Giuseppe Turi, the author of this article, is a specialist in comparative language law and Secretary General of the International Academy of Language Law, which is based in Montreal.

ABSTRACT: The Radical Party is involved in the political struggle to uphold the right to language. As Giuseppe Turi, Secretary General of the International Academy of Language Law, points out, the right to language must be considered "a basic, explicit and independent right, a requisite for the exercise of the other basic rights." If we really believe in the right to language, and its two principles - the dignity and equality of all languages - a number of questions have to be raised: is it normal for a national or local language to take on the role of international lingua franca? What are the consequences for the other national and local languages and cultures? What are the consequences for the language and the culture which have wrongly become international?

(THE PARTY new - n. 6 - march 1992)

An increasing number of countries are making laws in the field of language policy, in the aim of regulating the linguistic phenomena and problems which arise from contact, conflict and inequality between languages that co-exist within their political territory, especially in areas where there are dominant and dominated languages, in other words linguistic majorities and minorities. Language laws can be classified into two types according to their field of application: that is, according to whether they concern the official or the unofficial use of languages. They can be further classified into four categories according to their purpose: official language laws (regarding legislation, justice, public administration and teaching), normalizing laws (regarding employment, communications, culture, trade, and business), standardizing laws (regarding linguistic standards to be respected in precise, limited, and normally official fields), and liberal laws (regarding recognized linguistic rights).

The right to language is based on two fundamental and interrelated principles: the principle of the dignity and the principle of the equality of all languages.

Unfortunately, for historical reasons (some of which are clear, others less so), not all languages are equal. There are important languages, dominant languages and dominated languages, languages which are more or less international, and languages which are more or less local. When a country legislates on the subject of language, it is simply creating legal regulation of the use of one or more languages, protecting or promoting one language or several languages more than others, in an attempt to re-establish a more equal balance, from a cultural point of view, between the various languages within its political territory. It does so by creating new rights and new duties in the field of language. If a country makes laws in this way, specifically acknowledging and consecrating the right to language and its two fundamental principles, it is undoubtedly worthy of praise. However, if it makes laws to protect and promote one or more languages or, as sometimes happens, the majority language, in a discriminatory manne

r, it is anything but worthy of praise.

The urgent need to acknowledge and consecrate the right to language, legally and explicitly, is therefore increasingly evident. The right to language is an individual and collective right which must not be considered as implicit - deriving from the explicit right to freedom of expression, amongst other things - but as explicit and independent, a requisite for the exercise of the other fundamental rights. The acknowledgement and consecration of the right to language now seem to be possible, for it is part of the ecological cultural trend which aims to protect and promote the right to difference, the source of creativity for individuals and families, as well as for societies, nations, and the international community.

However, the cultural battle for this end will not be easy, for the majority of countries are not yet willing to acknowledge and consecrate the right to language. We will have to keep a careful watch on the situation in order to prevent legislation from becoming simply intervention in favour of language "users", or authoritarian intervention in favour of one particular language, considered as the only cultural and linguistic patrimony to be defended. In fact languages are an ecological patrimony which belongs to everybody, and which must be protected and promoted in order to make the two fundamental principles of the right to language become increasingly widespread.

Article 27 of the international Pact on civil and political rights of 1976, which to some extent acknowledged and consecrated the right to language, was an excellent initiative. However, we need to go further.

To acknowledge and consecrate the right to language means to acknowledge and consecrate the "Tower of Babel", which is not a divine punishment but the most evident feature of human life, the remarkable manifestation of cultural differences, both individual and collective. The fact that there are thousands of national and local languages inevitably creates a need for one or more international languages. "International languages" - Greek, Latin, and French in the past, English in the present day, maybe Japanese or Portuguese in the future - are national and local languages which impose themselves, in a politically hegemonic manner, on other languages. The most widely-spoken languages in the world today are Hindi-Urdu and Chinese, but the international language is English. Is it normal for a national or local language, which is the manifestation of a particular culture, to assume the role of international lingua franca? What are the consequences for the other national and local languages? What are the consequen

ces for the language and the culture which have become international? In order to avoid the consequences, which are often negative (not only in the field of language, for any form of hegemony is undoubtedly dangerous), a solution already exists - Esperanto.

Esperanto, which in a way is an artificial language, is a natural international language, and therefore does not interfere with other languages that are artificial rather than natural international languages. From this point of view it is a "neutral" language. If we really believe in the right to language as the most essential fundamental right, if we believe in its two principles, the dignity and the equality of all languages, then the time has come to encourage the spread of Esperanto as an international language, without interfering excessively with the diversity and the vitality of the different national and local languages. The best and most intelligent way to fight off a new tragedy, "the war of languages", which threatens to be particularly fierce, is to acknowledge and consecrate the right to language and the importance of a neutral international language. We can and we must avoid such a war. Linguistic peace is possible, and will be the basis for cultural prosperity. We need, however, to act.