The proposed paper focuses on the minority rights protection model in Republic of Macedonia making a comparative analysis with the case of Trentino-South Tyrol; two inter-ethnic conflict resolution models, rather different in terms of reality and historical development but close in terms of solutions offered. It analyses two consociational models addressing minority rights, focusing on Macedonia as a model in development (representing the relationship between the state and the Albanian minority group). The group-differentiated rights proposed by Kymlicka are designed to protect cultural and political interests and in order to determine which ethnocultural groups merit which rights it is essential to make a distinction between national minorities and ethnic groups (Valadez, 2001) as to be seen historically in the Macedonian case. If an ethnic minority lacks the effective agency needed to exercise its group rights, then it should be avoided the granting and recognition of those rights (Nickles, 1997), or, for non-territorial ethnic minorities to try to create the effective agency, legitimate leaders are needed for their rights effective exercise and management. This is to be addressed by the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) and its developments. Non-territorial autonomy crucial factor is the membership in a minority group; in this sense the perception of the NTA built by the OFA varies among scholars. There are two dimensions: cultural (language) and territorial, posing the question on whether the model is rather non-territorial or tends to form territorial division of the state. Although it has been more than a decade since the OFA, the Macedonian system is still fragile and subject to further modifications. The linked between NTA and the EU conditionality for minority rights’ protection will be addressed as a final important issue, an attempt to answer the question on the Macedonian model integration and harmonization with the EU minority protection framework.
