Constitutional Court Rulings on Language Models in Education
The Constitution’s silence on the school language model has allowed the Constitutional Court to rule in favor of two approaches. The special nature of this matter and the different socio-linguistic circumstances of the “bilingual territories” of Spain would not make it appropriate to exchange these formulas and apply a single solution across the country. Different linguistic realities cannot have unique solutions.
Not in all cases of language contact is it desirable or possible to pursue integration through a combined language approach. In the case of the Basque Country, the huge gap between Basque and Romance philology would prevent it, and a joint linguistic formula equal to that of Catalonia could not be reached. This does not preclude public authorities from providing a blended formula, and it is even desirable, as it combines freedom of language with the principle of integration. It presents a great difficulty, but it is also how to deal with justice, from the standpoint of legal reasonableness and proportionality, with the complex issue of language teaching in the school system.
One of the pedagogical techniques that can be used in conjunction is language immersion at some stage in the education cycle (while not compromising the ultimate objective: that students complete the education cycle with an equal mastery of the two vehicular languages). However, the application of this technique does not seem legitimate in the combination model during the early school years (it implies that some of the children are not being educated in their mother tongue). This is due to the principle of free development of personality and respecting the mother tongue as a derivation of it: “The right to a mother tongue is a human right, an educational requirement of the utmost importance… Only by mastering our language can we express the cultural framework that is ours.”
Other Areas of the Law of Culture
1. Intellectual Property
1.1 Introduction
Intellectual Property Concept
In legal terms, “intellectual property” is an amphibological expression (it supports multiple concepts).
In the broadest concept, it refers to a set of rights relating to:
- Literary, artistic, and scientific works
- Performances of artists
- Inventions in all fields of human activity
- Scientific discoveries
- Industrial designs
- Trademarks
- Protection against unfair competition
Many states that signed the Stockholm Convention incorporated this “broad” concept of intellectual property into their legislation, something that Spain has not done to date.
The broad concept results from dividing the set of intangible rights and property provided for in Article 2 of the Stockholm Convention into two groups. One group would encompass industrial property and protection against unfair competition, and the other would include intangible assets related to culture, such as literary works, performances, and others.
Both groups of intangible rights are equal in terms of the legal protection provided by international conventions signed by the state. However, for internal purposes, as is the case in Spain, the legal system is structured by different laws.