Bonn-Copenhagen declarations

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German postage stamp from 1985 for the 30th anniversary of the declarations
German postage stamp from 2005 for the 50th anniversary

The Bonn-Copenhagen Declarations are two separate government declarations by Germany and Denmark , which in 1955 recognized the minority in the respective state, i. H. of the Danish minority in Germany and the German minority in Denmark . The declarations do not grant the minorities any special rights; However, it confirms the free commitment to the respective nationality and the equal treatment of all citizens.

These are two unilateral, similar government statements . Although the declarations are not binding under international law, their content, which is more of a recommendation, was implemented quickly.

The Bonn-Copenhagen model emphasizes that the minorities are equal citizens in the hostel state and that minority issues are internal affairs. By renouncing a bilateral treaty, the aim was to prevent possible interference in the affairs of the neighboring country, which could endanger stability in a future situation.

Content of the declarations

The declarations consist of two documents:

  • On March 28, 1955, negotiations concluded the German-Danish paper . Here, the two delegations inform each other that the schools of the respective minorities on both sides of the border are to receive exam rights, and the German delegation also states that the Schleswig-Holstein government will exempt the Danish minority party from the threshold clause .
  • On March 29, 1955, the actual declarations were published and confirmed by the German Bundestag and the Danish parliament, the Folketing . This declaration contains a solemn confirmation of basic rights, some of which - unless they explicitly refer to nationality - are already laid down in the Basic Law.

background

The division of the former Duchy of Schleswig between Germany and Denmark in 1920 resulted in minorities on both sides of the German-Danish border. This led to national tensions until 1955.

In 1949 the Kiel Declaration was passed by the Schleswig-Holstein state government. This confirmed the basic rights of the Danish and Frisian minorities, but hardly led to any changes in everyday life. Many politicians and, in some cases, the government itself did not respect the principle of free association with ethnic groups. In addition, the Danish minority had to continue their school and cultural work with little public funding; the Germans in northern Schleswig were still completely dependent on themselves. In the end, the Kiel government had also hoped to receive a similar declaration from Denmark in favor of the Germans in North Schleswig .

As part of the Federal Republic of Germany's accession negotiations to NATO , both states were positively motivated to normalize cooperation. The question of a permanent solution to the problems in the border region was initially brought up discreetly, and separate negotiations took place in Copenhagen and Bonn in February and March 1955 .

The federal government had originally hoped for a bilateral treaty with the same obligations north and south of the border. One would also have wanted to demand a declaration of loyalty from the Danish southern Schleswig-Holstein, as the German northern Schleswig-Holstein had formulated on November 22, 1945. After the Schleswig-Holstein state government did not conform to the ideas of the federal government, it was decoupled from the process and the federal government took over sole lead responsibility on the German side.

criticism

The model has often been highlighted as a model for the peaceful solution of minority problems. However, this solution presupposes an equilibrium mutual situation with minorities on both sides of a border. It would be less applicable to sovereignty and border conflicts. The partners must be benevolent and democratic states.

Today it is emphasized that the declarations are now in themselves insufficient and are being superseded by other instruments such as the Council of Europe's more extensive framework convention for the protection of national minorities .

Since the declarations only confirm the general equality of the citizens of a state, an asymmetry with regard to factual rights cannot be ruled out: German schools in Denmark are subject to the same favorable rules as other independent schools , according to which today a fixed rate of 81% of the state's costs is covered; In addition, there is a subsidy to cover double mother tongue teaching (since it is not only reserved for immigrants or foreigners), so that schooling is practically free - in Schleswig-Holstein, on the other hand, the amount of the subsidy is decided anew from year to year, which is always done provides savings measures and uncertainty. Nevertheless, the minorities on both sides of the border are dependent on considerable subsidies from the other side of the border. Finally, when it comes to political privileges, the exception to the threshold clause can only be found south of the border (see below).

Exception to the 5% hurdle

Before the state elections in Schleswig-Holstein in 1950 , the previous basic mandate clause was supplemented by a five percent threshold. In the election on July 9, 1950, the Südschleswigsche Voters' Association (SSW) won two constituencies and achieved a share of the vote of 5.48%, so that it entered the state parliament with four seats.

In 1951, the Schleswig-Holstein state parliament raised the threshold to 7.5% on the initiative of the CDU Prime Minister Friedrich Wilhelm Lübke . This was a reaction to the ongoing latent discrimination against the German minority north of the border, in particular to the open question regarding the expropriations that took place after 1945, to the ban on secondary schools for the minority in the first post-war years and to the lack of recognition of qualifications since then the schools of the German minority. The demands of many new and old Danes for a border revision and that the country be "freed from the refugees as soon as possible", which goes hand in hand with the extreme increase in the number of votes for the SSW, also played a role. Slogans “against the threat of foreign infiltration and forbearance ” of the homeland and the danger for the “Nordic population” of being “biologically wiped out” by “elements ... from European trouble spots” ran like a red thread through the campaigns in the post-war years. Thus, the increase in the threshold clause was one of the measures of the policy of small pinpricks and was done explicitly to exclude the SSW from the state parliament. In the following year - and before the first application in a state election - the 7.5% clause was declared unconstitutional and void by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 1, 208).

In the state elections in 1954 , the SSW no longer won a direct mandate and failed with 3.5% (42,242 votes) at the five percent threshold, thus failing to make it into the state parliament - although the SSW share of the votes regionally in the Schleswig region was almost 20%.

Already in 1953 was defined in the federal election law that political parties of national minorities are exempt from the minimum threshold (now § 6 para. 3 BWahlG ). A similar provision, explicitly applicable to the Danish minority party, was then included in the Schleswig-Holstein state election law in the course of the Bonn-Copenhagen declarations.

The exception to the threshold clause was communicated in the informally designed “German-Danish paper”, and it is precisely this point that does not appear in a Danish counterpart. The Danish electoral law ensured that the German SP in North Schleswig could achieve a mandate in the Folketing relatively easily . However, this existing fact was not mentioned in the German-Danish paper, only the measures associated with legislative changes.

The 2% hurdle introduced in Denmark in 1960 no longer has any practical significance for the German minority, on the one hand, because the threshold clause is only intended for national mandates, and on the other hand, because there are no longer enough votes for a district mandate (kredsmandat) can only be achieved by the electorate of the minority. At the state level, around 14,000 votes would be required for a mandate in the new regional council, which means that political representation at the regional level is no longer possible. In comparison, the SSW has to achieve around 25,000 votes for a mandate in the Schleswig-Holstein state parliament.

In local elections there are rules that are not based on the Bonn-Copenhagen declarations. With the territorial reform that came into force in 2007, Denmark finally decreed a decree that de facto no longer enables the German minority to be politically represented within this new region of Southern Denmark , but at least allows them to be represented without powers through special regulations.

Discussion from 2005

The 50th anniversary of the declarations was celebrated on March 29, 2005 in Sønderborg and Flensburg . The celebration took place in the shadow of the debacle over the formation of a coalition after the state elections in Schleswig-Holstein. The former SSW member of the state parliament Karl Otto Meyer declined to attend because the CDU member of the Bundestag Wolfgang Börnsen was present, who had questioned the full value of the state parliament mandates of the SSW in the course of the controversial participation of the SSW in the formation of the government in Kiel.

The heated discussion after the state elections in 2005 had triggered a discussion to what extent the SSW could still be considered a party of the Danish minority today, after it had meanwhile obtained half of its votes from the Holstein region and was active in forming the government, but still the privilege as a result of the Claim to represent the Danish minority. This discussion was again interpreted by the SSW as a dispute over the issues of “citizens with equal rights” and “free commitment to the ethnic group”. All official bodies on the German and Danish sides, however, agreed that this was not about questioning these fundamental rights.

After the state elections in 2013, some members of the Junge Union filed an election review complaint about the exception of the SSW from the 5 percent threshold. The Schleswig-Holstein State Constitutional Court ruled that the SSW, as a minority party, represents the interests of the minority representation and that the SSW's liberation and participation in the government are therefore lawful.

swell

  1. ^ Letter from Danish lobbyists to the British occupation authorities ( Memento from January 4, 2015 in the web archive archive.today )
  2. ↑ Wolfgang Börnsen: There was never any talk of a general political mandate . In: Flensburger Tageblatt, March 30, 2005
  3. ↑ Archive link ( Memento from September 17, 2013 in the Internet Archive )

literature

  • Jørgen Kühl / Robert Bohn (eds.): A European model? National minorities in the German-Danish border region 1945-2005 , Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, Bielefeld 2005 (IZRG series of publications, volume 11), ISBN 3-89534-541-5 .
  • Jørgen Kühl (Ed.): Minority policy in action. The Bonn-Copenhagen declarations in a European context 1955-2005 , European Center for Minority Issues, Flensburg 2005, ISBN 87-90163-55-9 .
  • Wilfried Lagler: The minority policy of the Schleswig-Holstein state government during the cabinet v. Hassel (1954-1963). A contribution to the integration of national minorities , Wachholtz, Neumünster 1982 (sources and research on the history of Schleswig-Holstein, volume 78), ISBN 3-529-02178-4 .

Web links