Comparative Linguistic Research

Comparative Linguistic Research

Examining the Government's Obligation to Provide Education in the Mother Tongue with Emphasis on the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Parham Mehraram
Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
10.22084/rjhll.2025.31670.2409
Abstract
Introduction
Linguistic rights are among the most controversial human rights. This category of rights, which falls under cultural rights, was recognized in international instruments with significant delay. Some of these rights are essential for individual development and, ultimately, for the cultural growth of the entire national or human community, and they are closely linked to more fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, the prohibition of discrimination, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to assembly and association. Others are necessary for the survival of minority groups within society. Acceptance of the first group is generally unquestioned; however, recognition of much of the second group has been subject to debate, depending on the political and philosophical perspectives of individuals and parties—for instance, the extent to which a group is considered a rights holder. From this perspective, it is still not possible to categorically call them "rights."
As mentioned, today many language-related demands have been established as rights within the framework of international human rights law. However, education in the mother tongue falls under the second category, and its nature remains contested. This article seeks to address the question of whether states have a positive obligation to provide education in the mother tongue by examining international instruments. In this context, the study also considers the jurisprudence of international courts—especially the European Court of Human Rights—as well as national court practices and policies.
It is worth noting that in Iran, the claim for education in the mother tongue has been raised as a human rights claim for several decades. A legal analysis and a scientific, logical approach to these claims can help in finding reasonable solutions. Otherwise, difficulties may arise: democracy, social coexistence, national stability and security, and minority rights would all be at risk. Given the rhetorical and emotionally charged atmosphere of the Iranian academic community, there is a lack of research that rigorously and impartially examines international and domestic legal instruments, the jurisprudence of national and international courts, and the practical policies of democratic countries based on human rights. This article aims to fill this gap.

Review of Literature
Previous efforts have been made in this field. Among them is the article “The Right to Mother Language and Education” (2017). Unlike international documents, this article considers states to have an obligation to provide education in the mother tongue, and consequently presents a misleading picture of the status of this claim. Interestingly, the article itself contains contradictory statements; as it clearly points out, guarantees are “at best ambiguous” and “criteria for improving conditions or the precise extent of state obligations are not provided” (Rahaee & Razzaq Marandi, 2017: 103). Moreover, in its discussion of the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in the Belgium case, the article presents the Court’s view that there is no connection between mother tongue and the right to education. The article also lacks sufficient precision in analyzing concepts, such as the distinction between language rights, the right to mother tongue, and linguistic freedom. Furthermore, in its review of international documents, it does not examine their binding nature. Another article, titled “Protection of linguistic Rights in European Court of Human Rights” (2019), does not specifically address the right to education in the mother tongue provided by the state and instead deals with a more general topic. Consequently, it does not provide a detailed examination of international instruments in this area.

Methods
This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach. At the outset, it attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the international instruments related to the subject and to present their positions on the matter clearly and precisely. Then, to gain a better understanding of these instruments, the article focuses on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the positions of both the documents and the European Court of Human Rights are analyzed, and the approaches and experiences of certain countries regarding education in the mother tongue are examined.

Discussion
The demand for education in the mother-tongue is a highly contentious issue in Iran, often framed as a fundamental human right but lacking recognition in international human rights frameworks and global tribunal jurisprudence. Democratic nations adopt cautious judicial and educational policy approaches, driven not by bias but by concerns over adverse effects: erosion of individual autonomy for ethnic identity, educational segregation of children, challenges to minority integration, threats to socioeconomic advancement, and deepened linguistic-ethnic divides. The absence of clear international standards transforms this from a human rights issue into a complex political-legal debate. Effective policy-making must be context-driven, grounded in inclusive public dialogue, free from stereotypes, and attentive to all relevant factors to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes. Balanced solutions are crucial to address these challenges while promoting social cohesion.

Conclusions
When examining and discussing education in the mother tongue or any related policymaking, the following points should be considered:

Contrary to popular belief, the state does not have an inherent obligation to provide education in the mother tongue. If education in the mother tongue is to be implemented, it must be decided collectively by all members of the nation within the national legislature. Supporters of this claim must, through public debate and discourse, convince the general public of its necessity, if indeed it is necessary.
This research shows that, in general, linguistic rights—even those formally recognized—are relatively recent rights that emerged particularly from the 1960s onward. Even today, disputes over them continue in some of the most democratic countries, such as the United States and France, which, interestingly, were among the first to issue human rights instruments and declarations. Awareness of this history can persuade proponents of
mother-tongue education to proceed with patience and avoid hasty measures. It also demonstrates how unfair it can be to condemn late 19th- and early 20th-century Iranian governments and politicians for neglecting these rights, since even in countries that are now considered champions of linguistic rights, such as Belgium, the situation was entirely different at the time.
By reviewing international instruments, court jurisprudence, and the policies of democratic countries, it becomes evident that opponents of education in the mother tongue are not necessarily seeking to assimilate ethnic minorities, although some may have such intentions. A large portion of them are concerned with protecting individual freedoms from being sacrificed to ethnic identity, avoiding social fragmentation due to separate schools, ensuring minority integration into the larger society, safeguarding their future, preventing further deprivation, and reducing ethnic tensions.
Even staunch advocates of education in the mother tongue do not consider it suitable for developing countries, as segregating children can exacerbate existing crises and impose ethicized interpretations on problems that are not inherently ethnic, thereby hindering their proper resolution.
The issue of education in the mother tongue, even according to its proponents, is not necessarily the best means to achieve better coexistence among ethnic groups within a country. The primary driving force behind such demands is identity concerns rather than human rights or democratic principles.
Finally, this article does not aim to propose a specific language policy; however, a desirable policy should adhere to the following principles to ensure the legitimate interests of society are met:

a. Right to equal economic opportunities: Individuals must have proficiency in the official language, as it is essential for access to suitable employment. It must be recognized that, in practice, languages differ in their ability to provide opportunities for economic and social development.
b. Right to mobility: Every citizen has the right to live anywhere within their country. Language policies should not, as has been problematic in Belgium, effectively restrict citizens’ mobility by dividing the country into linguistic regions. It is unrealistic to expect citizens to learn the language of each region for every educational or occupational relocation.
c. Non-segregation of children: Language policy must never result in separating children. While the deliberate assimilation of minorities is objectionable from a human rights perspective, integration is not only desirable but also a state duty. Childhood is the most crucial period for raising children in a way that prevents them from perceiving other ethnic or religious groups as “others.”
d. Right to democratic participation: Every democracy requires a public sphere in which beliefs and ideas can be exchanged and debated. This necessitates a common official language, allowing individuals to express their thoughts effectively and access public media. Otherwise, society risks fragmenting into parallel groups, each with its own discourse, logic, and beliefs, incapable of understanding one another.
By upholding these principles, education in the mother tongue can be implemented within the framework of Article 15 of the Iranian Constitution. This approach simultaneously demonstrates the central government’s good faith toward non-official languages, which are all part of the country’s historical heritage, satisfies the cultural concerns of citizens, and prevents exploitation by extremist political groups. As indicated in the instruments reviewed, such an approach can, to a considerable extent, meet human rights considerations without imposing irreparable costs on individual freedoms or social cohesion.

References
- Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006). “Language Rights”, PMLA, Vol. 121, No. 5: 1618-1620.
- Balogh, Lídia H (2012). “Minority Cultural Rights or an Excuse for Segregation? Roma Minority Education”, in Report on Education Policy and Equal Education Opportunities, Edited by Daniel Pop, Open Society Foundations, pp. 207-219.
- European Court of Human Rights (2011). “Cultural rights in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”.
- Hawkey, James W.; Kasstan, Jonathan R. (2015). “Regional and Minority Languages in France: Policies of Homogenization or a Move toward Heterogeneity? A Case Study on Francoprovençal”, the French Review, Vol. 89, No. 2: 110-125.
- Mendecka, Karolina (2023). “The Right to Mother Tongue Education for Indigenous Peoples: an Overview of International and Regional Standards”, Studia Iuridica, Vol, 96: 208-230.
- Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (1999). “Report on the Linguistic Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in the OSCE Area”.
- Paz, Moria (2013). “The Failed Promise of Language Rights: A Critique of the International Language Rights Regime”, Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 54, Number 1: 158-188.
Vogl, Ulrike; Hüning, Matthias (2010). “One Nation, One Language? The Case of Belgium”, Dutch Crossing, Vol. 34 No. 3: 228-247.
Keywords
Mother-tongue Education
Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
Identity
Minority
Subjects
- رهایی، سعید؛ رزاق مرندی، زهرا (1396). «حق بر زبان مادری و آموزش»، دو فصلنامۀ بین­المللی حقوق بشر، دورۀ 12، شمارۀ 1: 95-116.
- حبیب­نژاد، سید احمد؛ دانش­ناری، زهرا (1397). «حمایت از حقوق زبانی در رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، فصلنامۀ حقوق اداری، سال ششم، شمارۀ 17: 155-179.
-  Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006). “Language Rights”, PMLA, Vol. 121, No. 5: 1618-1620.
-  Balogh, Lídia H (2012). “Minority Cultural Rights or an Excuse for Segregation? Roma Minority Education”, in Report on Education Policy and Equal Education Opportunities, Edited by Daniel Pop, Open Society Foundations, pp. 207-219.
-  Baltodano Marta P. (2005). “What Happened to the Linguistic Rights of Second Language Learners in California?”, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 175-185.
-  Del Re, Emanuela C. (2013). “Language, education and conflicts in the Balkans: policies, resolutions, prospects”, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 5, No. 3: 189-217.
-  Edwards, John R. (1980). “Critics and Criticisms of Bilingual Education”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 64, No. 4: 409-415.
-  European Court of Human Rights (2011). Cultural rights in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Availabe at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/Publication_WhitePaper_ID_en.asp
-  Garcia, Amaya (2020). “A New Era: for bilingual education in California”, The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 101, No. 5: 30-35.
-  Gilman, Denise (2011). “A “Bilingual” Approach to Language Rights: How Dialogue Between U.S. and International Human Rights Law May Improve the Language Rights Framework”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 24: 23-70.
-  Hawkey, James W; Kasstan, Jonathan R. (2015). “Regional and Minority Languages in France: Policies of Homogenization or a Move toward Heterogeneity? A Case Study on Francoprovençal”, The French Review, Vol. 89, No. 2: 110-125.
-  Lubbe, H. J (2014). “Linguistic Rights Litigation”, Alternation Journal, Vol. 11, No, 2: 118-14.
-  Mackey, William F. (1978). “The Importation of Bilingual Education Models”, in International Dimensions of Bilingual Education, edited by James E. Alatis, Georgetown University Press, Washington, pp. 1-19.
-  Mendecka, Karolina (2023). “The Right to Mother Tongue Education for Indigenous Peoples: an Overview of International and Regional Standards”, Studia Iuridica, Vol, 96: 208-230.
-  Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (1999). “Report on the Linguistic Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in the OSCE Area”. Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/6/42060.pdf
-  Paulston, Christina Bratt (1997). “Language Policies and Language Rights”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26: 73-85.
-  Paz, Moria (2013). “The Failed Promise of Language Rights: A Critique of the International Language Rights Regime”, Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 54, Number 1: 158-188.
-  Rayside, David M (1978). “The Impact of the Linguistic Cleavage on the "Governing" Parties of Belgium and Canada”, Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 11, No. 1: 61-97.
-  Schilling, Theodor (2008). “Language Rights in the European Union”, German Law Journal, Vol. 09 No. 10: 1219-1242.
-  Skorupa-Wulczyńska, Aneta (2020). “Language rights of the citizen of the European Union”, National School of Public Administration (Poland), KSAP, Warsaw.
-  Vogl, Ulrike; Hüning, Matthias (2010). “One Nation, One Language? The Case of Belgium”, Dutch Crossing, Vol. 34 No. 3: 228-247.
-  پرونده­ها
-  Belgium Linguistics Case - ‘In the case “relating to certain aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v Belgium’, no. 1474/62, 1677/62. 1691/62. 1769/63. 2126/64 (1968)
-  Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06 (2012)
-  Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF) versus the Hajdúhadház Education Authority (2008)
-  Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 25781/94 (2001)
-  Güzel Erdagöz v. Turkey, no. 37483/02, (2008)
-  In Re: The School Education Bill of 1995 (Gauteng) (4) BCLR 537 (CC) (1996)
-  Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, no. 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72 (1976)
-  Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 563 (1974)
-  Mehmet Nuri Özen and Others v. Turkey, Nos. 15672/08 (2011)
-  Mencena v. Latvia, No.71074/01 (2004)
-  Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, no. 15766/03 (2010)
-  Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99 (2002)
-  Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey, no. 34797/03 (2007)
-  Waldman v. Canada, No. 694 (1999)
-  اسناد
-  Additional protocol on the rights of minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights (1993)
-  Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)
-  Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992)
-  Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
-  European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
-  Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995)
-  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976)
-  International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990)
-  The hague recommendations rregarding the education rights of national minorities (1996)
-  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1976)
-  The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169) (1989)
-  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)