Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on whether federalism leads to ethnic accommodation and is peace-preserving through comparing the methods of ethnic accommodation in federal and unitary states. Rather than focusing on a large dataset, this article offers an in-depth picture of the role the two systems play in ethnic accommodation, offering a more nuanced understanding. The Kurds (Iraq and Turkey) and Tamils (India and Sri Lanka) have been chosen as they form territorial minorities in both federal and unitary states. The article suggests that federalist states offer a degree of acceptance toward political, cultural and economic equality with ethnic minorities. However, federalism may not be the cause of ethnic accommodation; it may be on the one hand the expression of a state willing to concede cultural, political and economic equality to an ethnic minority, or on the other hand induce such behavior. Thus, federalism without recognition of such equality does not guarantee ethnic accommodation.

摘要

本文通过比较联邦制和统一制国家的族裔适应方法，为关于联邦制是否导致族裔适应以及是否维护和平的辩论做出了贡献。本文不着重于大型数据集，而是更深入地介绍了这两个系统在族裔适应中所扮演的角色，从而提供了更为细微的了解。库尔德人（伊拉克和土耳其）和泰米尔人（印度和斯里兰卡）之所以被选中，是因为它们在联邦制和统一制国家中都是领土上的少数民族。文章建议，联邦制国家对与少数民族的政治，文化和经济平等提供一定程度的接受。但是，联邦制可能不是族裔适应的原因。一方面可能是国家愿意放弃文化的表达，少数族裔在政治和经济上的平等，或在另一方面引起这种行为。因此，没有承认这种平等的联邦制就不能保证种族适应。