1 / 6

Implementing National Responsibility: Citizenship and Travel Rights in Europe

This presentation by Boldizsár Nagy addresses the complexities of national responsibility concerning citizenship and travel rights in Europe, particularly for minorities and diaspora populations. It explores the concept of a nation, the responsibilities outlined in legal frameworks, and the challenges faced when balancing domestic law with international obligations. Key benchmarks for solutions are suggested, including options to stay within existing laws, exploit legal gaps, or challenge the law. The presentation emphasizes the necessity of justice principles and the defensibility of decisions in front of impartial tribunals.

prince
Télécharger la présentation

Implementing National Responsibility: Citizenship and Travel Rights in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Symbolic purposes, theoretical confusion, practical obstacles Thoughts on suggestions to implement responsibility for the nationPresentation by Boldizsár Nagy at the roundtable: „Forms of citizenship and the right to freedom of travel in Europe”Budapest, 29 July 2005

  2. Suggested benchmarks for any solution • The term „nation” must include both the minorities in the neighbouring countries and the diaspora • The responsibility prescribed in Art. 6, para 3 covers both groups. • The responsibility towards different segments of the nation is differentiated – the most benefit should go to minorities in neighbouring countries without the perspective of joining the EU • International law and the EU acquis representconstraints - three options offer themselves • Stay within existing law • Exploit lacunae / act „sub rosa” • Challenge the law • The decision on the option chosen is not only, not even primarily a domestic legal/political action: Hungary as a new and medium sized member of the EU is a significant actor forming trends within the EU/OSCE realm

  3. Suggested benchmarks for any solution • Any decision must conform to the Rawlsian demand of justice: would one chose the same rule behind the veil of ignorance, not knowing whether the minorities live on its territory or it is the kin country of the minority! • Granting benefits to a limited circle of persons always entails a challenge by the excluded: therefore the rule on drawing the borderline between the in-group and the out-group (Hungarian – non Hungarian) must be defensible under the rule of law in front of an impartial tribunal

  4. Thanks! Boldizsár Nagy Eötvös Loránd University and Central European University Budapest nagyboldi@ajk.elte.hu www.nagyboldizsar.hu

More Related