tentatively expressed than Article 27: „shall not be denied‟ (the rights) in Article 27 is replaced in the Declaration by „have the right‟, and there is no appearance in the Declaration of Article 27‟s cautious „in those States in which … minorities exist‟. The preamble is also notable for not restating the language in which many discussions of minorities had been couched: „the problem of minorities‟. The preamble does not „problematise‟ minorities but asserts that the protection and promotion of the rights of persons belonging to minorities „contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live‟ - a sea-change in the characterisation of the minority issue. The author recalls a lively discussion on the preambular paragraph that refers to the work of IGOs and NGOs „in protecting minorities and in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to minorities‟ – this aroused the concern that it suggested „collective rights‟. 8The paragraph was adopted, and clearly distinguishes „protection of minorities‟ (presumably the object of the Declaration as a whole) from description of the holders of rights – „persons belonging to minorities‟. The spectre of „collective rights‟ - however these may have been understood by delegations - animated many of the informal sessions. In the event, the individualistic „persons belonging to … minorities‟ formula runs through the whole of the Declaration, appearing at some twenty-six points in the text. The terms „protection of minorities‟ or „protecting‟ minorities‟ appear only sporadically. Article 1 stands out as not repeating the „persons belonging to‟ formula, but concentrating on protection of the existence and identity „of minorities‟. There was little doubt that some of the wording of Article 27 would be retained in the Declaration. Elements of Article 27 appear in Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration. Article 3, referring to the „exercise or non-exercise‟ of minority rights, appears to have been stimulated by concerns about „group determinism‟ as opposed to „individual self-determination. The concept of autonomy, with its „collective‟ implications, does not appear in the final text.9 While definitions of „minority‟ were proposed at various stages of drafting, there is no such definition in the Declaration. The four descriptors – national, ethnic, religious and linguistic - were enough for most of the delegations, and, taken together, were understood to ensure that the coverage by the Declaration was sufficiently broad.10 Whispers around the meeting room that a delegation was about to call for a definition alarmed delegates who feared that no Declaration would emerge if the meetings opted to embark upon a (high-minded, futile?) search for a definition. Following the adoption of the draft Declaration in December 1991, one delegation stated that, in its view, „[t]he major deficiency of the Declaration is that it fails to provide a definition of “minorities”. This … may lead to confusion or misinterpretation.‟11 The list of rights in the Declaration is brief, though spacious. The inclusion of rights of participation in general, and rights of participation in decision-making, was regarded by many as a great advance. For the general right in 2(2), participation in „public life‟ was preferred to „political life‟ as the more comprehensive concept. 12 The term 8 E/CN.4/1991/53, paragraph 44. The following proposal emanating from the Minority Rights Group was not adopted: „Minorities have the right to organize themselves for private and public purposes. Where appropriate, measures for self-management and autonomy in matters internal to minorities may be established‟ – E/CN.4/1992/48, paragraph 27. 10 E/CN.4/1991/53, paragraphs 9 and 10. 11 E/CN.4/1992/48, paragraph 95. 12 Ibid., paragraph 30. 9 3