Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classic Sources on Minority Rights and Self-Determination

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minorities, Minority Rights and Internal Self-Determination

  • 1172 Accesses

Abstract

After having provided the larger framework that allows for consideration of what I call non-state actors and non-binding instruments, we need to step back into the world of lawyers and take a look at the undisputed law on minority rights and self-determination. Several points will become clear from this chapter. For one, it will become clear that the hard law on minority rights and self-determination is very limited in quantity. For another, its significance is difficult to determine as the treatment of minority rights or self-determination sometimes remains extremely superficial. Only together with Chap. 4, a comprehensive picture of the regimes on minority rights and self-determination emerges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Brownlie (2008), p. 5.

  2. 2.

    Menon (1989), p. 114.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 4.2.1.

  4. 4.

    Art. 2 (1) VCLT.

  5. 5.

    The ICJ found the United Nations had international legal personality. This includes entering into treaties and making claims for reparations. International Court of Justice (1949) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174, esp. p. 179. International legal personality is not an automatic right but must be conveyed on an international organization. Thus, the European Communities can enter into treaties while the European Union could not until the Treaty of Lisbon explicitly changed this.

  6. 6.

    Thornberry (1989), p. 874.

  7. 7.

    Art. II Genocide Convention (1948) As published in Ghandi, P. R. (Ed.), Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents, 3rd. ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2002.

  8. 8.

    Lerner (2003), p. 151; see also B. Whitaker (1985) The Whitaker Report UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, p. 17.

  9. 9.

    Castellino (2000), p. 61.

  10. 10.

    UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/SR.4 as quoted in Lerner (2003), p. 151.

  11. 11.

    Thornberry (1994), p. 15.

  12. 12.

    Alfredsson (2005), p. 168. On the matter of recognition of minorities see Sect. 8.1.3.

  13. 13.

    Valentine (2004), p. 455.

  14. 14.

    Valentine (2004), p. 458.

  15. 15.

    Preamble ICCPR (1966) As published in Brownlie, Ian (Ed.), Basic Documents in International Law, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 205–221.

  16. 16.

    Anghie (2006), p. 457.

  17. 17.

    Para. 9 Human Rights Committee (1994) General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities (Art. 27) UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5.

  18. 18.

    Provisions on positive discrimination recur in art. 4 (2) & (3) Phillips, A (2002): The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis, Minority Rights Group International, London.

  19. 19.

    Para. 1 Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Collected Texts, 4th ed., Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17–35, Strasbourg.

  20. 20.

    Para. 2 Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Collected Texts, 4th ed., Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17–35, Strasbourg.

  21. 21.

    See Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1990) Recommendation 1134 (1990) on the Rights of Minorities CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1134 (1990); Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993) Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an Additional Protocol on the Rights of Minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1201 (1993) and Council of Europe Summit (1993) Vienna Declaration, 08 October 1993, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=621771. Accessed 06 May 2014.

  22. 22.

    Art. 14 ECHR.

  23. 23.

    For a definition of the term ‘minority’ and the distinctions between national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities see Sect. 8.1.1.

  24. 24.

    Art. 11 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993) Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an Additional Protocol on the Rights of Minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1201 (1993).

  25. 25.

    The ECtHR was to be given competence to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the FC. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2000) Draft Protocol to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (on the Interpretation of the Convention) CoE Doc. CM Doc. CM(2000)133 rev.

  26. 26.

    Para. 37 Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Collected Texts, 4th ed., Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17–35, Strasbourg.

  27. 27.

    Preamble Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Collected Texts, 4th ed., Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17–35, Strasbourg.

  28. 28.

    Art. 20 Phillips, A (2002): The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis, Minority Rights Group International, London.

  29. 29.

    Art. 21 Phillips, A (2002): The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis, Minority Rights Group International, London.

  30. 30.

    In other words, the FC leaves a margin of appreciation to the states on how to implement the convention. See Benvenisti (1999) for a particularly critical discussion of this approach when it concerns minorities. Art. 14 (2) has been criticized for its extreme unclear and vague wording. There are too many restrictions and conditions attached for effective language protection based on this provision. On the other hand, the flexibility leaves room for negotiations in the monitoring process and best practices can be established.

  31. 31.

    For example the Danish restriction of the FC to the German minority in Southern Jutland. See Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2000) Opinion on Denmark CoE Doc. ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)005, p. 1 and Committee of Ministers (2005) Resolution on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Denmark CoE Doc. Res CMN(2005)9, p. 2.

  32. 32.

    Pan & Pfeil (2006), p. 468.

  33. 33.

    Art. 1 (2) UNC.

  34. 34.

    Higgins (1994), p. 112.

  35. 35.

    Sureda (1973), pp. 97–99.

  36. 36.

    See Chap. 9.

  37. 37.

    McGoldrick (1991), pp. 247–248.

  38. 38.

    Hannum (1993), p. 19. See also Humphrey (1985), p. 196.

  39. 39.

    See Thornberry (1989), pp. 878–879.

  40. 40.

    Hannum (1993), pp. 19–25. See also McGoldrick (1991), pp. 14–16.

  41. 41.

    Hannum (1993), p. 26.

  42. 42.

    Franck (1992), pp. 58–59. See also Chap. 9.

  43. 43.

    Higgins (1994), p. 116.

  44. 44.

    Arts. 3 & 4, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993) Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an Additional Protocol on the Rights of Minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1201 (1993).

  45. 45.

    Art. 10 (2), art. 11 (3), art. 14 (2) FC. See Albanese (1996), p. 309.

  46. 46.

    Commission on Human Rights (1947) Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities – First Session UN Doc. E/CN.4/52, p. 310. The Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities speaks of participation of minorities in public administration. See para. II. 4 Res. 232 (1992).

  47. 47.

    Fidler (1996), p. 198.

  48. 48.

    The terms ‘custom’ and ‘customary international law’ are used interchangeably in this chapter.

  49. 49.

    Fidler (1996), p. 200.

  50. 50.

    Para. 8 Manley O. Hudson (1950) Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law Commission UN Doc. A/CN.4/16.

  51. 51.

    Paras. 16–62 Manley O. Hudson (1950) Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law Commission UN Doc. A/CN.4/16.

  52. 52.

    See for example the International Court of Justice (1952) Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco Judgement Case Concerning the Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco (France v. United States of America), 27 August 1952: I.C.J. Reports 1952, pp. 176, at pp. 200, 209. Akehurst (1977), p. 6.

  53. 53.

    Brownlie lists material sources of custom—though without classifying them as either practice or opinio iuris. Brownlie (2008), p. 6. Resolutions as opinio iuris: Roberts (2001); D’Amato (1971), p. 49. Bruno Simma and Andreas Paulus have—while defending legal positivism—recognized that state practice and opinio iuris cannot always be clearly distinguished at the international level. See Simma and Paulus (2004), p. 30.

  54. 54.

    For a critical approach towards consent see Guzman (2012).

  55. 55.

    Menon (1989), p. 121.

  56. 56.

    It is easier to make a new rule where no rule existed before. Much more support is needed in order to overturn or radically expand an already existing rule of CIL. See Akehurst (1977), p. 19; D’Amato (1971), pp. 60–61.

  57. 57.

    Paras. 73–74 International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Judgement North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), 20 February 1969: I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.

  58. 58.

    For more on the time aspect see Kadens and Young (2013), pp. 889–893.

  59. 59.

    In multilateral fora, state practice and opinio iuris are shown on a permanent basis. The drafting history of treaties and declaration also need to be counted. See Akehurst (1977), p. 14; Sohn (1995), p. 404.

  60. 60.

    Menon (1989), p. 120. The ICJ has held that ‘the passage of only a short period of time is not necessarily, or of itself, a bar to the formation of a new rule of customary international law.’ See para 74 International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Judgement North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), 20 February 1969: I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.

  61. 61.

    Charney (1985), p. 1.

  62. 62.

    Charney (1985), p. 22.

  63. 63.

    Original italics, Akehurst (1977), p. 15.

  64. 64.

    Fidler (1996), p. 207; Brownlie (2008), p. 6.

  65. 65.

    Para. 62 International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Judgement North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), 20 February 1969: I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.

  66. 66.

    Para. 188 International Court of Justice (1986) Nicaragua Case Judgement on the Merits Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 27 June 1986: I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.

  67. 67.

    See Tasioulas (2007), pp. 200–201; Menon (1989), p. 123.

  68. 68.

    Roberts (2001), pp. 759–760.

  69. 69.

    For the modern approach see Roberts (2001) and Fidler (1996).

  70. 70.

    Fidler (1996), pp. 220–224. For more on the different approaches to custom see pp. 216–220.

  71. 71.

    Sohn (1995), p. 406. In his article he points at the establishment of the ICTY, the adoption of GA resolutions without vote, adopting by consensus without all actually agreeing.

  72. 72.

    Roberts (2001), p. 758.

  73. 73.

    Pomerance (1982), p. 64; Akehurst (1977), p. 7.

  74. 74.

    Pomerance (1982), pp. 65–66. Pomerance also presents the look that consensus is often a mere procedural device by which ‘an unpleasant and perhaps useless discussion’ is brought to an end. Also at p. 66.

  75. 75.

    For example the model of the sliding scale is widely rejected. See Simma and Alston (1988–1989), pp. 88 and 96.

  76. 76.

    These concepts are related in many ways and especially discussed under the heading of relative normativity. For more see Weil (1983); Tasioulas (1996); Aceves (2002); Roberts (2001); Kirgis (1987); Beckett (2001); Fastenrath (1993); Charney (1993).

  77. 77.

    There is a debate if judicial decisions of other tribunals or other bodies are covered by art. 38 (1) c. Arbitral tribunals for example are not established by multilateral treaties and are not permanent; however, they apply legal rules. Regarding national courts, positivists argue against the inclusion of national decision into international law, though some scholars concede that decisions of national courts can contribute to the development of customary international law. Others see decisions of national courts as state consent of a certain practice. See Menon (1989), p. 129.

  78. 78.

    For more on judicial decisions see van Hoof (1983), pp. 169–176.

  79. 79.

    Karol Wolfke makes an accurate point when he says that the writers’ influence on the formation of international law is going on behind the scenes, ‘[t]o disregard it would […] be to say the least, unjustified.’ See Wolfke (1993), p. 77. For more see van Hoof (1983), pp. 176–178.

  80. 80.

    On this last point, there was already at the time of writing agreement across ideological boundaries. See Tunkin (1978), p. 103.

  81. 81.

    Menon (1989), p. 125.

  82. 82.

    See Menon (1989), p. 125. See also see van Hoof (1983), pp. 136–137; Espersen et al. (2003), pp. 34–35; Seidl-Hohenveldern (1997), pp. 108–110.

  83. 83.

    Pacta sunt servanda is a general principle of law, a rule under customary international law and international treaty law (art. 26 VCLT).

References

Books and Articles

  • Aceves WJ (2002) Relative normativity: challenging the sovereignty norm through human rights litigation. Hasting Int Comp Law Rev 25:261–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst M (1977) Custom as a source of international law. Br Year Book Int Law 1974–1975(47):1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Albanese F (1996) Which international guarantees of local self-government? Council of Europe work. In: Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp 304–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfredsson G (2005) Minorities, indigenous and tribal peoples: definitions of terms as a matter of international law. In: Ghanea N, Xanthaki A (eds) Minorities, peoples and self-determination – essays in honour of Patrick Thornberr. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 163–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Anghie A (2006) Representing culture, translating human rights symposium: panel II: sovereignty: nationalism, development and postcolonial state: the legacies of the league of nations. Tex Int Law J 41:447–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett J (2001) Behind relative normativity: rules and process as prerequisites of law. Eur J Int Law 12:627–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E (1999) Margin of Appreciation, consensus, and universal standards. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 32:843–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2000) International law and self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney JI (1985) The persistent objector rule and the development of customary international law. Br Yearbook Int Law 56:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney JI (1993) Universal international law. Am J Int Law 87:529–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato A (1971) The concept of custom in international law. Cornell University Press, Cornell

    Google Scholar 

  • Espersen O, Harhoff F, Spiermann O (2003) Folkeret. Christian Ejlers’ Forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Fastenrath U (1993) Relative normativity in international law. Eur J Int Law 4:305–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidler DP (1996) Challenging the classical concept of custom: perspectives on the future of customary international law. German Yearbook Int Law 39:198–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (1992) The emerging right to democratic governance. Am J Int Law 86:46–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman A (2012) Against consent. V J Int Law 52:747–790

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum H (1993) Rethinking self-determination. V J Int Law 34:1–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1994) Problems & process – international law and how we use it. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey JP (1985) Political and related rights. In: Meron T (ed) Human rights in international law: legal and policy issues. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 171–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadens A, Young EA (2013) How customary is customary international law? William Mary Law Rev 54:885–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirgis FL (1987) Custom on a sliding scale. Am J Int Law 81:146–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner N (2003) Group rights and discrimination in international law, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick D (1991) The human rights committee – its role in the development of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon PK (1989) Primary, subsidiary and other possible sources of international law. Sri Lanka J Int Law 1:113–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeil S (2006) Die Entwicklung des Minderheitenschutzes im Rahmen des Europarates und der KSZE/OSZE. In: Pan C, Pfeil S (eds) Zur Entstehung des Modernen Minderheitenschutzes in Europa. Springer, Wien, pp 442–486

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerance M (1982) Self-determination in law and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts AE (2001) Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: a reconciliation. Am J Int Law 95:757–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl-Hohenveldern I (1997) Völkerrecht, 9th edn. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Alston P (1988–1989) The sources of human rights law: custom, ius cogens and general principles. Aust Yearb Int Law 12:82–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Paulus AL (2004) The responsibility of individuals for human rights abuses in internal conflicts: a positivist view. In: Ratner SR, Slaughter A-M (eds) The methods of international law. American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, pp 23–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn LB (1995) Sources of international law. Ga J Int Comp Law 25:399–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Sureda AR (1973) The evolution of the right of self-determination – a study of United Nations practice. A W Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (1996) In defence of relative normativity: communitarian values and the Nicaragua case. Oxford J Leg Stud 16:85–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2007) Opinio Juris and the genesis of custom: a solution to the “Paradox”. Aust Yearbook Int Law 26:199–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (1989) Self-determination, minorities and human rights: a review of international instruments. Int Comp Law Q 38:867–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (1994) International and European standards on minority rights. In: Miall H (ed) Minority rights in Europe: the scope for a transnational regime. Pinter, London, pp 14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunkin G (1978) International law in the international system, vols 147/1975. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine JR (2004) Toward a definition of national minority. Denver J Int Law Policy 32:445–473

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoof GJH (1983) Rethinking the sources of international law. Kluwer Law and Taxation, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law? Am J Int Law 77:413–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfke K (1993) Custom in present international law, 2nd rev. ed. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Official Materials

  • Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) As published in Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Collected Texts, 4th ed., Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 17–35, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips A (2002) The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis. Minority Rights Group International, London

    Google Scholar 

Primary Sources

  • Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2000) Opinion on Denmark CoE Doc. ACFCNM/INF/OP/I(2001)005

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Whitaker (1985) The Whitaker Report UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Human Rights (1947) Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities – First Session UN Doc. E/CN.4/52

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Ministers (2005) Resolution on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Denmark CoE Doc. Res CMN(2005)9

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2000) Draft Protocol to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (on the Interpretation of the Convention) CoE Doc. CM Doc. CM(2000)133 rev.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe Summit (1993) Vienna Declaration, 08 October 1993, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=621771. Accessed 06 May 2014

  • Genocide Convention (1948) As published in Ghandi, P. R. (Ed.), Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents, 3rd. ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Committee (1994) General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities (Art. 27) UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5

    Google Scholar 

  • ICCPR (1966) As published in Brownlie, Ian (Ed.), Basic Documents in International Law, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 205–221

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice (1949) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice (1952) Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco Judgement Case Concerning the Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco (France v. United States of America), 27 August 1952: I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Judgement North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), 20 February 1969: I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice (1986) Nicaragua Case Judgement on the Merits Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 27 June 1986: I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Manley O. Hudson (1950) Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law Commission UN Doc. A/CN.4/16

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1990) Recommendation 1134 (1990) on the Rights of Minorities CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1134 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993) Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an Additional Protocol on the Rights of Minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights CoE Doc. PACE Rec. 1201 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Ulrike Barten

Authors
  1. Ulrike Barten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barten, U. (2015). Classic Sources on Minority Rights and Self-Determination. In: Minorities, Minority Rights and Internal Self-Determination. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08876-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation