This article compares the kin-state policies of three countries: Hungary, Romania, and Serbia. It analyses the evolution of their legislation on kin-minorities focusing on the changes introduced in 2015. Even though the historical contexts greatly differ, all three countries became kin-states as a consequence of border changes: Hungary after the First World War, Romania after the Second World War, and Serbia following the disintegration of Yugoslavia. I show here that in spite of the normative prominence of the Act LXII of 2001 on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries in Europe, recent changes in the legislation of the three countries indicate that facilitated access to extraterritorial citizenship rather than identity recognition and support for culture has come to define the nature of their current kin-state policies.
This article discusses the retreat from multiculturalism in Europe. It questions whether the crisis of multiculturalism has had any impact on the accommodation of national minorities and/or ethnic groups. It opens with an interview with the former OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Knut Vollebaek, which is followed by commentaries of four leading scholars: Will Kymlicka, Keith Banting, Tariq Modood and Jennifer Jackson-Preece. Ambassador Vollebaek argues that the crisis of multiculturalism only affects immigrants, and although the rights of national minorities are well protected, it may eventually undermine these rights. In their commentary, Kymlicka and Banting disagree with the view that the backlash against immigration threatens the rights of national minorities. Ambassador Vollebaek also supports the view that more inclusive policies targeting the members of minority groups are necessary. Modood and Jackson-Preece agree, and in their responses discuss how current arrangements could be modified or expanded to become more inclusive.
This article examines Romania’s kin-state policies after it became an EU member state in 2007. After 2007, Romania expanded its kin-state obligations and strengthened its kin-state role. First, the article discusses the current understanding of its kin-state responsibility. And second, by examining the grounds, subject and scope of Romania’s policies, and evaluating the limits of its kin-state responsibility against dominant liberal views on reparations for historical injustice and state support for culture, the article shows that Romania’s kin-state policies remain highly discretionary and raise important questions over its liberal commitments within and beyond its borders.