1. One of the good things about Lapidoth's book is that it makes a compelling case in favor of autonomy. Heterogeneity is perceived as positive. Certain groups have a desire to preserve their culture, and this should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Autonomy is a means to allow the expression of cultural diversity while simultaneously helping to achieve peace. The author advocates autonomy because it is a flexible approach with proven results, even in situations where deep-seated differences appear to offer little hope of peaceful resolution.
Another good thing about the book is that the author provides balance for her argument in favor of autonomy. She presents cases of failed autonomy as well as successes. Although autonomy has been largely successful, the approach does have its pros and cons, its critics and supporters. Autonomy requires compromise and a willingness by both parties to see the process succeed: "Autonomy is not a panacea, but only a framework that can constitute an adequate compromise if the parties are looking for one" (Lapidoth, 1996, p. 204). Central governments are sometimes reluctant to grant autonomy to minority groups based on a variety of fears, such as the risk of intervention of a foreign state to which members of the autonomous group have affinity. Likewise, minority groups usually see themselves as being compromised by autonomy, preferring complete secession. Even when both parties bargain in good faith, autonomy has it pitfalls. For instance, some agreements have created "cultural ghettoes," areas of complete separation (Lapidoth, 1996, p. 204). The creation of such cultural separation does little to foster human rights ideals.
Lapidoth also includes a brief section that describes factors that increase the possibility of success of an autonomous regime. Among the factors are the consent of the population intended to benefit from the autonomy, the consent of a foreign state th...