A/74/160 28. Depending on how one views what constitutes a definition, there were a significant number of definitions, formulations and descriptions put forth by various United Nations entities, designated experts, committees, commissions or subcommissions between 1947 and 2010. 5 (The most relevant extracts are contained in the supplementary information to this report relating to definitions and descriptions of the term “minority” in United Nations system entities.)6 29. There were also at various times other proposed definitions, for example those which were submitted at the request of the Secretary-General by a number of Member States in pursuance of Commission on Human Rights resolution 14 A (XXXIV) of 6 March 1978 after the rejection of the Capotorti definition, including, for example, proposals from Greece, Germany and Canada (see E/CN.4/1987/WG.5/WP.1, paras. 12–16). 30. The plethora of proposals is testimony to strongly held diverging views and disagreements, both in terms of who minorities are as rights -holders and the nature and extent of their rights. This can be simplified and summarized by indicating that there were significant divergences, including: (a) Between States with a purely individualistic view of human rights that were uncomfortable with any rights linked to any group and sought a complete break from the League of Nations minorities treaties approach, and States that felt it necessary to have specific measures which acknowledged the inherent inequality experienced by many minorities; 7 (b) States that saw the United Nations debates over the rights of minorities as part of the “Cold War” confrontation, with many Western democracies automatically concerned that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its allies would try to cast themselves as champions of “oppressed” minorities and thus instrumentalize the minority rights debates; (c) States that ideologically were firmly convinced of the value of assimilation, and that the unity and stability of a country also required the unity of one national language and culture, against those States which, on the contrary, held the firm ideological conviction, based on their own national experiences, that peace and stability were often best served when a State took into account and reflected the composition of its population. 31. Finally, at the risk of simplification, there was also a divide between those States which preferred a minimalist approach to a minority provision, in the sense that it would not involve collective claims or place extensive obligations on States, and those which believed that at least certain minorities were entitled to more wide ranging protections, as had been the case under the minorities treaties before the Second World War. 32. The absence of consensus resulted in the absence of any referenc e to minorities in the first United Nations non-binding human rights instrument, but there remained strongly held views that this would be tackled eventually in a human rights treaty. __________________ 5 6 7 19-11967 For a partial list of proposals, see E/CN.4/1987/WG.5/WP.1. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Minorities/SR/A74160_Definitions _Descriptions.docx. It may be useful to point out that the former’s position was weakened by the early recognition that certain groups, including women, children and indigenous peoples, should be considered as requiring specific attention. 11/19