Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:20:28.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethnic Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe: The Case of the Hungarian ‘Status Law’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Cristina Chiva
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The international controversy concerning the Hungarian ‘status law’ of 2001 attests to the vital importance of ethnic minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as within an enlarged European Union. The paper examines the unique challenges raised by the law from its initial adoption in June 2001 to its subsequent amendment in June 2003. It looks at the interaction between four principal kinds of actors: Hungary (a kin state legislating support for ethnic co- nationals in neighbouring countries), Romania and Slovakia (home states to sizeable Hungarian ethnic groups), the Hungarian minorities in Romania and Slovakia, and the European institutions that became involved in the dispute as mediators.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , 2006 , pp. 401 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 2001. évi LXII törvény a szomszédos államokban élő magyarokról, available at www.htmh.hu in Hungarian, as well as in English as Act LXII of 2001 on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries (henceforth Act LXII of 2001).Google Scholar

2 2003. évi LVIII törvény a szomszédos államokban élő magyarokról szóló 2001. évi LXII törvény módosításáról and its English translation, Act LVIII of 2003 Concerning Amendments of the Act LXII of 2001 on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries (henceforth Act LVIII of 2003) are available at www.htmh.hu.Google Scholar

3 Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983; Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1983; Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1992; Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, London, Verso, 1991.Google Scholar

4 Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, p. 25.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

6 Vachudová, Anna and Snyder, Tim, ‘Are Transitions Transitory? Two Types of Political Change in Eastern Europe since 1989’, East European Politics and Societies, 11: 1 (1997), pp. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. According to Brubaker, nationalizing states are ‘ethnically heterogeneous yet configured as nation-states, whose political elites promote … the language, culture, demographic position, economic flourishing or political hegemony of the nominally state-bearing nation’. Within these states, there are national minorities ‘whose leaders demand cultural or territorial autonomy and resist actual or perceived policies or processes of assimilation or discrimination’. Another factor is represented by the external national ‘homelands’ of these minorities, ‘whose elites … closely monitor the situation of their co-ethnics, … vigorously protest alleged violations of their rights and assert the right, even the obligation, to defend their interests’ (p. 57).Google Scholar

8 Brigid Fowler, ‘Fuzzing Citizenship, Nationalising Political Space: A Framework for Interpreting the Hungarian “Status Law” as a New Form of Kin-State Policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, ESRC ‘One Europe or Several’ Working Paper 40/2002, available at ; Michael Stewart, ‘The Hungarian Status Law: A New European Form of Transnational Politics?’, Transnational Communities Programme Working Paper 02–09, 2002, available at www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk.Google Scholar

9 Fowler, ‘Fuzzing Citizenship’, p. 10.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 10 (original emphasis).Google Scholar

11 Stewart, ‘The Hungarian Status Law’, p. 26.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar

13 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on the Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by their Kin-State, adopted at its 48th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 19–20 October 2001, CDL-INF. 2001, p. 19, available at www.venice.coe.int (henceforth Venice Commission Report).Google Scholar

14 Ibid.Google Scholar

15 The majority of these are Roma (142,000), followed by Germans (30,000), and Slovaks and Romanians (10,000 each). Ethnic minority organizations disagree, estimating that there are 400,000 to 600,000 Roma, 100,000–110,000 Slovaks, and 200,000 Germans, as well as other ethnic groups, up to a total between 835,000 and 1,083,950. See Krizsán, Andrea, ‘The Hungarian Minority Protection System: A Flexible Approach to the Adjudication of Ethnic Claims’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 20: 2 (2000), pp.247–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Government of Hungary, ‘Paper Containing the Position of the Hungarian Government in Relation to the Act on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries’, submitted to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2001.Google Scholar

17 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Newsline (henceforth RFE/RL Newsline), 18 January 2002.Google Scholar

18 Gal, Susan, ‘Bartók’s Funeral: Representations of Europe in Hungarian Political Rhetoric’, American Ethnologist, 18: 3 (1991), pp.440–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Kiss, Csilla, ‘From Liberalism to Conservatism: The Federation of Young Democrats in Post-Communist Hungary’, East European Politics and Societies, 16: 3 (2002), pp.739–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Fowler, Brigid, ‘Nation, State, Europe and National Revival in Hungarian Party Politics: The Case of the Millenial Commemorations’, Europe-Asia Studies, 56: 1 (2004), pp.54–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 However, since EU legislation prohibits the preferential treatment of ethnic groups, the law does not apply to Austria, and was not to apply to neighbouring countries such as Slovakia and Slovenia once they joined the EU.Google Scholar

22 See Cserga, Zsuzsa, ‘Beyond Ethnic Division: Majority-Minority Debate about the Post-Communist State in Romania and Slovakia’, East European Politics and Societies, 16: 1 (2002), pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Kingston, Klara, ‘The Hungarian Status Law’, RFE/RL East European Perspectives, 3: 17 (October 2001),Google Scholar available at http://www.rferl.org/eepreport/

24 RFE/RL Newsline, 27 and 29 June 2001.Google Scholar

25 RFE/RL Newsline, 12 July 2001; Commission of the European Communities, 2001 Regular Report on Hungary’s Progress Towards Accession, SEC (2001) 1748, and 2002 Regular Report on Hungary’s Progress Towards Accession, SEC (2002) 1404. Both are available at www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement.Google Scholar

26 Fowler, ‘Fuzzing Citizenship’.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 32.Google Scholar

28 Government of Romania, ‘The Official Position of the Romanian Government on the Law on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries’, submitted to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2001.Google Scholar

29 Fowler, ‘Fuzzing Citizenship’, p. 41.Google Scholar

30 Hungarian Foreign Minister János Mártonyi, quoted in Fowler, ‘Fuzzing Citizenship’, p. 46.Google Scholar

31 RFE/RL Newsline, 5 October 2001.Google Scholar

32 RFE/RL Newsline, 2 November 2001.Google Scholar

33 Kingston, ‘The Hungarian Status Law’.Google Scholar

34 Act LXII of 2001, Article 20.Google Scholar

35 Kingston, ‘The Hungarian Status Law’.Google Scholar

36 These principles were: ‘the territorial sovereignty of states’; pacta sunt servanda (especially with respect to bilateral treaties), ‘friendly relations amongst states’ and ‘the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular the prohibition of discrimination’. See Venice Commission Report, part E.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., part E.Google Scholar

38 Ibid.Google Scholar

39 Ibid.Google Scholar

40 Ibid.Google Scholar

41 ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of Romania concerning the Law on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries and Issues of Bilateral Co-operation’, Bucharest, 22 December 2001, available at www.htmh.hu. The original language of the memorandum is English.Google Scholar

42 A related development – the lifting of visa requirements for Romanian citizens travelling to Schengen countries, claimed by Nastase as a victory – may have contributed to this particular provision. As Hungary and Slovakia were scheduled to join the EU in 2004, but Romania only in 2007, the FIDESZ-led government viewed some provisions in the status law as a way of easing travel and work conditions for Hungarians living outside the EU. However, since Romanian citizens no longer need a visa for the Schengen space, Hungary’s joining the EU would no longer represent a significant obstacle for ethnic co-nationals.Google Scholar

43 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by the Kin-state: The Case of the Hungarian Law of 19 June 2001 on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries (‘Magyars’), Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, DOC. 9744 rev, 13 May 2003 (available at ).Google Scholar

44 Act LVIII of 2003, Preamble.Google Scholar

45 The text of the agreement (in English, the original language) can be found at www.htmh.hu.Google Scholar

46 RFE/RL Newsline, 21 July 2003.Google Scholar