„associations‟ emerged in 4(4) in preference to „organizations‟ and „institutions‟, again as the most general referent. 13 In paragraph 2(5) referring to inter- and intra-minority contacts, the clause on „contacts across frontiers‟ in 2(5) appeared threatening to some delegations, which were, we may presume, mollified by the general reference in the paragraph to „free and peaceful‟ contacts. For Article 4, the construction of the text involved a mix of generous and conservative approaches to minority cultures, and caution regarding cultural practices. The discussion of practices „in violation of national law and contrary to international standards‟ circulated around practices „such as female circumcision, polygamy and ritual slaughters.‟14 These discussions were, if I recall correctly, relatively brief. Apart from the FGM reference, gender issues including multiple discrimination against women members of minority groups – a topic of considerable interest to the Minority Forum - did not stimulate extensive comment. The sessions on Article 4 were mostly devoted to issues of culture, history and languages of minorities, largely in line with „classical‟ minority protection, though discussion of the situation of religious minorities was muted and of secondary concern. With regard to the later articles, those on international cooperation were relatively uncontroversial, though the individual/collective dichotomy continued to manifest itself. 15 Article 8 was, however, controversial. The sense that minority rights should not be pushed too far, both in terms of respecting the rights of others (not members of minorities) and as not threatening the territorial integrity, etc., of States, characterised the position of a number of delegates. Arguments to the effect that minority rights are difficult to distinguish from privileges had their influence on the text of Article 8(2) and 8(3). On 8(4), one delegation suggested that the phrase „political unity‟ be inserted after the phrase „political independence‟ but this was rejected.16 It does not take much imagination to suggest that the fear of encouraging separatism lay behind some drafting proposals and statements. The projected mainstreaming of the Declaration in Article 9 did not engender a great deal of discussion and was particularly strongly endorsed by NGOs. The text emerged at a critical juncture in international relations, not far removed from the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. In terms of human rights, parallel developments at the global level included the emergence of the CRC with its notable Article 30 on indigenous and minority children, and ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. European organisations also produced key texts though not - by 1992 - a binding convention on minority rights. In other words, minority rights had finally „returned‟ to the upper reaches of the international agenda as an urgent concern. Twenty years on Twenty years on, some of the issues that sparked controversy in the drafting retain their salience; others are perhaps less pressing. The Declaration is not a „European‟ instrument but one intended for global application. We do not have a canonical definition of „minority‟ but this has not unduly inhibited the development of minority rights. The concept of self-definition, as opposed to definition by the State, is now better understood. The recognition that identities can be multiple, and that their recognition does not threaten the unity of States, is more broadly accepted. The 13 Ibid., paragraph 40. Ibid., paragraph 21. 15 Ibid., paragraphs 74 and 75. 16 Ibid., paragraphs 61 and 64. 14 4