Territorial Structure of State as a Tool of Ethnic Diversity Management (Constitutional Law Regulation in the BRICS Countries)

Abstract

A large number of modern states are characterized by ethnic-territorial fractionalization. It means that separate regions of a state might be territories of concentration of ethnic groups which constitute a significant part or a local majority of population within these territories but have a position of national minorities within the state as a whole. The article discusses the ways in which the ethnic structure of population is reflected in constitutional-law regulation of territorial structure of a state. The comparative law analysis of the ‘ethnic' factor in the constitutional rulings concerning territorial structure is represented in the article. The author has studied constitutions of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to demonstrate that all these states despite of their geographical positions and historical backgrounds take into consideration ethnic-territorial fractionalization in organization of the territories and choice of an appropriate constitutional form of such structurization. In the article the distinctions between the approaches in different states are described and explained. In the author's opinion, a state territory serves as a tool of ethnic diversity management. A state's constitution can give a special legal status to a region inhabited by an ethnic minority and stipulate self-government (or self-administration) for such regions (so-called territorial accommodation of ethnic groups). Conversely, internal borders can be drawn in a manner to prevent domination of an ethnic minority in a region. Self-government, in turn, can be exercised within different constitutional-law frameworks such as federalism, territorial autonomy and creation of special territories under constitutional protection. The author shows different approaches and mechanisms implemented in the BRICS countries and concludes that a mechanism of territorial accommodation of an ethnic group in a particular case depends on political demands of the group with respect to ‘its' territory. At the same time, self-government of ‘ethnic' regions not always leads to deepening cleavages between ethnic groups. The opposite is true: it can contribute social integration.