Divides us. Why was Arabic

kept and Serbo-Croatian Abolished?, in: 40(4) Nationalities Papers, the Journal on Nationalism and Ethnicity, pp 545–559.


Language education policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo - Different path towards...

Documents

Transcript of Language education policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo - Different path towards...