Introduction: dispersed minorities and non-territorial autonomy

The concept of non-territorial autonomy gives rise to at least two important questions: the range of functional areas over which autonomy extends, and the extent to which this autonomy is indeed non-territorial. A widely used early description significantly labelled this ‘national cultural autonomy’, implying that its focus is mainly on cultural matters, such as language, religion, education and family law. In many of the cases that are commonly cited, ‘autonomy’ may not even extend this far: its most visible expression is the existence of separate electoral registers or quotas for the various groups. Part of the dilemma lies in the difficulty of devolving substantial power on a non-territorial basis: to the extent that devolved institutions are state-like, they ideally require a defined territory. Ethnic groups, however, vary in the extent to which they are territorially concentrated, and therefore in the degree to which any autonomous arrangements for them are territorial or non-territorial. This article explores the dilemma generated by this tension between ethnic geography (pattern of ethnic settlement) and political autonomy (degree of selfrule), and introduces a set of case studies where the relationship between these two features is discussed further: the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sa´mi in Norway and the Maori in New Zealand.

Conclusion: patterns of non-territorial autonomy

This article seeks to generalise about the significance of non-territorial autonomy as a mechanism for the management of ethnic conflict on the basis of a set of case studies covering the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sami in Norway and Maori in New Zealand. It begins by assessing the extent to which the spatial distribution of ethnonational communities determined the range of autonomy options available—whether these might be territorial or whether only non-territorial autonomy would be realistic. The article continues with an assessment of the significance of ‘autonomy’ in circumstances where the institutions with which it is associated enjoy a non-territorial rather than a territorial writ. It concludes by suggesting that in almost all cases where autonomy is extended to a minority within a state this is exercised on a territorial basis, and that in many cases of non-territorial autonomy, or national–cultural autonomy, the powers assumed by the ‘autonomous’ institutions are substantially symbolic. It argues that notwithstanding the limited empirical evidence for the existence of non-territorial autonomy, this device should not be written off at a normative level.

Adolescent substance use in the context of the family: a qualitative study of young people’s views on parent-child attachments, parenting style and parental substance use

Background: Adolescent substance use can place youth at risk of a range of poor outcomes. Few studies have attempted to explore in-depth young people’s perceptions of how familial processes and dynamics influence adolescent substance use.
Objectives: This paper aimed to explore risk and protective factors for youth substance use within the context of the family with a view to informing family based interventions.
Methods: Nine focus groups supplemented with participatory techniques were facilitated with a purposive sample of sixty-two young people (age 13-17 years) from post-primary schools across Northern Ireland. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Three themes emerged from the data: 1) parent-child attachments, 2) parenting style and 3) parental and sibling substance misuse. Parent-child attachment was identified as an important factor in protecting adolescents from substance use in addition to effective parenting particularly an authoritative style supplemented with parental monitoring and strong parent-child communication to encourage child disclosure. Family substance use was considered to impact on children’s substance use if exposed at an early age and the harms associated with parental substance misuse were discussed in detail. Both parent and child gender differences were cross-cutting themes.
Conclusion: Parenting programmes (tailored to mothers and fathers) may benefit young people via components on authoritative styles, parental monitoring, communication, nurturing attachments and parent-child conflict. Youth living with more complex issues, e.g. parental substance misuse, may benefit from programmes delivered beyond the family environment e.g. school based settings.