By: Dr. Adnan Bouzan

Introduction:

In constitutional jurisprudence and public international law, the legitimacy of modern states is measured by the extent of their effective commitment to protecting the civil and educational rights of their citizens on the basis of equality and non-discrimination. In the contemporary context, the concept of the state is no longer founded on the monopolization of power or the imposition of a singular identity; rather, it has become contingent upon respect for the principles of equal citizenship, the rule of law, and the recognition of national, linguistic, and cultural diversity as a source of enrichment rather than a threat to political unity.

However, the experience of the Kurdish people in the states of the Middle East reveals a profound structural defect in the very foundations of the nation-state that emerged following the dissolution of empires and the rise of modern nationalist states. In many of these experiences, the state was redefined on exclusionary ethnic foundations, whereby laws and constitutions were transformed from instruments for the protection of rights and freedoms into legal mechanisms for reproducing discrimination, denying national existence, and stripping entire segments of citizens of their fundamental civil and educational rights.

In the Kurdish case, legal texts have not functioned as guarantees of justice, but rather as tools to confer formal legitimacy upon policies of linguistic, cultural, and political exclusion. The use of the Kurdish language has been restricted, Kurdish history has been excluded from educational curricula, and peaceful forms of political expression have been criminalized under pretexts related to state unity or national security—practices that stand in clear contradiction to general constitutional principles and to the international obligations undertaken by those states.

Accordingly, the examination of civil and educational rights of the Kurdish people does not fall within the realm of cultural or emotional discourse, nor can it be reduced to symbolic or identity-based demands. Rather, it constitutes a fundamentally legal and political issue, directly connected to the essence of citizenship, the principle of the rule of law, and the degree to which states respect the norms of international human rights law. Civil rights—including equality before the law, freedom of expression and association, and political participation—and educational rights—encompassing the right to education without discrimination, as well as the right to language and cultural identity—are inalienable rights that may neither be suspended nor arbitrarily restricted.

Moreover, the deprivation of the Kurdish people of these rights does not merely represent a breach of domestic obligations, but rises to the level of systematic violations of peremptory norms of international law, particularly those prohibiting discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or language and those guaranteeing the right of peoples to preserve their cultural identity and to exercise self-determination within internationally recognized legal frameworks. The gravity of these violations is further compounded when they are entrenched through domestic legislation or administrative practices that empty constitutional texts of their substantive content and prevent Kurds from enjoying full and effective citizenship.

Accordingly, this study proceeds from a legal premise that the core problem in the Kurdish case does not lie in the absence of international legal texts or standards, but rather in the profound gap between those standards and their practical implementation within the states concerned. It seeks to analyze the international legal framework governing civil and educational rights and to compare it with the legislative and political reality experienced by the Kurdish people, in order to expose points of contradiction, determine legal responsibilities, and clarify the legal foundations that enable the legitimate pursuit of these rights within the system of international law.

First: The Legal Framework of Civil Rights

Civil rights constitute the fundamental pillar upon which the legal structure of the modern state is built. They represent the minimum set of guarantees that ensure both individuals and groups enjoy freedom, equality, and human dignity. Historically, the development of the concept of civil rights has been closely linked to the emergence of the idea of the rule-of-law state, in which authority is subject to the principle of the supremacy of law, and the legitimacy of the political system is measured by its ability to protect these rights without discrimination or diminution.

Within the framework of public international law, civil rights are no longer regarded as an internal matter subject to the absolute will of the state. Rather, they have evolved into binding international legal obligations that restrict national sovereignty and are subject to oversight by the international community. International human rights instruments—most notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—have established an integrated legal system obligating states to respect the fundamental rights of individuals and peoples, and prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on nationality, language, or ethnic origin.

However, the core problem in the Kurdish case lies in the contradiction between this international legal framework on the one hand, and the national legislation and policies applied in Middle Eastern states on the other. In many instances, the concept of civil rights has been stripped of its substantive meaning by linking it to a single national identity, transforming it into a tool of forced assimilation or legal exclusion. This practice stands in direct conflict with the principle of equal citizenship and with the very essence of civil rights.

Accordingly, this section aims to define the legal framework governing civil rights under international law and to clarify the legal foundations of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, as a prelude to analyzing the extent to which these rules are respected in relation to the Kurdish people. It also seeks to highlight the binding nature of civil rights as non-derogable rights that may not be arbitrarily restricted or suspended, and to demonstrate the legal responsibility incumbent upon states when such rights are violated in a systematic or institutionalized manner.

1. The Concept of Civil Rights in International Law

In the context of international human rights law, civil rights are defined as a set of fundamental rights inherent to the individual, first as a human being and second as a citizen. These rights aim to ensure human dignity, freedom, and effective participation in public life, without discrimination based on nationality, language, ethnic origin, or any other status. Civil rights are the product of a long historical evolution in legal and political thought, through which the international community moved from the concept of absolute state sovereignty to the recognition of binding legal limits on state authority vis-à-vis individuals and groups.

At their core, civil rights revolve around the principle of equality before the law, which constitutes the cornerstone of any just legal system. Equality does not merely imply formal identical treatment; rather, it requires the elimination of all forms of direct and indirect discrimination that hinder individuals from enjoying their rights on an equal footing. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “all are equal before the law” and are entitled to equal protection of the law without any discrimination.

Civil rights also include protection against discrimination as a positive obligation imposed upon states. This obligation extends beyond refraining from enacting discriminatory legislation to encompass the adoption of legal and administrative measures necessary to ensure substantive equality. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibit discrimination based on race, language, or national origin, thereby conferring upon this principle a binding legal character that cannot be evaded under claims of sovereignty or national particularity.

Furthermore, civil rights encompass freedom of expression, freedom of association, and participation in public life—interrelated rights that collectively form the legal framework for the effective exercise of citizenship. Freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant, enables individuals to express their identity and political and cultural views without fear of repression or criminalization. Freedom of association, in turn, is a necessary condition for political and civil activity and for safeguarding pluralism within society, as affirmed in Article 22 of the Covenant.

The system of civil rights is completed by the right to participate in public affairs, which includes the right to access public office and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, either directly or through freely chosen representatives. Article 25 of the International Covenant emphasizes that this right must be exercised without unreasonable restrictions and in a manner that guarantees full equality among citizens.

On this basis, depriving the Kurdish people of the enjoyment of these rights—whether through discriminatory legislation, administrative practices, or systematic repressive policies—constitutes a clear violation of the principles of international human rights law. Such deprivation cannot be justified on grounds of state unity or security, as these justifications lose their legal legitimacy once they are used to perpetuate discrimination and deny internationally recognized fundamental rights.

Accordingly, the issue of civil rights for the Kurdish people is not an internal matter subject to state discretion, but rather falls within the scope of binding international obligations, the violation of which entails international legal responsibility and grants affected persons the right to seek redress through mechanisms recognized within the human rights system.

2. The Right to Identity and Legal Recognition

The right to identity and legal recognition constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of civil rights in contemporary international law. It is inconceivable for any group to enjoy legal legitimacy or effectively exercise its rights without recognition of its legal and political existence. National identity is not merely a cultural given, but a constitutive legal element of the concept of equal citizenship and a core component of the legal personality of human groups.

The denial of the national existence of the Kurdish people, or its reduction to a purely cultural or folkloric characterization devoid of political and legal dimensions, constitutes a direct violation of the fundamental principles of international human rights law. Treating Kurds as a “cultural group” without collective political rights empties the concept of civil rights of its substance and reduces citizenship to a formal status incapable of producing genuine equality before the law.

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly stipulates that “all peoples have the right of self-determination.” In its well-established legal interpretation, this right includes the freedom of peoples to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This right may not be restricted or denied under the pretext of preserving state unity, as unity under international law must be based on consent and participation rather than legal coercion or identity denial.

The right to identity is also closely linked to the principle of the collective legal personality of peoples, a principle recognized in the development of international law, particularly with respect to the rights of Indigenous peoples and national groups. Peoples are not reducible to the sum of their individual members; rather, they constitute a legal entity possessing independent collective rights, including the right to recognition, representation, and preservation of cultural and political distinctiveness. Denying this collective legal personality to the Kurds effectively negates their collective legal capacity and constitutes a grave breach of international justice norms.

This principle entails a clear legal obligation upon states in which the Kurdish people reside to explicitly recognize their national existence, ensure their political representation, and enable them to exercise their collective and individual rights without discrimination. Recognition of the Kurds is not a political concession or a sovereign favor, but a legal obligation arising from adherence to international treaties and peremptory norms of international law.

Accordingly, policies that deny Kurdish identity, criminalize its expression, or deprive Kurds of legitimate political representation constitute a dual violation: a violation of individual civil rights and a violation of the collective rights of peoples. The persistence of such policies opens the door to international legal accountability and undermines the constitutional foundations upon which the modern rule-of-law state is supposed to rest.

3. The Right to Language as an Official and Educational Language

The right to language is one of the essential components of civil and cultural rights in contemporary international law. Language constitutes the primary means through which groups express their identity, transmit their historical memory, and exercise their right to education and public participation. International legal doctrine no longer accepts the treatment of language as a secondary cultural issue; rather, it is recognized as a legal element intrinsically linked to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and as a prerequisite for the effective exercise of civil rights.

International human rights instruments explicitly or implicitly prohibit policies aimed at erasing or marginalizing the language of any human group, due to the discriminatory effects such policies have on human dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights emphasize the necessity of enabling individuals and groups to use their language in expression and education without arbitrary restrictions, as freedom of expression cannot be genuinely realized when one language is imposed at the expense of others.

The UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) is among the most significant international instruments enshrining the right to education without linguistic discrimination. It stipulates that any distinction, exclusion, or limitation based on language constitutes discrimination if it undermines equality of opportunity in education. The Convention further affirms the right of groups to receive education in their mother tongue, given its direct impact on educational justice and the sound intellectual development of individuals.

In this context, prohibiting education in the Kurdish language cannot be regarded as a neutral administrative measure, but rather constitutes explicit linguistic discrimination in violation of the international obligations of the states concerned. A child deprived of education in their mother tongue is placed at an unequal position compared to other citizens, thereby undermining the principle of equal opportunity and leading to unjust educational and social outcomes. Moreover, such prohibition extends beyond the educational process to marginalize the Kurdish language in the public sphere, carrying exclusionary implications that affect identity and dignity.

Consequently, depriving the Kurdish people of the right to education in their mother tongue constitutes a dual violation: a breach of cultural rights on the one hand, and of civil rights on the other. Language is not merely a cultural vessel, but a prerequisite for the exercise of civil rights, from freedom of expression to political and administrative participation. Thus, marginalizing or excluding the Kurdish language from the official educational system undermines the possibility of Kurds enjoying equal and effective citizenship.

Based on the foregoing, recognizing the Kurdish language as a language of education and integrating it into the legal and institutional framework of the state is not a particular cultural demand, but a legal obligation imposed by respect for the principles of non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and the rule of law, as established under international human rights law.

4. Equal Citizenship and Non-Discrimination

Equal citizenship constitutes the cornerstone of modern constitutional doctrine. It is based on the principle that all citizens are subject to the same law, enjoy the same rights, and bear the same obligations, without discrimination based on nationality, language, ethnic origin, or religion. Citizenship, in its legal meaning, is not merely a formal bond between the individual and the state, but a comprehensive legal relationship that creates enforceable rights and judicial protection, while imposing equal obligations upon all citizens.

The principle of equal citizenship is inseparably linked to the principle of non-discrimination, which is one of the foundational norms of international human rights law. This principle is enshrined in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a binding legal obligation upon states. It requires states to refrain from enacting legislation or adopting policies that result in direct or indirect discrimination, and obliges them to take positive measures to ensure substantive—not merely formal—equality.

The Kurdish experience in Middle Eastern states, however, reveals a structural defect in the very concept of citizenship, manifested in the constitutional definition of the state on the basis of a single national identity, with that identity serving as an explicit or implicit criterion for full membership in the political community. Under such a model, citizenship is transformed from an inclusive legal bond into an exclusionary tool, relegating unrecognized national identities to a subordinate or marginal status, despite their members holding the nationality of the state and being subject to its obligations.

This exclusionary definition of the state produces profound legal consequences, as other national identities—among them the Kurdish identity—are excluded from explicit constitutional protection or reduced to a narrow cultural sphere that falls short of full legal recognition. This results in an unequal legal status in which Kurds are citizens by social and demographic reality, but not by full constitutional and legal recognition, thereby stripping the principle of citizenship of its substantive meaning.

Such constitutional exclusion is often reflected in ordinary legislation and administrative practices, through restrictions on access to public office, limitations on political participation, or the imposition of discriminatory linguistic and educational policies. These practices amount to indirect discrimination that violates the core of legal equality. In this case, discrimination is not the result of incidental legal violations, but rather the outcome of a constitutional structure built upon the denial of national pluralism.

Accordingly, achieving equal citizenship for Kurds requires revisiting the constitutional foundations that define state identity and transitioning from a mono-national state model to a pluralistic constitutional state that recognizes all its components on an equal footing. Citizenship, in its proper legal sense, is only complete when all citizens are equal before the law—not only in texts, but in legislative and institutional reality—without requiring any group to relinquish its national identity as a condition for recognition.

Conclusion

Civil rights, within the framework of international human rights law, constitute an integrated legal system aimed at ensuring equality, human dignity, and effective participation in public life as essential conditions for the legitimacy of the modern rule-of-law state. The analysis has demonstrated that these rights do not apply solely to individuals in isolation from their national and linguistic affiliations, but extend to groups as legal entities endowed with internationally recognized collective rights.

The study has shown that the right to identity and legal recognition, the right to language as a medium of education and official communication, and the principle of equal citizenship and non-discrimination are not fragmented rights or contingent political demands, but binding legal obligations deriving their legitimacy from mandatory international instruments—chief among them the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These rights form part of the fundamental norms from which states may not derogate or suspend under claims of sovereignty or national security.

By applying these principles to the Kurdish case, the study concludes that the core problem does not lie in the absence of international legal texts, but rather in the prevailing constitutional and legislative structures in several states of the region, which are based on a monolithic definition of state identity that excludes other national identities and produces direct or indirect legal discrimination against the Kurdish people. This structural defect transforms Kurds into citizens by social and demographic reality, but not by full constitutional and legal recognition.

The analysis further concludes that policies denying Kurdish identity, marginalizing the Kurdish language, or depriving Kurds of equal political participation constitute explicit violations of the principle of non-discrimination and entail both domestic and international legal responsibility for the states concerned. Such policies cannot be justified by sovereign considerations, as sovereignty in contemporary legal doctrine is exercised within the framework of respect for human rights, not at their expense.

Accordingly, the following legal conclusions may be drawn:

1. The civil rights of the Kurdish people are fixed legal rights that are non-transferable and non-derogable, not negotiable political demands.

2. Denial of Kurdish national identity or marginalization of the Kurdish language constitutes a serious breach of international human rights obligations.

3. The absence of equal citizenship undermines the legitimacy of the constitutional state and empties the principle of the rule of law of its substance.

4. Addressing the Kurdish issue from a legal perspective requires constitutional reform that recognizes national pluralism and guarantees substantive equality before the law.

On this basis, this section provides the legal foundation for moving toward a study of the right to education as a natural extension of civil rights, and as an essential condition for entrenching equal citizenship and building a legal consciousness capable of protecting these rights from erosion or circumvention.

Second: Education as a Constitutional Right, Not a Government Policy

Education constitutes one of the fundamental rights occupying a central position within the constitutional structure of modern states, due to its decisive role in shaping individual personality, entrenching the values of citizenship, and ensuring the effective ability to exercise other rights and freedoms. In contemporary constitutional jurisprudence, the right to education is no longer viewed as a social service provided by the state according to political or circumstantial considerations, but rather as an inherent constitutional right that imposes both positive and negative legal obligations upon the state simultaneously.

International instruments have firmly entrenched this conceptual shift. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right of everyone to education and links this right to the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Likewise, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes the obligation of states to guarantee education on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, thereby establishing education as an enforceable legal right rather than a governmental policy subject to change with shifting political orientations or regimes.

Within the constitutional framework, recognition of the right to education constitutes a fundamental criterion for assessing a state’s commitment to the rule of law. When this right is enshrined in the constitution, it becomes binding upon the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities alike, and any educational policy that restricts or empties it of its substance becomes subject to constitutional challenge. Conversely, when education is reduced to an instrument in the hands of the executive authority, it opens the door to its exploitation for ideological or nationalist purposes, at the expense of equality, pluralism, and fundamental rights.

The issue of education acquires particular legal significance in multi-national and multi-linguistic societies, where education does not merely transmit knowledge but becomes a space for either reproducing or denying collective identity. In this context, subjecting education to government policies grounded in a single national identity leads to structural discrimination against unrecognized groups and transforms the educational system into an instrument of exclusion rather than a means of equitable integration.

With regard to the Kurdish people, education emerges as one of the most prominent arenas of legal conflict between the logic of rights and the logic of politics. Experiences in several states of the region demonstrate that education has often been used as a means of imposing a single official identity through curricula, language of instruction, and administrative policies, in clear contradiction to constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, as well as to international human rights obligations.

Accordingly, examining education as a constitutional right rather than a government policy requires an analysis of the international and constitutional legal foundations that obligate states to guarantee fair and inclusive education—education that respects national and linguistic pluralism and ensures that all citizens, including the Kurdish people, enjoy their right to an education that affirms their identity and dignity and enables them to exercise citizenship on an equal footing.

1. The Right to Education in International Law

The right to education is one of the fundamental, non-derogable rights and has been enshrined in international human rights law as a cornerstone in the construction of the individual, society, and the state. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) affirms that education is a right of everyone and obligates States Parties to ensure its enjoyment without discrimination of any kind.

The scope of this right is not limited to the formal availability of education, but rather encompasses a set of essential standards that have been established in international jurisprudence and UN bodies’ reports, most notably:

a. Availability:
The provision of sufficient, adequately funded educational institutions capable of accommodating all segments of society without exclusion.

b. Accessibility:
Ensuring that education is genuinely accessible to all individuals, including national and linguistic minorities, without discrimination.

c. Cultural Acceptability:
Requiring that curricula and teaching methods be consistent with learners’ cultural and national identities, and that they respect their values, language, and history.

d. Linguistic Adaptability:
A fundamental principle obligating states to adapt the educational system to the linguistic reality of society, rather than imposing a monolingual framework that excludes indigenous languages.

On the basis of these standards, the imposition of centralized educational curricula that marginalize the Kurdish language or exclude Kurdish history cannot be justified as an internal sovereign choice. Rather, it constitutes a direct breach of the international obligations arising under the Covenant.

Such educational policies also produce grave legal consequences, including:

• Transforming education from a constitutional right into an instrument of national assimilation;

• Creating indirect discrimination based on language and national affiliation;

• Violating the principle of equal educational opportunity among citizens.

Consequently, depriving Kurdish children of education in their mother tongue, or distorting their history and identity within official curricula, constitutes not only a violation of cultural rights, but also an infringement upon civil and political rights, insofar as education is the primary gateway to equal participation in public life.

Accordingly, any state that claims adherence to the rule of law and human rights cannot separate the right to education from the right to identity, nor treat education as a governmental policy subject to political fluctuation, but must regard it as a permanent constitutional and international obligation.

2. Education and Legal Identity

From a constitutional and human rights perspective, education is not an instrument of forced integration or national homogenization, but a fundamental means of building a citizen who is aware of their rights and conscious of their legal and cultural identity within the framework of a rule-of-law state. Education, as an inherent right, is directly connected to other equally fundamental rights, foremost among them the right to identity, the right to knowledge, and the right to free and non-imposed belonging.

International human rights law—particularly through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity—has affirmed that education must respect the cultural identities of peoples and reflect their history and collective memory, rather than erase or reconstruct them according to a single official narrative.

The exclusion of Kurdish history from official educational curricula, or its reduction to distorted or marginal narratives, cannot be regarded as a neutral educational matter. From a legal standpoint, it constitutes:

a. Falsification of Collective Memory:
By depriving Kurdish generations of their right to know their authentic history, with its realities, suffering, struggles, and contributions to the formation of the region and the state.

b. Systematic Production of Distorted Consciousness:
Where Kurdish children are raised to deny their identity or internalize cultural inferiority, while non-Kurdish children are taught an incomplete or exclusionary narrative about their partners in the homeland.

c. Violation of the Right to Knowledge:
As the right to education extends beyond technical learning to include the right of individuals to access their history and identity as legitimate components of human knowledge.

From a more precise legal perspective, such educational exclusion constitutes a breach of the right to cultural identity, a right recognized within the framework of collective rights, particularly with respect to Indigenous peoples and national minorities. It also contradicts the principle of good faith in the implementation of international obligations, which requires states to refrain from circumventing rights through indirect instruments such as educational curricula.

Accordingly, education that denies the national identity of a segment of citizens does not produce equal citizenship, but rather entrenches diminished citizenship and reproduces discrimination in concealed legal forms. A state that monopolizes historical narrative and excludes pluralism empties the concept of citizenship of its substance and transforms education from a constitutional right into an instrument of political domination.

Thus, respecting Kurdish identity within the educational system is not merely a cultural or political demand, but a legal and constitutional entitlement without which the concept of the modern state cannot be sustained.

3. Education for Citizenship and Human Rights

Education for citizenship and human rights constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of the modern rule-of-law state. The function of education is not limited to the transmission of knowledge, but extends to shaping the individual’s legal and political consciousness and enabling them to understand their rights and duties within the framework of the rule of law. From this perspective, sound education, in its legal dimension, must be based on clear foundations, most notably:

• Respect for national and cultural pluralism as a legal and social reality that cannot be denied or reduced;

• Promotion of human rights culture as a binding universal legal and value-based system;

• Entrenchment of the principle of the rule of law, whereby both ruler and ruled are equally subject to the law.

International instruments—particularly the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (2011)—have affirmed that education must promote respect for human dignity, equality, and the right of peoples to self-determination, and prepare individuals for conscious and responsible participation in public life.

Conversely, educational systems built upon:

• Blind obedience instead of critical thinking;

• Glorification of authority rather than its legal accountability;

• Criminalization of national demands rather than recognition of their legitimacy;

produce, from a legal standpoint, a citizen with diminished awareness and entrench a culture of submission rather than a culture of rights. They transform the school from a space of civic formation into an instrument for reproducing political power, in direct contradiction to the essence of education as an independent and neutral right.

For the Kurdish people, the exclusion of their national rights from curricula, or the portrayal of their demands within a security or separatist framework, constitutes a deliberate distortion of the concept of citizenship and undermines the principle of equal participation in public affairs. Demanding linguistic, cultural, and political rights does not constitute defiance of the state, but rather the legitimate exercise of internationally guaranteed civil rights.

Accordingly, education for citizenship and human rights cannot be realized under an educational discourse that excludes pluralism and criminalizes difference. Genuine citizenship is not built on denial, but on recognition; it is not entrenched through fear, but through rights; and it is not protected by slogans, but by the rule of law and respect for the dignity of all components without exception.

Conclusion

Education is not a temporary government policy, but a constitutional right and an international legal obligation over which the state has no authority to impose ideological direction in violation of human rights principles. International law, like modern constitutions, regards education as a foundational pillar for building equal citizenship, ensuring human dignity, and safeguarding national and cultural pluralism within a single state.

The analysis has demonstrated that the right to education is inseparable from the right to language, identity, and historical knowledge, and that any educational system that excludes the Kurdish language or marginalizes Kurdish history and culture constitutes a compounded violation encompassing both educational and civil rights. It has also been legally established that the imposition of monolithic curricula that fail to respect national and cultural particularities breaches the principles of cultural acceptability and linguistic adaptability enshrined in international instruments.

Through examining the relationship between education and legal identity, this study concludes that erasing Kurdish collective memory within educational institutions does not merely represent an epistemic failure, but produces a grave legal consequence: the reproduction of diminished citizenship founded on denial rather than recognition, and on subordination rather than participation. This outcome stands in direct contradiction to the essence of the constitutional state, which is built upon recognizing pluralism rather than erasing it.

In the context of education for citizenship and human rights, the study has shown that education which promotes blind obedience, glorifies authority, and criminalizes national demands contradicts state obligations to disseminate a culture of human rights and transforms the school into an instrument of political control rather than a space for civic formation. Accordingly, the exclusion of Kurdish rights from educational discourse constitutes a direct violation of the principle of the rule of law and of the concept of equal citizenship.

Accordingly, the legal conclusions of this section may be summarized as follows:

• Denial of the right to education in the Kurdish language constitutes a violation of educational and cultural rights and falls within the scope of internationally prohibited discrimination.

• Exclusion of Kurdish history and identity from official curricula infringes upon the right to knowledge and cultural identity and entails legal responsibility on the part of the state.

• Education that fails to respect national pluralism and human rights produces formal, rather than substantive, citizenship that does not meet constitutional standards of equality.

• The use of education as an instrument of political domination violates international obligations and undermines the legitimacy of the legal system itself.

Accordingly, this section affirms that achieving educational justice for the Kurdish people is not a matter of administrative reform or political concession, but a legal and constitutional entitlement without which a modern state cannot credibly claim legitimacy. Just education is the natural gateway to genuine citizenship and to a rule-of-law state founded on recognition rather than exclusion.

Third: The Legal Responsibility of States and Existing Authorities

The continued violation of the civil and educational rights of the Kurdish people cannot, from any serious legal perspective, be characterized as a mere incidental administrative failure, a technical deficiency in public policies, or even as a collateral effect of exceptional political circumstances. Rather, this persistence reveals a structural pattern of organized violation that, in its essence, constitutes an act that is unlawful both constitutionally and internationally. Such conduct gives rise to direct and cumulative legal responsibilities incumbent upon states and existing authorities, whether in their legislative, executive, or judicial capacities.

In contemporary constitutional theory, the legitimacy of the modern state is not measured solely by its monopoly over force or its control of territory, but by the extent of its commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of all its citizens without discrimination. From this standpoint, the denial of civil and educational rights to an indigenous people such as the Kurdish people represents an assault on the very core of the social contract and empties the concept of citizenship of its legal substance, replacing it with a model of conditional belonging based on conformity to the official national or cultural identity of the state.

From a legal perspective, state obligations regarding rights are not limited to the duty to refrain from violating them, but extend to positive obligations that require the adoption of effective legislative, administrative, and educational measures to ensure the actual enjoyment of those rights. This principle is well established in the jurisprudence of international human rights law, which clearly distinguishes between negative obligations (non-interference) and positive obligations (protection, facilitation, and guarantee). Accordingly, legislative silence, executive inaction, or implicit acceptance of discriminatory policies constitutes, in itself, a form of legal violation.

Moreover, the accession of the states in which the Kurdish people live to the core international human rights treaties—particularly the two International Covenants—was not a symbolic political act, but one that entailed binding legal obligations grounded in the principle of good faith in the performance of treaties. Consequently, any practice aimed at marginalizing the Kurdish language, excluding Kurdish history from educational curricula, or criminalizing demands for national rights constitutes a clear breach of these obligations. Such practices cannot be justified by appeals to national sovereignty or cultural particularity, since human rights function as legitimate constraints on state sovereignty, not exceptions to it.

Even more troubling is the fact that the continuous and systematic nature of these violations elevates them from the level of isolated breaches to that of an unlawful public policy. This, in turn, entails an aggravated form of international responsibility and negates any claim of good faith or unintentional error. When education is transformed into an instrument of denial, and law into a means of exclusion, the state becomes a direct participant in the production of discrimination rather than a mere bystander failing to prevent it.

Accordingly, the legal responsibility of states and existing authorities derives not only from the texts of laws and treaties, but from the very nature of the state itself as an entity that is ethically and legally bound to protect pluralism, guarantee dignity, and safeguard both collective and individual rights. Any failure to fulfill this function not only jeopardizes the rights of the Kurdish people, but also strikes at the heart of the legitimacy of the legal system and places the state in a permanent contradiction with the principles it claims to uphold.

1. Internal Constitutional Responsibility

Constitutional responsibility is grounded in the principle that authority is not the source of rights, but their guarantor. Accordingly, any legislation or executive practice that denies the civil or educational rights of Kurds constitutes a clear violation of the principle of constitutional supremacy and of equality before the law.

Legally, this entails:

• The unconstitutionality of laws that exclude the Kurdish language from education or public life;

• The invalidity of educational policies that discriminate among citizens on national or linguistic grounds;

• The right of affected individuals to challenge such measures before constitutional or administrative judicial bodies, where they exist.

Ignoring this responsibility reduces the constitution to a purely formal text, empties the concept of the rule of law of its substance, and entrenches a reality of legalized discrimination.

2. International Responsibility under International Law

At the international level, states that violate the rights of the Kurdish people incur legal responsibility under international human rights law, particularly pursuant to the two International Covenants, anti-discrimination conventions, and principles concerning the protection of minorities and indigenous peoples.

This responsibility manifests in:

• Breach of treaty obligations arising from ratification of international instruments;

• Violation of the principle of non-discrimination as a peremptory norm of international law;

• Exposure of the state to accountability mechanisms before international monitoring bodies, such as Special Rapporteurs, treaty bodies, and the Human Rights Council.

Furthermore, the systematic and continuous character of these violations may, from a legal standpoint, amount to a policy of structural discrimination, thereby aggravating international responsibility and rendering it not subject to prescription or lapse of time.

3. Legal Rights Accruing to the Kurdish People

In response to these violations, the Kurdish people, as a national group with rights recognized under international law, acquire a set of legitimate legal rights, most notably:

a. The right to demand constitutional reform:
In order to ensure explicit recognition of Kurdish identity, the Kurdish language, and equal citizenship, and to put an end to exclusionary constitutional formulations.

b. The right to resort to international mechanisms:
Through the submission of complaints, shadow reports, and engagement with relevant UN bodies, particularly where domestic remedies are ineffective or lack independence.

c. The right to legitimate peaceful struggle to reclaim rights:
A right firmly established in international law, provided it is exercised peacefully, grounded in human rights principles, and aimed at ending discrimination and achieving justice and equality.

Conclusion

The denial of the civil and educational rights of the Kurdish people does not merely undermine the rights of a segment of citizens; it erodes the legal foundations of the state itself. A state that refuses to acknowledge its plurality and criminalizes demands for rights forfeits its constitutional and moral legitimacy and opens the door to enduring legal and political crises.

Accordingly, recognition and protection of Kurdish rights—both legislatively and educationally—do not constitute a threat to the unity of the state. Rather, they are a fundamental prerequisite for its stability, the legitimacy of its legal order, and the future of coexistence based on justice and the rule of law.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

• Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Cassese, Antonio. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
• Thornberry, Patrick. International Law and the Rights of Minorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• Capotorti, Francesco. Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. United Nations, 1979.
• Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• McDowall, David. A Modern History of the Kurds. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004.
• Bozarslan, Hamit. La Question Kurde. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2013.
• Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1970.
• UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education. UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10.

Add comment