Constitutional rights and language legislation around the world

Language rights are sometimes set out in a country’s constitution, giving them a solemn and definitive character. Of the 45 bilingual states, 39 (87%) have declared official bilingualism in their constitutions. Only Rwanda, Seychelles, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Vanuatu have three official languages, while Singapore has four.

Generally speaking, constitutions set out general principles, while specific language protection measures are provided in a statute. However Belgium, Canada and India have an impressive number of constitutional provisions, to the extent that one can almost say language legislation has been constitutionalized.

Only 10 of the 45 bilingual states (22%) have one or more language laws to govern official bilingualism practices.

Some states have also adopted other laws to regulate specific aspects of language use. In addition, laws not regulating language may contain sections concerning the use of language in various fields or circumstances (adoption, marriage, elections, labelling, police services, insurance, etc.).

A country may give itself a considerable amount of latitude and use regulations, decrees or administrative circulars to specify how a law is to be enforced. As a result, some bilingual states have no constitutional provisions on language and no language law, as is the case, for example, with Israel, Nauru, Samoa and Tonga.

Obviously, the extent to which a country specifies the language rights of its citizens in a legal instrument will determine the degree to which these rights are applied and respected. On the other hand, merely proclaiming two official languages in a constitution is generally not sufficient to ensure the rights of a minority, which may remain theoretical or be subject to all sorts of interpretations, often restrictive ones.