The concept of non-territorial autonomy gives rise to at least two important questions about this particular model of government: the range of areas over which autonomy extends, and the extent to which this autonomy is indeed non-territorial. A widely used early description of this response to ethnic diversity significantly labelled it “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, indeed, “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 in which to operate. 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 paper explores the dilemma generated by this tension between ethnic geography (the patterns of settlement characteristic of co-existing ethnic groups) and political autonomy. It considers examples from a range of European cases.
