The German word ‘Staat’ is borrowed from the Latin *status* (state, situation, position). The term ‘multi-ethnic state’ is used by historians on the one hand, and by political scientists and sociologists on the other, to describe multi-ethnic societies – often as a synonym for ‘state of nationalities’. In international usage, the terms ‘multinationalstate’ or ‘polyethnic state’ are more common, whilst terms such as ‘multi-ethnic state’ or ‘plurinational state’ (Plurinational State of Bolivia [Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia]) are less common.

English: multinational state; Spanish: estado multiétnico; French: état plurinational; Italian: stato multietnico; Hungarian: soknemzetiségű állam; Romanian: stat multietnic; Slovak: multietnický štát; Czech: multietnický stát; Croatian: multietničke države; Russian: mnogonacional’noe gosudarstvo; Polish: państwo wieloetniczne.

The term ‘multi-ethnic state’ refers to a territorially defined political entity whose citizens belong to different peoples or ethnic groups (nationalities) who are legally equal or who are at least granted a minimum degree of self-determination. As a political system, a multi-ethnic state is characterised by a multi-tiered federal structure. Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Ukraine, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and China are cited as contemporary examples of multinational states.

Historical multi-ethnic states included, for example, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary (1867–1918), Yugoslavia prior to its break-up in the 1990s, the Soviet Union (1917/22–1991) and Czechoslovakia (1918–1939/1945–1992).

The inhabitants of a multi-ethnic state form a legal community based on the criterion of citizenship. Historical multi-ethnic states were held together by this common bond and the associated ideological superstructure (such as monarchy, religion or communism).

Following the proclamation of US President Woodrow Wilson’s (1856–1924) 14-Point Programme in January 1918, some multi-ethnic states came into conflict with the right of nations to self-determination. Wilson’s plan supported the ‘autonomous development’ of the peoples of Austria-Hungary, as well as the right to national self-determination for the peoples of Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The defeat of Austria-Hungary in the First World War simultaneously marked a crisis for the multi-ethnic state model. On the territory of the defeated Danube Monarchy, some nations or peoples were granted their right to self-determination in the form of a nation state as an alternative to the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. The same had been promised, at least on paper, to the Arab peoples of the Ottoman Empire: The Turkish parts of the Ottoman Empire were to be guaranteed unconditional autonomy. The other nationalities, on the other hand, who were under Turkish rule, were to be afforded reliable security of life and a completely unhindered opportunity for independent development.

Following the collapse of the great powers – the Habsburg Monarchy, the Ottoman Empire and the Tsarist Empire – an initial system of protection for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities was established within the framework of the League of Nations. The prevailing concept of peace at that time consisted of the coexistence of ethnically homogeneous nation-states, based on the normative concept under international law of the right of peoples to self-determination. Deviating from this model, however, after 1918, as a result of the new border demarcations following the Treaties of the Paris Suburbs and the subsequent hostilities, states were created containing a large number of minorities that had been separated from their parent state (kin-state) and thus externalised, as state borders did not correspond to ethnic settlement areas.

In order to reconcile these conflicting interests, a system of minority protection treaties was established as a balancing mechanism for the ethnic groups now separated from their home states. Participation in the minority protection system was made a precondition for the young nation-states’ admission to the League of Nations, whilst the victorious powers of the First World War refused to participate in the system. This discriminatory aspect, whereby only the states newly defined in their statehood (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania and Greece) and the defeated multi-ethnic states (Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) were obliged to implement protective measures, significantly limited the scope and depth of the League of Nations’ regulatory system and ultimately led to its failure in the run-up to the Second World War.

The right of peoples to self-determination continued to develop in parallel as the subjective right of a people to determine its own political status. Stemming from its roots in the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, the practical application of the right to self-determination has always depended on the specific spatial, group-related and temporal context. Whilst the formulation of the (external) right to self-determination in the 1960s by the UN General Assembly was still primarily shaped by decolonisation, its further refinement was driven forward within the CSCE process.

Since then, law has also made a clear distinction between the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ right to self-determination. Minority rights are linked to the internal right to self-determination. This is to be distinguished from the external, ‘offensive’ right of peoples to self-determination. This refers to the right of a (potential) subject of international law to determine its political status, in particular its territorial status, in relation to other peoples and states. Political status may also be sought outside the original state (secession). Under international law, such a right to secession is granted only in the most extreme cases of the gravest human rights violations, as the exercise of an ‘external’ right to self-determination. Proponents of the ‘Remedial Right Only Theory’ regard a prior injustice as a prerequisite for the legitimacy of secession. A. Buchanan (1991), for example, identifies four justifications for secession as a ‘last resort’: the preservation of one’s own culture; the shaking off of unjust rule, exploitation and discrimination; and physical threat. The invocation of the ‘external’ right to self-determination was one of the reasons for the collapse of the multi-ethnic states of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as centrifugal forces prevailed and the constituent republics declared their independence. In both cases, these secession processes were fraught with conflict and, in some instances, led to bloody civil wars and protracted state-building processes in Central and Eastern Europe.

Multinational states may be characterised by internal and external tensions arising from ethnic conflicts, which can lead to clashes particularly where large minorities define themselves as part of a cultural nation extending beyond the borders of several nation states. Multiethnic states whose ethnic conflicts have been largely contained by a highly centralised system of governance and by structural or physical force may be further weakened during periods of instability as these conflicts escalate. In federal systems, these conflicts can be resolved peacefully and stably, as is the case in Switzerland, for example. Favourable conditions for this are found above all in economically prosperous states, where the various nationalities can share equally in economic growth and a far-reaching social policy. Furthermore, in democracies, it is possible to resolve nationality issues in a manner appropriate to cultural or ethnic heterogeneity, whereas in authoritarian systems such conflicts are usually suppressed, overshadowed or (supposedly) mitigated through assimilation.

If, unlike in Switzerland for example, the people of the state do not perceive themselves as a unified nation, but rather certain representatives of individual ethnic groups claim to be independent nations (e.g. the Magyars in Austria-Hungary, the individual titular nations of the Soviet republics) or as part of another nation (e.g. the UÇK in Serbia or the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the very existence of the multi-ethnic state is threatened. In centralised and repressive states, the process of disintegration can escalate to the point of civil wars or military conflicts (e.g. Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the former Yugoslavia, the Republic of Moldova and Transnistria, Georgia and Russia).

The political system of a multi-ethnic state is particularly prone to conflict when influence over state institutions, the administration and economic resources is accessible only to certain individuals or to a specific (usually the numerically largest) national group, or is distributed unequally. These systems are also classified as exclusionary (exclusivist) regimes characterised by the hegemony of the majority or even of a minority. The latter is illustrated by the example of the apartheid regime in South Africa up until 1994. Owing to structural relationships of power and violence, it was not the white minority but the oppressed coloured majority that required special protection.

A contradiction between the idea of a multi-ethnic state and the ideal of the nation state arose particularly where there was a struggle over one’s own national identity. Thus, the Italian lawyer, journalist and politician Pasquale Stanislao Mancini (1817–1888), as early as 1851, against the backdrop of the Risorgimento, described a multi-ethnic state in which many vigorous nationalities are forced into a single entity as a ‘monster incapable of life’ (un mostro incapace di vita). Nevertheless, institutional solutions such as the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 succeeded in mitigating the centrifugal forces – at least temporarily.

The ethno-national lines of conflict of the 19th century were, to some extent, overshadowed by ideological divisions during the ‘short 20th century’ (Eric Hobsbawm). With the end of the East-West conflict, these nationality-based conflicts became virulent once more and required sustainable conflict-resolution strategies in the post-communist states.

Multiculturalism and federalism within the framework of the right to internal self-determination are models that can contribute to peace, depending on the nature of the conflict. Multicultural and federally structured states such as the USA, Canada and Switzerland have institutionalised various principles of balance and compromise, such as pluralism, protection of minorities, comprehensive opportunities for participation, direct democracy, consensus and concordance procedures, far-reaching cultural or personal autonomy, rights to self-government and self-administration, and vertical negotiation between the national and sub-national levels in federal systems.

• Dieter Blumenwitz: A Century of Protection for Minorities and Ethnic Groups. Cologne 2001 (Treatises on Constitutional and International Law by the Study Group on Politics and International Law, No. 19).
• Allen E. Buchanan: Secession. The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec. Boulder 1991.
• Stephan Hobe: An Introduction to International Law. 9th, updated and expanded edition. Tübingen 2008 (Chapter 3.1.8. ‘Excursus: The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination’).
• Wolfgang Ismayr (ed.): The Political Systems of Eastern Europe. 3rd, updated and expanded edition. Wiesbaden 2010.
• Andreas Kappeler: Russia as a Multi-Ethnic Empire. Origins, History, Collapse. Munich 2001.
• Klemens Ludwig: China as a Multi-Ethnic State. The National Minorities in the Middle Kingdom. Munich 2009.
• Dieter Nohlen, Rainer-Olaf Schultze, Suzanne S. Schüttmeyer (eds.): ‘Multi-ethnic State’. In: Encyclopaedia of Politics. Political Terms. Munich 1998, pp. 691–692.
• Ilan Peleg: Democratising the Hegemonic State. Cambridge 2007.
• Manfred G. Schmidt: ‘Nationalities State (Multiethnic State)’. In: Dictionary of Politics. 2nd fully revised and expanded edition. Stuttgart 2004, p. 472.

Christoph Schnellbach: Multiethnic State. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2016. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p32700 (accessed 29 July 2016).