Version classiqueVersion mobile

Catégorisation des langues minoritaires en Russie et dans l’espace post-soviétique

Svetlana Moskvitcheva
Alain Viaut

Applications catégorisantes dans la Fédération de Russie

The definition of regional or minority languages in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: theoretical and practical aspects1 (An example of the simulation of implementation of the Charter in the Republic of Mordovia within the Joint Programme between CoE and EU in the Russian Federation)

«Определение региональных языков или языков меньшинств в Европейской Хартии региональных языков или языков меньшинств: теоретический и практический аспекты (На примере имитационного эксперимента по внедрению Хартии в Республике Мордовия в рамках совместной программы Совета Европы и Европейского Союза в Российской Федерации)»

Alexey Kozhemyakov


Le Programme conjoint du Conseil de l’Europe et de l’Union européenne Les Minorités en Russie : Développement des langues, de la culture, des médias et de la société civile a été réalisé du février 2009 au février 2012. Toutefois, la mise en œuvre de la Charte des langues régionales ou minoritaires peut impliquer certaines difficultés pour « interpréter » la définition de ces langues. De ce point de vue, la présentation du cas de la Fédération de Russie, où de nombreuses notions s’appliquent dans la législation fédérale et régionale pour décrire un nombre particulièrement élevé de langues minoritaires, est d’un grand intérêt.
Les notions de « langue régionale » ou de « langue minoritaire » ne possèdent pas de définition juridique précise en Russie et peuvent être interprétées comme « langue de minorité ethnique », « langue native », etc. Par ailleurs, la diversité linguistique dans la législation et la terminologie russe fait que la notion de « langue minoritaire » puisse être traduite en russe de deux façons : « langue des minorités » ou « langue minoritaire ».
La première tentative de simulation de la mise en œuvre de la Charte a eu lieu en République de Mordovie. Tous les acteurs impliqués dans la question de la protection de la langue en Mordovie ont pu échanger leur point de vue. Quatre domaines concrets de la mise en œuvre de la table ronde concernant l’éducation, la justice, l’administration et les médias sont ensuite présentés.

Note de l’éditeur

The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe.

Texte intégral

  • 1 This article is based on an example of the simulation of implementation of the Charter in the Repu (...)

1The definition of “regional or minority language” (RML) in the Charter is its starting point (Art. 1, a) and gives meaning to the whole Charter mechanism of regulation, implementation and monitoring. The Charter intentionally offers a very broad definition of RML to allow the ratification by a large number of states which have very different internal regulations and definitions regarding minorities and their languages. However, two central elements should be taken into account when implementing this treaty: RMLs do not include dialects of the official language(s), and RMLs are traditionally used within a given territory (languages of migrants are excluded from the scope of the Charter). On the other hand, the concept of “regional language” is not specifically developed in the Charter in its own right, but is usually considered as a synonym to the concept of “minority language”. Consequently it offers no distinct definition of such language, leaving to the State party to use this concept when appropriate.

2However, the implementation of the Charter may involve a significant amount of work to “interpret” this definition, first of all by national experts and authorities, as a result of the specific situation in any given country. From this point of view, a presentation of the Russian Federation’s case, where many terms and definition are used in federal and regional legislation (not necessarily in strict connection with to each other) to describe the particularly large number and diversified situation of RMLs, is of great interest.

3There has been a groundbreaking practical attempt, initiated by the Secretariat of the Charter and accepted by the Russian partner (the Ministry for Regional Development), to carry out a simulation of the implementation of the Charter in three regions of the Russian Federation, inter alia in the Republic of Mordovia and Altai krai (both published on the CoE Charter website) within the Joint Programme (JP) between the CoE and the EC in the Russian Federation–“Minorities in Russia: Developing Languages, Culture, Media and Civil Society” (2009-2012). This article presents some of the results of this innovative exercise (to my knowledge, the first of this kind regarding an international treaty) and proposals from its follow-up which took place in November 2009 and October 2010 respectively.

Key definitions of the Charter and related Russian terminology

4Within the above-mentioned Joint Programme specific attention was paid from the beginning to the legal regulation of RMLs in the Russian Federation and its compatibility with the terms and definitions used in the Charter, and a specific report was devoted to the issue (Krugovykh 2009; Galdia 2009). This article, therefore, will summarise and highlight key points of interest.

5Art. 1. a. of the Charter reads as following:

“Regional or minority languages” means languages that are i) traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State’s population; and ii) different from the official language(s) of that State; it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants.

6The adjective “regional” in the Charter denotes languages spoken in a limited part of the territory of a state, within which, moreover, they may be spoken by the majority of the citizens. Catalan in Catalonia, Spain, is the most used example. However, in Russia the term “regional languages” or “minority languages” has no strict legal definition in these terms, and may also correspond with the meaning “languages of ethnic minorities”, “native (rodnoj) language”, “language of indigenous (minority) peoples”, “state languages of republics” or regions. The last concept is unknown in other European states, including federal ones and is used in the Russian Federation for those republics where these languages are spoken by a majority or the most numerically strong ethnic group of population. But this situation is more an exception than a rule: in 11 out of 22 republics within the Russian federation “titular ethnic group”, the name usually reproduced in the name of this republic, does not constitute the majority, and can constitute a net minority (up to 9.2%). Moreover, the term “regional” in the Russian Federation has a wide meaning, not necessarily including the ethnic component. To add the ethnic meaning usually the term “ethno-regional” is used (e.g. ethno-regional component of a curriculum).

7Such significant variety in terminology used does not mean that the definition of the Charter could not be applied to a specific RML’s situation in Russia. In fact, the situation of most languages of the Russian Federation corresponds to the definition of “minority language”, as explained above. Besides, linguistic diversity attributed to the term in Russian legislation and expert’s terminology, the term “minority languages” as such can be translated into Russian in two ways:

-“Languages of the minorities” (âzyki men’šinstv)–this is the suggested option in the Russian version of the unofficial translation of the text of the Charter proposed in 1992. Use of the noun “minority” (men’šinstvo) may have an additional negative connotation to some minorities in the post-soviet area. This is the reason why the term “languages of minorities” causes natural objections from the representatives of the republics. In addition, it is not by chance that in the legislation of Russia a more politically correct term “peoples of the Russian Federation” is commonly used.

-“Minoritarnye âzyki” (in fact a “loan word” from English “minority” directly adopted into Russian): this variant, proposed by some experts within the JP, eliminates the negative meaning which might be attributed by some minorities to the noun “minority” referring to the peoples of Russia, but retains an indication of the native languages of Russia. They are all, without exception, in the position of languages spoken by much smaller populations–an ethnic minority–compared with the country’s population. According to the opinion of the experts who suggested this innovative terminology, this second Russian translation corresponds better to the Charter’s “minority languages” term.

8Another term in the Charter which may be defined differently in Russian Federation legislation is “less widely-used official language” (see Art. 3.1). In the practice of the Charter this provision is supposed to be applied in countries where there are various official languages, in circumstances where one or several of these official language(s) are in a minority position. In Russia, where “state languages of republics” exist, the interpretation of the term “official language” could be applied only to the official language of the Russian Federation, which is Russian. If any other language is official only in a part of the federal state, it should be treated according to the real sociolinguistic situation of this language, but also be a subject of additional protection due to a specific status. In addition, any “state language of the republic” used outside its territory must also be protected in accordance with its given sociolinguistic situation.

9Terms like “whose number is considered sufficient”, “where the number of residents justifies the measures” (see Art. 8.1) may also be of importance for the implementation of the Charter in countries with a diversified linguistic situation, particularly in Russia. Normally, such a “number” must be decided upon by the competent authority, preferably in a legal instrument (law, by-law or other regulation). These terms recognise that the public authorities cannot be required to take the measures concerned where the situation of the linguistic group makes it difficult to attain, for example, the minimum number of pupils required to form a class. On the other hand, given the particular circumstances of regional or minority language classes, it is suggested that the normal threshold required to constitute a class may be applied flexibly and a lower number of pupils may be “considered sufficient”. The Federal Law “On languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” reads: “The Russian Federation shall guarantee all its peoples regardless of their number equal rights to preserve and develop their native languages…” (Art. 2). Russian languages’ legislation does not contain direct instructions on the number of students, which is sufficient for learning their native language.

10However, the usual number of children as a threshold to constitute a class is at least 25 for classes in urban schools and academic groups in the state higher education institutions. It is also allowed by regional authorities to have less than 15 pupils in small rural schools. These schools usually only provide primary education.

11One issue that the Committee of Experts of the Charter has come across in some countries, and which could also be of high relevance for the Russian Federation, is the following: the State has selected one or more languages to be protected by Part III, and it has chosen undertakings under Article 10 (Administrative Authorities and Public Services). The undertakings correspond to the status of a language in official use, in a municipality, a part of a municipality or a larger administrative district. However, in order for a regional or minority language to be in official use, the number of users normally has to amount to a certain proportion of the total population of the area. If that is not the case, the authorities maintain that the undertakings do not apply. Usually, the Committee of Experts will be of the opinion that, if a state in its instrument of ratification has specifically stated that certain undertakings shall apply to specifically mentioned languages, the state cannot evade its obligations under the Charter through internal legislation.

The first attempt of simulation of the implementation of the Charter in the Russian Federation (the case of the Republic of Mordovia)

  • 2 For more details see the Joint Programme website (in Russian)

12The JP on “Minorities in Russia: Developing Languages, Culture, Media and Civil Society” ran from February 2009 to February 20122. The overall objective of the JP was “to promote Russia’s ethnic and national minorities and better recognition of their specific integrity as regards culture, education, media in minority languages and civil society”. Other objectives included: “enhancing the legal framework for ethnic and national minorities in the light of the Council of Europe standards for better recognition of their rights and integration; supporting the presence and contributing to a better expression of ethnic minorities in the field of culture, education and media in selected regions of the Russian Federation by supporting the cultural expressions of national minorities”.

  • 3 The report was prepared by Mahulena Hofmann, Federica Prina and at the final stage by Tom Moring, (...)

13The pilot regions were Altai Krai, Republic of Dagestan and Republic of Mordovia. The Secretariat of the Charter initiated, and Russian partner agreed with, the simulation to be carried out in these three pilot regions with the view to identifying the applicability of the provisions of the Charter to different types of sociolinguistic situations in the country. A specific methodology, which was inspired by the provision of the Charter and practice of the monitoring done by the Committee of Experts in the state-parties, was elaborated. The first simulation and implementation exercise took place in Republic of Mordovia in November 2009, and the report prepared was finalised after the second visit in October 2010, leading to the drafting of the final report.3

The linguistic situation in Mordovia

14The Republic of Mordovia, which is almost as large as Belgium, is a federal subject of the Russian Federation, located some 600 kilometers south-west of Moscow. According to the 1995 Constitution of Mordovia, as amended, as well as the 1998 Statute on State languages of the Republic of Mordovia, Erzya and Moksha enjoy the status of such additional “state languages” of the Republic of Mordovia.

15The third most-spoken language besides Russian is the Tatar language. Erzyan and Moksha form together the Mordvinic branch of Finno-Volgaic languages, a sub-branch of the Uralic languages. All the three languages comply with the definition of a “regional or minority language” contained in Article 1 of the Charter.

16According to the census of 2002, Erzya and Moksha people in Mordovia constitute 31.9 percent of total population, and the number of Mordvins is less than 300.000. In the Republic of Mordovia there are somewhat more speakers of the Mokshan language than of Erzyan. Two thirds of the speakers of Mordovian languages live in neighboring locations outside the Republic of Mordovia. Speakers of the Mordovian national languages are fully fluent in Russian language. According to the 2002 census, around 50.000 people belong to the Tatar minority in the Republic of Mordovia. Tatar is a living language in Mordovia, and it is clearly a territorial language, which is relatively concentrated in some rayons. A number of other smaller ethnic groups are living in the territory of the Republic of Mordovia, including Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Belorussians, Chuvash, Georgians, Germans, Tadzhiks, Uzbeks and Ukrainians. Provided that the presence of the aforementioned groups is not the result of recent migration, their languages could be entitled to the minimum protection set out in Part II, Article 7 of the Charter.

17The CoE experts concluded that there is a need for resolute action in order to safeguard the position of the two Mordovian national languages as living languages that are functional in all spheres of life, according to “Art. 7 Objectives and principles, c) the need for resolute action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them”. Considering that the relevant federal legislation of the Russian Federation, especially the Law of 25 October 1991 “On the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation”, and the Federal Law of 17 June 1996 “On ethno-cultural autonomy” go beyond the substance of Part II Article 7, according to the experts this should not create practical problems.

The first simulation activity in the Republic of Mordovia in November 2009

18The first simulation activity was carried out in the Republic of Mordovia in Saransk, 1-5 November 2009, and resulted in a report on compliance with Part II and Part III of the charter in the Republic. The majority of data was based on answers to questionnaires distributed among NGOs in advance, a meeting with NGOs and governmental bodies and visits of several authorities and schools (Moksha and Tatar schools) in Mordovia.

19The greatest added value of this simulation procedure was the fact that all actors involved in the language protection issue in Mordovia began an exchange of views which had not taken place before in such a format. It revealed a general lack of awareness of the provisions of the Charter, either at the NGO or regional authorities level. Thus, the process served as an important awareness-and discussion-raising instrument.

  • 4 Possibly Azerbaijani, Armenian, Belorussian, Chuvash, Georgian, German, Tadzhik, Uzbek and Ukraini (...)

20The experts also reported on findings and drafted a proposal of undertakings to be included in the ratification instrument in respect of the territory of the Republic of Mordovia. Mokshan Mordovian, Erzyan Mordovian, Tatar and other languages were found to be the languages complying with the definition of “regional or minority languages”4. From the questionnaires and discussions with authorities and representatives of the NGOs, it was clear that there is already a high formal level of protection of the two national languages Erzyan and Mokshan as well as for Tatar. Many more than 35 provisions under the Charter are already in place for the three languages in Mordovia. A ratification at (or close to) the minimum level of 35 provisions, as required by the Charter in Article 4.2, regarding these languages would hence be countering the principles that are established in the Charter, and also against the spirit of the Charter as an instrument of improvement of the situation for minority languages (see the preamble of the Charter, and paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Report).

21The experts also reached another conclusion that considering the legislation and regulatory measures that already apply in the Republic of Mordovia, Erzyan and Mokshan languages would probably have to be treated equally in the ratification instrument of the Charter. For both Mokshan and Erzyan Mordovian a total of 61 undertakings were found to be applicable during the simulation. For Tatar, a total of 39 undertakings was found to be applicable during the simulation. These results reveal that there is no doubt that it would be possible to ratify the Charter in the Republic of Mordovia. They also reveal that this is partly due to the wording of the Charter, which ideally should make ratification possible for all member states of the Council of Europe.

Second stage: the Implementation Roundtable

22An Implementation Roundtable was held as a follow up to the 2009 simulation in Saransk on 7-8 October 2010. The focus in this final report was on the Erzya, Moksha and Tatar languages. The final report by the experts was therefore comparable to a regular Committee of Experts’ evaluation report for a state party to this convention.

23Participants of the Roundtable included representatives of the local authorities (the Ministry for Ethnic Policy of the Republic of Mordovia, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Mordovia and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic Mordovia), a representative of the federal authorities (the Ministry of Regional Development, who is the key partner in this JP), editors of media in minority languages, teachers of Moksha, Erzya and Tatar, representatives of institutes of education, including Mordovian State University, a judge of the Mordovian Supreme Court, leaders of minority organisations and representatives of NGOs.

24I would like to present just four concrete examples from the report on the implementation roundtable concerning the fields of education, judicial authorities, administrative authorities and the media.

Education (Article 8)

25Pre-school education in Moksha (less presented to compare with Erzya) is provided in some nurseries, including through playgroups (kružki) and the teaching of poetry and traditions of Mordovia. Moksha language, however, is only optional, partly due to diverging views among parents as to the number of languages for pre-school education. The representative of the Ministry of Education agreed that Moksha’s inclusion in the curriculum will be discussed. One of the implementation measures proposed by the experts to improve the situation was to hold public discussions on the inclusion in the curriculum of Moksha language for preschool education to be carried out by the Ministry of Education.

26Concerning primary education, this provision is already in place. From grades 1-4 children education is available in Moksha (same as Erzya), although not all classes are in these languages. In Russian schools the teaching of Moksha or Erzya is compulsory from grades 2-5, but only for two hours a week. However, according to the experts, despite the fact the teaching of Mordovian languages is compulsory in all schools, it is treated as optional in some of them. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate the fulfillment with the schools’ obligations, as well as the quality of teaching. Two types of monitoring are currently being carried out: one by the Interregional Social Movement of Mordovian Peoples (the Mordovian Movement) and one by the Ministry of Education itself. The need of independent monitoring, alongside the Ministry’s own monitoring, was stressed by the Council of Europe experts. The Mordovian Movement and the Ministry of Education assured that the results of each monitoring session will be made publicly available. The experts concluded that the monitoring of the teaching of Mordovian languages by the Ministry of Education and Mordovian Movement for the next academic year, and publication of the results.

Judicial Authorities (Article 9)

27The main issue to emerge from the on-the-spot visits was the need to develop a legal terminology for judicial processes. Currently there is a special republican committee that develops terminology in all areas of public life and the sciences. According to the experts’ opinion, the ECRML would stimulate this process.

28The provisions for the use of Moksha in courts are the same as for Erzya: all court hearings can take place in a minority language and both parties in the trial (and the judge) have the right to an interpreter. Article 9 seems to be in place therefore, with the exception that Mordovian legislation allows the use of minority languages in court only when one of the parties does not speak Russian, rather than whenever it is requested. Because of this, and because of the lack of legal terminology, cases heard in Moksha or Erzya are extremely few. As for the availability of the ‘most important statutory texts in minority languages’ (Article 9.3), only the constitutions of the Republic of Mordovia seem to have been translated into Moksha and Erzya. The experts proposed the following implementation measure(s): Continue the development of legal terminology by the committee created for the development of the state languages.

Administrative Authorities and Public Services (Article 10)

29According to the experts’ opinion, the requirements of Article 10 are, for the most part, already carried out. First, there are speakers of Moksha (and Erzya) among the employees of the Mordovian authorities (although the languages do not seem to be regularly used in the administration). A representative of speakers from the media industry said that the most important administrative/legal texts are published in Moksha in newspapers as and when they are approved (see Article 10.1. b and 10.2. c). This is only the case with the most important texts–estimates are that new texts are published in 10% of cases. The Deputy Minister for Ethnic Policy noted that translation of administrative texts in principle is not a problem. The Ministry translates documents if necessary, complex texts are sent to the University for translation, and there are people who speak the language available at local authorities.

30Users of Moksha (or Erzya) are allowed to submit oral or written applications in Moksha (or Erzya) (Article 10.2. b). In these cases, letters are translated even when public officials are speakers of the minority language to ensure there are no misunderstandings, and replies are also prepared in the minority language. Place names in the state languages are sometimes used (see Article 10, subparagraph 10.2. g) but this use could be made more systematic. The main problem raised during the meetings was a general absence of discussions in Moksha (or Erzya) within the authorities (10.2. e and. f). Even at the Congress of Mordovian Peoples, it was noted, people speak Russian. The reasons are a mixture of limited prestige of the language, varying degrees of knowledge of it among users and lack of terminology, and probably because speakers of the two different languages cannot understand each other. The participants noted that the prestige of the language is increasing and that attitudes are changing, albeit very slowly. Efforts in this area should continue. The experts proposed the following implementation measures: continue the development of administrative terminology, and guarantee the use of traditional and correct forms of place names in the minority languages more consistently and comprehensively.

Media (Article 11)

31The requirements of Article 11 are, for the most part, already being carried out, according to the experts’ opinion. The main difficulty in the area of media is that the transmitting range of broadcasts is limited (restricting the proper application of Article 11.1. b. ii and c. ii). A participant from the Ministry of Information and Media gave assurance that the transmitting range of broadcasts will be increased.

  • 5 Channel 10 broadcasts in Russian, Moksha and Erzya.

32There was some disagreement as to whether the next priority should be the creation of a separate channel broadcasting in Moksha and Erzya in accordance with the undertaking proposed in the report (11. a. ii), or the increase of the current number of hours of broadcasting in Mordovian languages on Channel 105 (see Article 11.1. c. ii). Representatives of the speakers supported the establishment of a joint radio station and television channel for the republic’s two state languages, whereas the representative of the authorities proposed to enhance the current level of provision by increasing the programming in state languages through the current outlets, and improving the geographical coverage of radio services. Newspapers in Moksha and Erzya languages (“Moksha Pravda”, “Erzya Pravda”) already exist (see Article 11.1. e. i) and training in journalism in the state languages is available at Mordovian State University (see Article 11.1. g).

33As for the need of a supervisory body (11.3), the participants referred once again to the Public Chamber, which also covers media issues and includes representatives of civil society and minorities (Moksha, Erzya and Tatar) among its members. The experts proposed the following implementation measures: the Ministry of Information and Media should increase the transmitting range of broadcasts in the state languages; should explore the possibility to have a separate channel on Moksha and Erzya, or increase the hours of broadcasting in these languages on Channel 10. Among the representatives of speakers, there was support for a proactive ratification of the undertaking from the Article 11.1. a ii, as the importance of television was strongly felt.


  • 6 The ratification of the Charter as international treaty could be possible only for the whole terri (...)

34The experts and the participants unanimously found that, whilst most of the undertakings are already in place in Mordovia, a ratification of the Charter and the implementation of its monitoring procedure would be beneficial for the future development of the languages covered.6 There was general support for identical protection of Erzya and Moksha languages, whereas the representatives of the Tatar language were content with a lesser level of protection, even in some cases suggesting a lower level of protection than suggested in the report.

35Among the general comments of the experts these events in Mordovia, similar to the regular monitoring of the Charter, act as a platform for dialogue between the authorities and civil society. The representative of authorities noted that participants critical of the authorities had also been invited and officials were willing to listen to them. In the general discussion, some representatives of the Executive Committee of the Interregional Social Movement of Mordovia (Moksha and Erzya) Peoples noted that the ratification of the Charter would be a good general beginning, with an aim to establish a status for the Mordovian state languages at a European level–to make Moksha and Erzya actual state languages and not only formal state languages as they are now. One referred to a pessimism currently prevailing among speakers, calling for actions to reverse this among the speakers themselves. The challenge, according to the experts, is for Moksha and Erzya languages to be spoken in all fields of life, and not only during 4 years in schools; to make the languages fully workable in everyday life, and to stop the fall in number of speakers. A higher status of the languages would require strengthening the language curricula, but this cannot be done in practice if it is not made possible to use the languages in all aspects of social life.

36On the other hand, the representative of the federal government noted that there is a need to make way for ratification of the Charter in a rational and realistic manner, and with regard to the diversity of linguistic situation in all other “federal subjects”. He called for a specific Russian approach as there is no other country like the Federal Republic of Russia, with almost 200 languages. This could be interpreted as a position of the authorities looking for a cautious and gradual approach to ratification which must be preceded by the drafting of relevant ratification instruments including all languages of the Russian Federation.


Bibliographical sources

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1992), European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

GALDIA M. (2009), Russia’s Linguistic Legislation in the Light of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Report:

KRUGOVYKH I. E. (2009), Russian Legislation Relating to the Protection and Promotion of Regional Languages or Minority Languages, Report:

WOERHLING J.-M. (2005), La Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires-Un commentaire analytique, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe

Website of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages:


1 This article is based on an example of the simulation of implementation of the Charter in the Republic of Mordovia within the Joint Programme between CoE and EU in the Russian Federation in 2009-12.

2 For more details see the Joint Programme website (in Russian)

3 The report was prepared by Mahulena Hofmann, Federica Prina and at the final stage by Tom Moring, contracted by the CoE for this purpose, and is the main source of this article. See the Joint Programme website (in Russian)

4 Possibly Azerbaijani, Armenian, Belorussian, Chuvash, Georgian, German, Tadzhik, Uzbek and Ukrainian–to be decided by Republic’s authorities.

5 Channel 10 broadcasts in Russian, Moksha and Erzya.

6 The ratification of the Charter as international treaty could be possible only for the whole territory of the state-party.


Chef du Service des minorités nationales et anti-discrimination, DG II, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg.

© Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, 2014

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search