This paper presents the autonomy movement of Voivodina, what has been achieved so far and why the pre-1990 autonomy could not have been attained. The Hungarians of Voivodina have traditionally been enthusiastic supporters of provincial autonomy despite the fact that Voivodina’s autonomy is not a kind of ethnic autonomy. This issue will be explored through a focus on the case of the Hungarian minority and the ways in which the autonomy of Voivodina benefits ethnic minorities. I will demonstrate that the current powers of provincial institutions have been sufficient to implement minority rights in Voivodina better than in the rest of Serbia, yet were not enough to prevent inter-ethnic incidents. I will also consider why provincial authorities could be better trusted regarding minority protection than the central government, including in dealing with future ethnic violence.
Az elemzés a hatékony kisebbségvédelem számára jelenkorunkban megnyíló lehetőségeket tárja fel. Első részében a nemzetállamok klasszikus és modern elméleteiből kiindulva mutatja be a választható kisebbségvédelmi rendszereket, majd górcső alá veszi a nemzetállami szint alatt, felett, illetve mellett jelentkező olyan entitásokat, amelyek megváltoztatják az államok klasszikus szuverenitását, és a kisebbségek helyzetének jövőbeni alakulása szempontjából is jelentős szerepet játszhatnak. A tanulmány végkövetkeztetése, hogy bár a posztszuverenitással elérkezett korszak számos lehetőséget kínál, akár a nemzeti alapon szerveződő állam teljes újragondolására is, azonban azt felváltó, a nemzeti kisebbségek számára üdvözítőbb megoldást hordozó, megfelelően kidolgozott társadalomszervező erőt, elméletet egyelőre nem képes felmutatni.
The present paper deals with the debate about the fiercely disputed Hungarian Status Law and its amendments. The Law was destined to grant a special status to ethnic Hungarians living the beyond the borders of Hungary. The paper contains a brief comparison of the mainly Central and Eastern European laws, through which states grant special rights to their kinminorities. The international debate about the Hungarian Status Law is also covered by the paper. Even though several states grant special status to the members of their kin-minorities the enactment of the Hungarian Status Law triggered a surprisingly fierce debate. It is submitted that although in some details the law might have run counter certain public international law principles, the reaction to the law was mainly backed by emotional arguments and hence the whole controversy could not go beyond the level of symbols. The paper also deals with the 2003 amendment of the Law, which was enacted according to the objections raised by the neighbouring countries. The paper is an attempt to show the futility of the whole Status Law debate: it is submitted that although the 2003 amendment did not go into the very substance of the provisions of the Law at large, it did satisfy these claims by simply changing the phraseology of the Law.
needs of Hungarians living in Serbia, as well as Serbs in Hungary. The first part of the paper will provide a brief overview of bilateral agreements on minorityprotection which Serbia has signed with neighboring countries, as well as of the historical
. In the interwar period, there was a considerable difference between the theory and practice of minorityprotection, i.e., between the rules of international law and their actual application. The practical protection was subject to heavy political
Authors:Katalin Munda Hirnök and Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik
international standards of minorityprotection (Slovenija in evropski standardi 2002). The Slovenian Rába Region after the Second World War Immediately following the Second World War, at their assembly in Martinje on 3 June 1945, Slovenians were once again
majoritarian branch of government was in the position to draft meaningful laws. Out of fear for loss of public support, it may downplay the problem, it may insist on equalizing majority and minorityprotection, in the sense of power, or for the same reasons it