1. (Re)Defining Indigeneity and the Future of Roma Rights
Gloria Kostadinova
Indigenous Rights and Natural Resources
Professor Tirrell
5/9/2014

2. Kostadinova 2
2
I. Introduction
The preservation of indigeneity is a complex issue, one that has become
increasingly pertinent in the face of the climate change crisis and environmental concerns
in general. Like any identity, indigeneity is difficult to define; it is both a social
construction and an individual experience that is ever changing. An indigenous identity is
dynamic in the sense that it is constantly interpreted and contested by public perceptions.
Ethnicity, ancestry, origin, culture, and language all play an important role in defining
indigeneity, and as difficult as it is to determine indigenous origin, defending it is an
equally challenging task. There have been several international efforts to protect the
rights of indigenous populations, namely the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the American Convention on Human Rights, the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and the Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention of 1989 (C169). These documents represent a significant milestone
in international law; they not only demonstrate the UN’s commitment to eliminating
human rights violations, but they also establish a universal standard for the treatment of
indigenous peoples.
While these declarations are invaluable achievements, they are by no means
seamless. Documents such as UNDRIP and C169 successfully emphasize the importance
of the preservation of indigenous rights, and cover a wide range of issues from economic
and political organization, healthcare and education to cultural and environmental
preservation. However, certain sections within these declarations leave significant room
for debate, namely who qualifies as indigenous and receives protection under the law.

3. Kostadinova 3
3
The weaknesses of these clauses result in the failure to protect vulnerable peoples from
human rights violations.
This paper will focus on the challenges posed by indigenous identification
through, and the complication of territorial rights. Is indigeneity strictly determined by a
particular territorial claim? What happens when a culturally distinct, marginalized group
of people does not have any claims to a particular territory? Are they not indigenous?
Are they not allowed the same protection under the law? Such questions, and many more,
must be addressed in order to move forward and make progress in protecting inalienable
human rights for all peoples and individuals. Today there are many groups of people that
are not considered indigenous, but still experiences human rights violations, including
discrimination and marginalization. Such “historically oppressed substate groups” are
categorized as national minorities, while other nontraditional homeland minorities are
classified as subaltern groups (Kymlicka, 2011). However, the nuances between some
indigenous and minority groups are extremely subtle and sometimes ambiguous. The
Romani people in Eastern Europe are a prime example of a marginalized group that
transcends traditional minority classification. The Romani, or Roma, are not considered
indigenous, yet they have many historical and cultural parallels with other indigenous
peoples who do receive indigenous rights protection.
The following analysis will focus on the historical trajectory, current status and
fate of the Romani as an oppressed group of people with no homeland. In 2009 the U.S.
State Department published a report on human rights around the world noting that the
Romani, "suffer disproportionately from poverty, unemployment, interethnic violence,
discrimination, illiteracy and disease" (Lewy, 1999). That was fifteen years ago. Today,

4. Kostadinova 4
4
the situation of the Roma is much unchanged, as a recent World Bank publication reveals
that, “In Eastern Europe…71% or more of Roma households live in deep poverty” and “
fewer than 1 in 4 Roma complete upper secondary” education (World Bank, 2014). How
do we begin to explain these social injustices, and more importantly, what must be done?
Should the Romani of Eastern Europe be granted Indigenous Rights? In the summer of
2000, Romani groups met at the Fifth Romani World Congress and produced the
Declaration of Nation, which articulated their claim to non-territorial nation status. What
are the political, cultural, and social implications of this kind of statehood? How does it
differ from other Indigenous rights claims?
In order to better understand the Roma context, I will refer to two case studies of
similarly marginalized nomadic groups as points of comparison. The first is the Native
American Santee Dakota tribe of the Plains region in North America, and the second
group is the Tuareg tribes of northwestern African. While these three groups have vastly
different historical contexts and varying degrees of human rights protection, they share
many commonalities as historically oppressed and culturally distinct populations. These
parallels play an important role in examining both the successes and shortcomings of
current indigenous rights doctrines.
II. Indigeneity and Territorial Land Claims: Who Came First?
To begin I will refer to the language of the indigenous rights declarations,
UNDRIP and C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and will analyze the gaps
that exist within the documents. Article 2 of UNDRIP states that “Indigenous peoples and
individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be
free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that

5. Kostadinova 5
5
based on their indigenous origin or identity [emphasis added]” (UNDRIP, 4). The
distinction made between indigenous origin and indigenous identity in Article 2 is critical
to interpreting the various factors that define indigeneity. The first definition, referring to
indigenous origin, assumes that indigeneity is associated with certain claims to a specific
geographical region. The second definition, referring to indigenous identity, stipulates
that indigeneity is based on other factors that are independent of origin. Naturally, these
other factors vary from person to person and group to group, but they can include culture,
language, religion, ethnicity, etc.—notions typically associated with individuality and
self-expression from a sociological and anthropologic perspective (Cohen, 1993).
Similarly, Article 1(a) of C169 states that the Convention applies to “tribal
peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions
distinguish them from other sections of the national community…” This clause makes no
mention of aboriginal territorial origin. Moreover, Article 1(b) details that the Convention
applies to:
“Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on
account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country
or a geographical region [emphasis added] to which the country belongs,
at the time of conquest or colonization or [emphasis added] the
establishment of present state boundaries and who…retain some or all of
their own social economic, cultural and political institution” (C169).
The above cited articles from UNDRIP and C169 are particularly important because they
set the precedent for which groups of people qualify for indigenous rights. The
stipulations apply directly to the Romani people, as well as many other subaltern groups,
who legally do not receive Indigenous Rights protection.

6. Kostadinova 6
6
The principle argument denying Romani people indigenous rights is based on the
fact that the Romani are not native to the European continent, thus they do not have
indigenous land claims. Based on linguistic analysis and recent genetic studies, many
historians and experts trace Roma roots back to India (Kiger, 2012). While their ancestral
homeland may reside in India, the Romani people have not lived there for centuries.
Roma Historian, David Crowe, has found evidence of Roma folk legends that date back
to Alexander the Great, as early as the 4th century. More substantial research, however,
shows that the Roma found their way to Europe by the 11th century, as a result of Muslim
invasions and efforts to spread the Islamic faith in the East (Crowe, xi). Not only have the
Roma resided in Europe for nearly 1,000 years, but in accordance with Article 1(b) of
C169, the Roma population has also inhabited the geographical region, to which the
European countries belong, at the time of the establishment of present state boundaries.
In a more general sense, the claim to historical ancestry is fundamentally flawed
at its core, and is merely dependent upon how far back ancestry claims are made.
Anthropologically, no group of people is native to the European continent. Based on the
advanced DNA analysis and extensive research of the National Geographic’s latest
Genographic Project, experts have concluded that:
“Our species is an African one: Africa is where we first evolved, and where
we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fossils of
recognizably modern Homo sapiensappear in the fossil record at Omo
Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may
be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and
approximately where we originated” (Wells).
Correspondingly, outside of the African continent, all peoples of the world were at one
point in history nomads and immigrants. How far must indigeneity trace back? One

7. Kostadinova 7
7
thousand years? Ten thousand years? The beginning of humanity? This argument is
ultimately unproductive, and the main question becomes who gets to determine and trace
back indigenous origin? These questions ultimately have no answers, and will continue to
be debated even if provisions to indigenous rights doctrines are made. The only pertinent
question is how society must go about alleviating widespread poverty, human rights
violations, and oppression of innocent and marginalized peoples. Furthermore, the debate
of origin undermines the protection of marginalized groups within Africa, like the Tuareg
people, whose unique situation demands more adequate protection of human rights, as
this paper will discuss.
Although the Roma have led nomadic livelihoods since their arrival in Europe and
do not claim any territorial homeland, they have retained their original social, economic
and political institutions. Their nomadic lifestyle, due in part to the Romani’s constant
marginalization and expulsion from mainstream society, is very similar to that of the
Native American tribes, who are indigenous to North American, and who are protected
under UNDRIP and C169.
III. Nomadic Peoples: The Santee Dakota and the Romani
One such nomadic tribe of North America is the Santee Dakota. The Santee are
one of the three groups that comprise the Sioux Native American people of the Plains
region. The Santee Dakota, or Eastern Ally, originally resided in the far eastern territories
of present day North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and northern Iowa (Minnesota
Historical Society). Unlike the Roma, the Santee are indigenous to the North American
continent in the sense that they preceded their European conquerors. The first contact
that the Santee had with European conquistadors was in the mid-1600s. Before the 17th

8. Kostadinova 8
8
century, the Santee lived relatively undisturbed nomadic lifestyles in the Plains. The
tribes “moved their villages and varied their work according to the seasons” (Minnesota
Historical Society). Like many other Plains tribes, the Santee raised crops, hunted
buffalo, and traded with other native peoples. Similar to the way the Roma traveled in
caravans as merchants, musicians and traders across Europe, the Santee lived in tipis and
followed the seasonal grazing and migration of the buffalo across the Plains region.
The Santee Dakota people have unique cultural ties with the buffalo of the Plains
region as they consider the animal to be sacred. The tribe’s heavy reliance on the buffalo
for survival, and the animal’s spiritual value amongst the tribe, provided an inherent link
between the Santee people and the Plains region where the buffalo roamed; threatening
the buffalo or the Plains in turn threatened the tribe’s existence. Although the Roma did
not rely on the land for survival in the same way as the Santee tribe, both peoples have
been uprooted from their homes, and experienced repeated marginalization over the
years. Is it justifiable to violate inherent human rights just because a group of people does
not have ancestral territorial claims? In addition to their nomadic existences, the Romani
and the Santee have led vastly different lives from mainstream society; they speak
different languages, have distinct cultural traditions and separate political and economic
structures, that qualify, at least one of the groups, as indigenous.
The Santee and Romani cultures both derive from oral traditions, and thus do not
have conventional written histories. The Romani speak various dialects that can be traced
back to Sanskrit, and have a rich story telling tradition. Many Romani became
fortunetellers, a profession which Christians throughout Europe deemed heretical. Santee,
on the other hand, is one of the two Eastern Dakota dialects of the Sioux people; the other

9. Kostadinova 9
9
is Sisseton. The Roma people also have a similar political structure to many Native
American tribes. As a nomadic people, the Roma travel in bands called kumpanias. Each
band elects a chieftain, or a voivode, who serves for life. The voivodes receive advice
from a council of elders as well as from the phuri dai, a senior woman who oversees the
welfare of the women and children in the kumpania (Kiger, June 2012). The voivode’s
heirs do not necessarily inherit titles, and the power of the chieftain varies from band to
band. The Romani spiritual beliefs also diverge from mainstream culture; they do not
embrace an organized religion like Christianity or Islam. Instead, Romani spiritualism is
influenced by the mysticism of ancient Vedic culture (Kiger, June 2012). Dakota
spirituality is centered on the belief of the unity and oneness of the world; a single
universal force called the ‘wakan,’ or the Great Mystery, animates everything (Minnesota
Historical Society). To recall Article 1(b) of C169, the Convention applies to “tribal
peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions
distinguish them from other sections of the national community.” The Romani people
embody this description just as well as the Santee tribes, and yet, the Romani are still
considered a subaltern minority.
This cultural and political distinctiveness is not only essential to the notion of
identity, but it is also critical to the idea of recognition. Political philosopher, James
Tully, has written extensively on the relationship between culture and politics, and how
the former is “an irreducible and constitutive” component of the latter (Tully, 6). Both
politics and culture are intimately tied within language and it is impossible to disassociate
one from the other without deconstructing the structure of language itself. Groups that
seek autonomy or recognition from the international community, such as the Santee and

10. Kostadinova 10
10
the Romani, do so because their own political structures and legislative institutions differ
vastly from those of mainstream society. Moreover, the contemporary constitutional
structure is rooted in a language and culture that is unlike their own. The Romani people
are not simply an ethnic minority; their cultural, religious, and political organization
makes them stand outside of their European context. The failure to recognize these
differences infringes upon their innate human rights, as well as their ability to claim
rights as a distinct and marginalized group. Yet, political and cultural misrecognition is
not the only injustice that the Romani and Santee have suffered over the years.
IV. A History of Violence and Marginalization
During the 19th century, there were U.S. government initiatives at the federal and
local level to starve the Plains population by killing off their main food source (Records,
1995). The near extinction of the bison by the mid-1800s was welcomed by the
government as it made room for cattle ranching and forced the Native populations onto
reservations (Moulton, 1995). The Roma, like their indigenous counterparts, also
experienced forced marginalization planned by the government. European laws against
the Romani people date back to the early 1400s, when cities such as Lucerne in
Switzerland and Freiburg in Germany began systematically removing them (Suddath,
2010). In the Balkans, laws were passed barring Romani from marrying spouses from
other groups, and many Romani were seized and forced into slavery, a practice that
persisted for five hundred years into the mid-1800s (Kiger, 2012). These actions were in
direct violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Right, Articles 4 and 16,
which stipulate, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade
shall be prohibited in all their forms,” and “Men and women of full age, without any

11. Kostadinova 11
11
limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
family.”
In addition to overt discrimination and the violation of their human rights, the
native Santee and the Romani have suffered centuries of brutal genocide. As the
Europeans invaded the new frontier in search of gold, land, and opportunity they
destroyed acres of wildlife and slaughtered thousands of buffalo, leaving the native Plains
populations to starve to death. Moreover, the Europeans brought with them diseases, such
as smallpox and measles, which are know to have killed approximately 90 percent of the
Native American population (PBS). The Romani genocide was even more ruthless in
Europe. The ethnic purging during WWII killed an estimated two million Romani, with
500,000 sent to Nazi concentration camps, alongside Jews, homosexuals, and other
minorities (Kiger, 2012). What’s perhaps more devastating is that this kind of ethnic
purging still exists today. In recent years, many European governments have expelled
thousands of Roma from their borders, forcing them into miserable settlements, and
dispersing them into other Eastern states. Most notably in 2010, French president,
Nicolas Sarkozy, planned a national deportation of 10,000 Roma out of France and into
Romania and Bulgaria. Even if the Romani people wanted to claim a more sedentary
lifestyle, their constant expulsion from state borders has not allowed them the opportunity
to do so. They are perpetual stateless refugees, with no concrete legislation to offer them
asylum.
As previously established the treatment of the Romani not only violates the
indigenous rights declarations, but it also defies human rights doctrine that should be
applicable to all people, regardless of indigenous origin. The most recent expulsion of the

12. Kostadinova 12
12
Roma undermines UNDRIP Articles 1, 6, and 10, and violates the UN Universal
Deceleration of Human Rights Articles 7, 9, 12, and 15. Article 9 explicitly states, “No
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.” Article 15 declares that
“Everyone has the right to a nationality” and that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his nationality…” Currently, the Romani people are not adequately protected under any
human rights standards. International declarations like UNDRIP and C169 were designed
specifically to protect and preserve the rights of vulnerable peoples around the world who
do not have equal political or economic influence in society, who are culturally distinct
from mainstream society, and who have a history of repeated human rights violations.
The Romani people qualify in each of these categories, but the international community
has yet to grant them indigenous immunity, and has yet to officially recognize the Roma
as more than just an ethnic minority.
V. The Limits to and Exceptions of International Indigenous Rights Doctrines
There are many weaknesses within the indigenous rights doctrines, but one
particular criticism of UNDRIP falls upon the moral foundations of certain Indigenous
Rights claims. In his essay, ‘UNDRIP and the Limits of the International Legal Project in
the Indigenous Context,’ Stephen Allen also questions the ethical implications of
Indigenous rights claims, namely claims to land and self-determination under Articles 3
and 26 of UNDRIP. Allen argues that while these claims, “are legitimate means through
which indigenous peoples can exercise their substantive rights” and “while they might be
grounded in the rhetoric of equality, they are privileged rights claims when compared
with the entitlements held and advanced by other sub-State societal groups” (Allen, 14).
As this paper has set out to demonstrate, the Romani represent a marginalized and

13. Kostadinova 13
13
oppressed sub-State group that remains exempt from the entitlements held by many other
indigenous groups who have the same grievances. UNDRIP may be a universal
declaration, but the implications certainly vary between groups and regions of the world.
In Africa, indigenous identification and land claims are even more complex due to
Africa’s distinct historical context, social and cultural development, and political
organization. The unique case of Africa’s indigenous peoples provides a useful lens
through which to interpret the case of the Romani people in Europe and apply a similar
historical trajectory. In his article, ‘Becoming Indigenous Peoples,’ Jim Igoe describes
how the global indigenous peoples’ movement has come to be defined as a movement of
“culturally distinct nonwestern societies,” societies characterized by “their historical
resistance to colonialism, state formation, and global capitalism” (Igoe, 402).
Both the Romani and many African subnational tribes experience similar
complications with territorial claims due to their non-colonial historical contexts. Like the
Roma, many of the African tribes were not subject to the same colonization as the Native
American tribes. Consequentially, the Romani arguably do not have indigenous land
claims on account of their migration from India. There is a similar argument in Africa,
which stipulates that indigeneity is not determined by geographic land claims because it
is very difficult to determine which groups are original to a certain region. The argument
that ‘all Africans are indigenous to the continent,’ and thus no one group can have special
land claims based on indigeneity is fundamentally true; however, it does not account for
the existence of small, marginalized ethnic groups within Africa with distinct cultural
practices who seek to preserve their traditional ways of life in the face of sweeping
globalization and capitalist economics. Moreover, colonization and oppression is not

14. Kostadinova 14
14
limited to the efforts of European expansion. Dominant groups in Africa have repressed
marginalized groups for centuries.
VI. The Blue People of the Desert
The Tuareg people represent one such marginalized ethnic group in Africa. They
are semi-nomadic, pastoralist people of Berber ancestry who reside in the Saharan region
of North-Western Africa in present day Algeria, Libya, Mali, and Niger (Tuareg People).
They have a population between 1 and 1.5 million and are nominally Muslim. Like the
Roma their primary means of livelihood is through trading, but they also engage in
agriculture. The Tuareg people once controlled the caravan trade routes across the
Sahara, and are known for breeding and trading livestock, namely camels. The Tuareg
people speak Tamasheq and write using a script called Tifinar, which is rooted in ancient
Libyan (Tuareg People). They are referred to as the ‘Blue People of the Sahara’ because
of the unique indigo turbans worn by Tuareg men. Like both the Santee and the Romani,
the Tuareg tribes have retained distinct cultural, linguistic, and political traditions, which
set them apart from surrounding populations in Africa. Similar to the violent past of the
Romani and Santee, the Tuareg peoples have also experienced decades of marginalization
and oppression from governments, resulting in perpetual political tensions. Government
enforced projects, namely uranium mining, have forced the Tuareg out of their territories
and into isolated regions. Droughts, exacerbated by climate change effects, also
contribute to marginalization, as arable land for livestock and crops continues to
diminish. Political tensions have resulted in violent conflicts including the rebellion to
French colonialism in 1916 and 1917, their reaction to the Mali government land reforms
infringing upon traditional Tuareg areas between 1961 and 1964, and the most recent

15. Kostadinova 15
15
struggle in 2007 over the unequal distribution of mineral wealth (Laszlo). While the
Tuareg people adopted UNDRIP in 2007, they still experience marginalization and
oppression from African governments, many of which do not fully recognize the claims
in the declaration.
VII. Contradictions of Self Determination
In 2012 the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) declared
independence in Mali, making a public statement on its website (BBC). According to the
BBC article, “the MNLA is one of two rebel groups to have gained ground in the area
after Mali's government was ousted in a coup.” The group partly consists of well-armed
Tuareg fighters from Libya along with other Islamist rebels. The African Union, as well
as former colonial power France and the European Union, refuse to recognize Azawad’s
independence, and have condemned the declaration as "null and void" (BBC). The online
declaration made specific references to international doctrines such as the UN Charter
and UNDRIP. The following is a translation of the original delectation:
“We, the people of Azawad…Recalling the principles of international law
and the main international legal instruments governing the right of people
to self-determination, including the UN Charter 1 and 55, the relevant
provisions of the International Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples…Declare recognition of existing borders with neighboring
states…The commitment of MNLA to create conditions for sustainable
peace, to initiate the institutional foundations of the state based on a
democratic constitution for independent Azawd” (Independence of
Azawad, 2012).
The declaration was well articulated, and was founded upon valid international doctrine.
The cry for independence was, in part, a response to repeated government neglect and
marginalization of the Tuareg and other tribal groups. Despite the valid justification of
such a declaration, the most disconcerting element of the independence movement was

16. Kostadinova 16
16
the ANLA’s association with known terrorist groups. “The UN has voiced alarm at the
presence of Ansar Dine, which has links to an al-Qaeda franchise which operates in the
region” (BBC). Self-determination becomes a slippery slope with the threat of terrorism
and military power, so it is reasonable for the EU and the Mali government to deny the
ANLW declaration upon claims of self-determination. However, this conflict only reveals
the deeper problems that plague the region, and unfortunately, the European nations are
blind to the root causes of such political conflicts.
The BBC article conveys that the Western powers are more preoccupied with
stopping the Islamist threat in the region than they are with the Tuareg issue, “which is
considered a political internal problem.” While eliminating terrorist threats should be a
top priority, the Western states are wrong to assume that “political internal problems” are
localized issues. On the contrary, this conflict in Mali is a small manifestation of the
global effects internal problems can have if left unaddressed. The Tuareg and other
marginalized people will turn to terrorist and other rebel groups if the government and
international bodies continue to neglect their needs and deny them their rights as
indigenous peoples. Instead of immediately looking to exterminate rebel activity amongst
tribes through military force, it is important to consider the reasons why the tribes seek
autonomy. As marginalized group, the Tuareg have experienced decades of oppression
and neglect. In order to survive and preserve their culture and way of life, the Tuareg
have sought independence as granted to them in the Indigenous Rights doctrines. If the
government shows willingness to cooperate, support, and assist its own people, then
perhaps violent conflict and terrorist threats can be mitigated in the future.

17. Kostadinova 17
17
The argument that minority groups pose too much threat to national security and
thus should not be considered for indigenous rights is flawed and problematic. By
denying oppressed groups rights and resources, governments are only exacerbating
tensions and instigating future conflicts. Moreover, the conflict in Mali reveals another
inherent contradiction to the indigenous rights doctrines. While indigenous groups can
claim self-determination under Article 3 of UNDRIP, is this claim actually feasible? Do
governments and international governing bodies endorse this claim in its fullest meaning?
If by virtue of that right indigenous peoples can “freely determine their political status
and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” then why were the
Tuareg tribes not granted independence under the MNLA declaration? UN expert Erica-
Irene Daes offers some insight into this contradiction.
“In trying to diminish state opposition to indigenous claims to self-
determination, [Daes] states that ‘in view of their small size, limited
resources and vulnerability,’ it is ‘not realistic to fear indigenous peoples’
exercise of the right to self-determination.’ The clear if unintended
implication is that it would be realistic to fear the exercise of self-
determination by groups that are not small, or that have sufficient
resources (or allies) to credibly challenge state power” (Kymlicka, 2011)
Perhaps it is better to amend the self-determination claim, and clarify the scope of
the clause, instead of to hope for the unattainable realization of such a right for
most vulnerable indigenous groups. As the case of the Tuareg tribe illustrates, any
marginalized subaltern group, regardless of size or indigenous status, can present
a geopolitical threat, if oppressed and neglected long enough. Thus, it is not a
matter of restricting autonomy and self-determination out of fear, but a question
of how to establish peaceful diplomatic sanctions that provide a level playing field
for all indigenous, non-indigenous, and state stakeholders.

18. Kostadinova 18
18
VIII. Failed Initiatives and Future Reparations
As Professor Kymlicka elaborates in his essay ‘Beyond the Indigenous/Minority
Dichotomy,’ opening the gates for minority groups to claim indigenous rights may
undermine the progress and achievements of the indigenous rights doctrines, and may
also threaten the protection of vulnerable indigenous groups who do have original land
claims, such as the Santee Dakota. However, the solution to the existing shortcomings of
the doctrines is not to ignore subnational and subaltern minorities altogether. Negligence
is perhaps even worse than oppression, as the case of the Tuareg people demonstrates.
Though in recent years, many European governments have expressed increasing
concern about the ‘Roma question’ and have engaged in an international dialogue about
the fate of this ethnic minority. Just last month, President of the European Commission
Jose Manuel Barroso spoke at the European Roma Summit held in Brussels, Belgium. He
emphasized that “a society is only strong when it takes care of its weakest members,” and
expressed the EC’s commitment to ensuring that more European funds go towards
fighting poverty in socially excluded groups such as the Roma (Sofia News Agency,
2014). The EC will allocate EUR 80B for human capital, employment, and social
inclusion, financed through the European Social Fund (Sofia News Agency, 2014). While
these much-needed efforts are certainly admirable and will help alleviate some poverty,
Roma integration and social inclusion projects are not going to solve the larger
challenges facing the Roma community. Poverty and discrimination are deeply rooted in
the Roma’s inability to act as a political entity in their own right. The marginal role that
the Romani play in their own political and economic matters leads to the violation of
their rights, and their oppression from other European states.

19. Kostadinova 19
19
Furthermore, integration and inclusion initiatives are mildly reminiscent of the
oppressive assimilation projects during the Soviet era when the Romani were stripped of
their culture and forced to assimilate into European nation states. Nomadism was
outlawed in Czechoslovakia in 1958 and in Poland in 1964, and drastic measures were
sometimes taken, such as shooting horses, removing wheels from caravans, and
prohibiting gatherings (Silverman, 1995). In other countries, governments forced Roma
people to resettle and disperse by tearing down their villages and assigning state housing.
In Bulgaria, the socialist government denied the existence of Roma while it
simultaneously implemented assimilationist policies. As early as the 1960s, the
government forced Roma with Muslim names to change their names to Slavic ones, as
part of the national "Bulgarization" process (Silverman, 1995). From the early 1970s, all
music specifically identified as Roma or in the Romani language was prohibited from
media and public performance.
Czechoslovakia enforced the most drastic measures to curb Roma population
growth by lowering the birth rate. Beginning in the early 1970s, government social
workers encouraged Roma women to have government-paid sterilization by offering
them monetary bonuses during economic crises (Silverman, 1995). Sadly, some women
were sterilized without their consent after undergoing cesarean sections or abortions.
There is a fine line between integration and assimilation, and in some cases the line
dissolves altogether. Arguably, while the integration of Roma may have alleviated
pockets of poverty throughout Europe, this came at a cost of destroying the Romani
culture, livelihood, and identity. The European Commission and other international and
national bodies must not make the same mistaken in thinking that integration and social

20. Kostadinova 20
20
inclusion will solve the problem and mitigate discrimination, marginalization, and other
human rights violations.
IX. Alternative Solutions in a Changing World
The political transformations of our globalized society call for a reevaluation of
the status of marginalized groups. According to Morag Goodwin, a professor in
International Law at Tilberg University, as a result of these global political changes, “an
increasing number of identity-based groups are staking claim to political recognition. In
the play of flux and uncertainty is arguably room for a reassessment of the way in which
we recognize and deal with group-based difference” (Goodwin, 2004). The unique case
of the Romani calls for unconventional problem-solving strategies.
The Romani claim to non-territorial nation status in 2000 presents a unique
alternative to the way subaltern groups have traditionally been treated. This alternative
claim to non-territorial nationhood is based upon the notion of national-cultural
autonomy. As Goodwin describes, this model was first adopted by the Jewish Workers
Union to provide a “socialist response to the attempted assimilation and repression of
Jews within the Russian territories,” and was later used to resolve national problems
within the Austro-Hungarian empire (Goodwin, 2004). The Romani claim to non-
territorial nation status further seeks recognition of Roma as equal to other nations on the
international level.
Their assertion is rather delayed in comparison to other subaltern groups who
have made the same claims based upon the doctrine of self-determination. It is unclear as
to why the Roma have not sought self-determination previously, but as Goodwin
hypothesizes, perhaps it is “the failure of individual and minority rights to deliver that has

21. Kostadinova 21
21
nonetheless witnessed widespread agreement in recent years among the Romani
leadership on the need to stake a claim to self-determination” (Goodwin, 2004). Now,
whether or not the Romani can actual realize their claim to self-determination is
dependent upon the intentions of the international rights doctrines. While they have never
showed rebel antagonism or cooperated with other rebel groups, if the Romani continue
to be persecuted and marginalized, European governments may run the risk of
radicalizing the Roma population and creating a conflict similar to that in Mali. It is
better to acknowledge and mitigate their grievances now, than to ostracize the Romani
and allow them the opportunity to respond in more aggressive ways.
X. Conclusion
While the international working groups have made significant progress in the
realm of human and indigenous rights through the creation of such declarations as
UNDRIP and C169, the documents are by no means comprehensive or all-inclusive. In
theory the documents present efficient principles for the protection of indigenous rights,
but putting the regulations into practice presents additional challenges. The main obstacle
lies in the implementation and enforcement of the regulations outlined in the declarations.
With no international or even national police force ensuring the proper realization of the
regulations, it is unlikely that governments will adhere to each and every article
disclosed. The consequences to potential violations are rather limited and mild, ranging
from diplomatic shaming in international conferences, regional human rights courts,
which also lack police enforcement, and social advocacy through documentaries and
social justice initiatives. The accountability falls mainly on the individual government’s
judgments and regard for ethical imperatives.

22. Kostadinova 22
22
The declarations also have significant room for improvement in addressing the
claims and rights of ethnic subaltern groups who fall in the gray areas of international
law, such as the Romani. In order to prevent these vulnerable groups from suffering
unjustly from the shortcomings of political doctrines, the international community must
reevaluate, and perhaps renew the protection of minority rights. On the other hand, if the
UN does not grant the Romani and other untraditional subaltern groups protection under
UNDRIP and C169, then international bodies must come up with more innovative and
inclusive legislation that reflects the changing multicultural political paradigm, and
recognizes the growing need to protect marginalized people without a voice in today’s
society.

23. Kostadinova 23
23
Works Cited
Allen, Stephen. ‘The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Limits
of the International Legal Project in the Indigenous Context.’ Reflections on the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ed. Stephen Allen et al. Portland: Hart
Publishing Ltd., 2011. 1-24.
BBC. ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north.’ BBC News. April 6, 2012.
Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17635437.
Cohen, Anthony P. ‘Culture As Identity: An Anthropologist’s View.’ New Literary
History. 24:1. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Crowe, David. A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St.
Amrtin’s Press, 1995.
Goodwin, Morag. ‘The Romani Claim to Non-Territorial Nation Status: Recognition
from an International Legal Perspective.’ European Roma Rights Centre. May 27, 2004.
Retrieved from: http://www.errc.org/article/the-romani-claim-to-non-territorial-nation-
status-recognition-from-an-international-legal-perspective/1849.
Igoe, Jim. ‘Becoming Indigenous Peoples: Difference, Inequality, and the Globalization
of East African Identity Politics.’ African Affairs. Oxford University Press, 2006. 399-
420.
Kiger, Patrick J. ‘Romani Culture and Traditions.’ National Geographic. June 26, 2012.
Retrieved from: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/american-
gypsies/articles/romani-culture-and-traditions/.
Kiger, Patrick J. ‘ A History of the Romani People.’ National Geographic. August 1,
2012. Retrieved from: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/american-
gypsies/articles/a-history-of-the-romani-people/.

24. Kostadinova 24
24
Kymlicka, Will. ‘Beyond the Indigenous/Minority Dichotomy.’ Reflections on the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ed. Stephen Allen et al. Portland: Hart
Publishing Ltd., 2011. 183-208.
Laszlo, Damon de. ‘The Nomadic Inhabitants of North Africa.’ Bradshaw Foundation.
Retrieved from: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/tuareg/
Lewy, Guenter. ‘The Travail of the Gypsies.’ National Interest. 1999. Retrieved from:
http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-travail-of-the-gypsies-808
Minnesota Historical Society. ‘The Dakota People.’ Historic Fort Snelling. Retrieved
from: http://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/american-indians/dakota-people.
Moulton, M. ‘Wildlife Issues in a Changing World.’ 2nd edition. CRC Press, 1995.
Records, Laban. ‘Cherokee Outlet Cowboy: Recollections of Laban S. Records.’
Norman, Oklahoma: University Press, 1995.
Sofia News Agency. ‘Bulgaria Among Positive Examples for Roma Inclusion-EC
President.’ Novinite.com. April 4, 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=159545
Wells, Spencer. ‘The Human Journey: Migration Routes.’ National Geographic Society.
Retrieved from: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/.
PBS. ‘ Variables: The Story of…Smallpox—and Other Deadly Eurasian Germs.’ PBS.
Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html.
Silverman, Carol. ‘Persecution and Politicization: Roma (Gypsies) of Eastern Europe.’
Cultural Survival. 19.2, 1995. Retrieved from:
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-
quarterly/albania/persecution-and-politicization-roma-gypsies-eastern

25. Kostadinova 25
25
Suddath, Claire. ‘Who Are the Gypsies, and why is France Deporting Them?’ Time.
August 26, 2010. Retrieved from:
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2013917,00.html
‘Tuareg People: Africa’s Blue People of the Desert.’ Exposing Black Truth. April 27,
2014. Retrieved from: http://www.exposingblacktruth.org/tuareg-people-africas-blue-
people-of-the-desert/.
Tully, J. Strange Multiplicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 6-17.
World Bank. ‘Europe and Central Asia: Roma.’ World Bank. February 24 2014.
Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/brief/roma