national, regional and international instruments. We must therefore also use these opportunity that this affords directly in the specific cases of education and minority issues (be it segregation, language (though here, eg CRC art. 30, still lacking in provisions on the language of instruction), textbooks, identity, cultural heritage, life opportunities and dignity etc etc). - My second reason for saying this: because the right to education (and non-discrimination) is far far more developed that that of minority rights. Minority rights have few serious binding conventions. If anyone harbours ideas that the present recommendations or other such documents in time should lead to a more binding convention, then I should like to question these ideas at the outset. This is primarily, and arguably, because it will not be possible to get good new legislation on an issue as contentious as minority rights – our efforts are much better used other where! There may be many (well-meaning) declarations and bodies in for example Europe, with the Council of Europe and others, but these will not easily be translated into other geographic settings, even if they ideally should be. Simply because few governments would agree to it. Thus, we will not reap the benefits of this justiciability if we produce more law. We only get there by producing more case law. Therefore, and although these draft recommendations do not contradict this view, I believe it should - more systematically list existing key instruments and articles; [Esp.: ICCPR art 27; ICESCR art 2(2), 13 and 14; CRC art 28 and 29 and in particular art 30 (though it fails to mention the right to be taught in your own language). Additionally, the following should be listed: Latin American San Salvador protocol art 13 (5); the two African charters, articles 17 and 11 respectively; the