<![CDATA[Background: Constitutional protection of minority rights remains a central concern in contemporary constitutional law, particularly amid rising political polarization, public health crises, and democratic backsliding. Although constitutions formally guarantee equality and non-discrimination, the effectiveness of protection mechanisms varies significantly across jurisdictions and minority groups. Objective: This study aims to examine how constitutional frameworks across different regions protect minority rights and to identify the most effective constitutional mechanisms, judicial practices, and implementation challenges affecting religious, ethnic, LGBTQ+, linguistic, and other minority groups. Methods: The research employs a comparative legal analysis based on a systematic review of 25 Scopus-indexed publications published between 2019 and 2024. Judicial decisions, constitutional provisions, and enforcement mechanisms from jurisdictions in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania were analyzed to identify regional patterns and institutional effectiveness. Results: The findings indicate that constitutional courts are the most effective protection mechanism, demonstrating an average effectiveness rate of 85%, significantly outperforming legislative and administrative mechanisms. European jurisdictions exhibit the highest level of minority rights protection (65%), while African jurisdictions show lower protection rates (30%). Religious minorities account for the largest share of constitutional cases (32%), followed by ethnic minorities (28%) and LGBTQ+ groups (18%). Non-discrimination principles show the strongest implementation (8.0/10), whereas political representation mechanisms remain the weakest (6.5/10). The COVID-19 pandemic correlated with a notable increase in minority rights cases. Conclusion: This study provides empirical evidence that strong constitutional courts and non-discrimination principles are central to effective minority rights protection. However, enforcement gaps, political resistance, and limited institutional capacity continue to undermine constitutional guarantees, highlighting the need for targeted policy and institutional reforms.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
