CEU eTD Collection T In partial fulfillment of therequirements the for degree ofMaster of Arts HE S Supervisor: Professor VIOLETTA ZENTAI ZEKLER Central European University European Central Department of Policy of Public Department EDINA-ILDIKÓ Budapest, Hungary Budapest, A Submitted to Submitted UTONOMY 2010 By ğ IP ğ ER I NITIATIVES CEU eTD Collection in order to find outwhat is the common ground for both. process regionalization/decentralization Romanian the and claims Hungarian in the elements thecommon out Ipoint in conclusion the undergoes, thecountry processes decentralization By rights. from analyzing the autonomy documents 2000 andtheregionalization and personal collective broader than avoid grant issue rather would to and the tries secession, from fear of state Romanian the side, Onthe other inhabitants. majority the of the constitute they in where a region identity cultural and national preserve their to in order autonomy and minority aHungarian group, Szeklers,the whoclaim back theirto territorial right majority Romanian between the arose conflict meet? The reactions Romanian the and claims current Romanian state structure and arrangements,in other words, where does the Hungarian the fit Szeklerland of autonomy territorial the for elite political Hungarian the implicitly and The aim of the present paper is to answer the question how the claims of the Szekler ABSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection CHAPTER 4: REGIONALIZATION ANDTHEMAJORITYREACTION CHAPTER 4:REGIONALIZATION ...... 16 CHAPTER 3. THEAUTONOMY INITIATIVES ...... 13 CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 1.METHDOLOGYANDCONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK....4 ...... 1 INTRODUCTION BIBLIOGHRAPHY...... 41 ...... 36 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION . umr ...... 22 3.3 Summary 3.2 The ...... 17 Autonomy Documents 3.1 The autonomy ...... 16 project 1.2 Conceptual framework...... 4 ..Smay...... 34 4.3. Summary 4.2. Majority reaction/opinion...... 31 4.1 Regional Policy...... 24 1.2.3 Regionalization and decentralization ...... 9 1.2.2 Autonomy...... 7 1.2.1 Minority ...... 5 rights 4.1.3. Regional Operational (ROP Programme 4.1.2. National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 (NSRF)...... 27 4.1.1. The National DevelopmentPlan 2007-2013 (NDP)...... 25 Table of Contents of Table ii ) ...... 28 ....24 CEU eTD Collection that the Romanian state during communism purposefully pushed the minority towards minority the pushed during purposefully communism state Romanian the that even more thanculture, and identity national the this, of preservation is the to Szeklerland, of develop autonomy territorial the bare economy of the region, referring to state. by Romanian the side contested on other the but feasible, the arguments is Hungarian thinks the elite that chapter) third seein as the readerwill the projects (actually from a policy point of view,the events, although my aim isbecause not todiscuss the legitimacy of these claims,but their viability we deal in thisrole of important Hungary very inthe unfolding playsalso kin-state a moreover the involved, case with an elaborated form (DAHR) Romania of Hungarian Alliance Democratic is the party, policythere theminority project meet? reactions Romanian the and claims Hungarian where structurein and words, doesthe state other fitRomanian arrangements, currentthe Szeklerland of autonomy territorial the for elite political Hungarian the implicitly and Szekler context. seen embeddedin adequate the differinmany European countries minority consequently, the shouldaspects, be demands and Eastern inWestern circumstances political, andsocial the economic that acknowledge must one However, gets. issue the attention high the signal all which Minorities, National Charter for Local and Minority Languages, the Framework Convention for the Protection of Humanon Recommendationof Rights, the Council the EU No.1201/1993 of Europe, self-determination. Many charters andto treaties right the as such wereborders signed their within such rights as theminority and Copenhagenhuman defending on documentemphasis In the case of Szekler Hungarians from Romania the actual reason to achieve the to reason actual the Romania from Hungarians Szekler of case In the autonomyAlthough dispute thefact the isI acknowledge about that political since the of claims the how is: paper present in the posing am I question the Subsequently, One can argue that with the birth of the European Union,member states have put more INTRODUCTION 1 CEU eTD Collection Secondly, a bilingual Romanian-Hungarian white-collar group was formed, group white-collar bilingual Romanian-Hungarian Secondly, a integration began that in 1999 duetoadecision taken at the Helsinki summit(Bakk 2004,51). left won that opened new theafter 2000 becauseseveral forFirstly,elections post-communist the decision.reasons this perspectives for Romania concerning regionalization DAHR. from agendaof the been political down the taken and the of communism; itwas hotly especially between debated 2003-2004, moreover, ithas yet not EU 422). ” (Schöpflin economic development than 2000, or rather justice,participation political social power legitimate to nationhood of bonds on heavily “relied elite Romanian the when state, can be Theof reason in of found such reaction the history interests”. theirthe which threatens of “the than accommodation rather costs itfeelsis lower it which of a conflict, costs bear the developin Georgeit body the of wouldSchöpflin422) according paper, the rather to (2000, I will and that arguments besides other arrangement suchaterritorial regarding discredit inhabiting this particular portion of country.the enhance wouldwell-being bythis well, of people the subsidiarity EUas the propagated of principle the to according and institutions own their establish to expect they arrangement territorial this population. of By the up75% counties), (three adding concentrated landnumerically they a which on are of Szeklerland, is autonomy territorial grievance the putan their Asallend to they envisage solution at to the aconsequence, 2005,104). (Chiriac applied not or incorrectly aresometimes and laws the fully respected are minority Hungarian guaranteedtothe moreover neither rights (Marle the andPaul assimilation 1997-2000), gave impetus for the proliferation of foringave proliferation impetus the presentideas similarof the In the present paper I analyze the autonomy projects dating after 2000. There are 2000. after dating projects autonomy analyzethe paper I In thepresent The issue of territorial autonomy for Szeklerland wasbrought upshortly thefall after and fears own its has elite Romanian the since simple, so not is however, issue, The 2 Memorandum they they published. Provincia , that CEU eTD Collection to accommodate the conflicting ideas. conflicting to accommodate the points where the majority and minority policies meet, from where they could proceed in order Transylvanian Hungarian National Council since(THNC) thepaper highlights thefocal Romanian elitecase asstudy well useful as the for Hungariantheir futurewhere thesemeet. DAHR,research Szekler bothon thisthe demands Nationaltheme and inbalance puts of thesis the The and conclusion undergoes. the thecountry process decentralization existingI alsoCouncil staterecommend structure the(SZNC) itandcontains chapter to fourth triesthe andFinally, use. Romanianthe they references tointernational the with answertogether based the research questionfrom a policystance point of view,main characteristics their of presentation by the areanalyzed, documents autonomy concrete their authors as towell ashistorical onwhich background in basetheirwhile Szeklers the the claims, thirdchapterthe the theprinciples on whichautonomy with the familiar makes thereader chapter second The decentralization. and regionalization the claims are ofautonomy, concept the rights, minority encompassing the framework conceptual as the project inaction issue.this as wellDAHR, after the by as again almostin discussion brought was autonomy of question the when 7 period, yearsthe the was of silence, regionalization due this because Thirdly, Parliament. andown functioning abetter for competences administrative to its internal oppositiontaking asastarting-point already the developmentregions,existing 8 and them assigning that pushed for The more and Memorandum I propose thisfor paper all scholarsthose interested in topic,the whowouldfind this well methodology as present the I chapter in first the of paper, the structure the As for (2001, Bakk 2004, 51) proposed the regional reorganization of theBakk 2004,51)proposed regional (2001, Romania of reorganization 3 CEU eTD Collection refer to in the continuation of my paper. Subsequently, the focus will be on the issues of itis elemental to have a review of what the literature says about the concepts I am going to research. function the of senseIusethegenerative In this be refusedby state. not the actually could that ideas strong contain they contrary, the on or structure regional Romanian present the to assess by if Hungarian this the claims far areindeedvery be reachingand plied impossibleto and meet, community of Hungarian demands andthe the elite reaction Romanian the of documents Ihavestudied, Iputtogether pieces the of jointto the puzzleandthe where point state. in Romanian of the reaction the reflected context of the the autonomy present will I method analysis policy the using By data. policynecessary the them from retrieve as well as the alternatives to scholarlylike minutes essays, mediareports, articles,meetings workingpapers, in to of it,order while assessing their impactof Szeklerland orBill on the Legal Status of National Minorities, as well as secondary sources laws Law Autonomy Framework suchasthe Statute onDecentralization 339/2004,anddraft insuch theRomanian Law Regional as Constitution, 315/2004on the Development Romania, policy evaluation. The documentary thestudy involves analysis of primary existing sources CHAPTER 1.METHODOLOGY ANDCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The methodology I use in the thesis is a qualitative documentary acritical and analysis isdocumentary in thesis aqualitative I use the The methodology 1.1. Methodology In order to present my point of view and ideological position in the autonomy debate, autonomy in the position ideological and view of my point present to order In Conceptual framework 1.2 In my research I goeven further and byinterpreting contained the data in the 4 CEU eTD Collection to the social institutions operating in that language.” (Kymlicka 2001, 19) 2001, (Kymlicka language.” that in operating institutions social the to 1 and regime” communist the of pseudo-federalism the legacy of “the secession and disloyalty reason why the Western countries, the with European in the contrast He adds,demands (2001,61). that ECE countriesminority the of reaction the andfuels thesituation just aggravates it minority, the over strongly nation-building emphasizes its state nation morethe the factresistthat the to theattention draws territorial from minority the withineither, of course sameliberalthe limitations (2001,25, 27).He also autonomyifprinciple hasto nation-building (1995,108) majority rightthe the is besides equality of basis the on that is essence the in nutshells but arguments more has He reasons. the fear of ECE states should also grant a certain amount of autonomy to their minorities for different will become (2001,82,84).Consequently,he that suggests drawing on westernthe model, the problem the acute more the takes, astate stance neutral more the contrary, the on conflicts, minority the isnotapanacea to democratization factthat countries the to (ECE) European Central and Eastern the of attention the draws and issues minority with experience western from he the departs inEurope”, Eastern Relations and Ethnic Theory “Western Political Inhisessay, issues. minority concerning in the literature cited author andoften acknowledged autonomy. this through and rights minority collective grant to rejecting for autonomy, while on the other hand it reflectsit sheds lightupon on thethe reasonsarguments why a minorityof the majoritypopulation wouldpopulation claim territorial or any kind of embeddedin topic evenbroader the ofminority rights. all these from an seen EU perspective and decentralization autonomy, regionalization The processof nation-building: “promoting a common language and asense of common membership in, and equal access I willbegin by theline presenting of argumentation Will Kymlicka,averyof popular, all of first that sense inthe isessential minority rights the reference to leasta short At 1.2.1 1.2.1 Minority rights 5 1 than it cannot be than itdenied cannot CEU eTD Collection encourages the use of the Open Method of of useof Method Coordination Open encouragesthe the member states. For more information see (Brusis 2003, 17). 2003, (Brusis see information more For states. member 3 6) 2003, (Brusis see information more For cleavages. cultural or religious 2 He backs minority (2002,36). language not.” formulating education state-sponsored would giving providegoods, responsibility the makes states it theseto goods sense[…]while language andeducation have shifted from of a question rights toamatter of providing public He arguesthat“Sinceminority 2005,285). 33; process (2002, for democratic the necessary not consequently values”, held “privately are rights minority that he states Deets, for As a consociacional envisages Brusis autonomy territorial of instead Moreover, rights. collective than rather individual Martin Brusis Kymplicka’s(2003) whoreject and arguments solution seethe in granting only society. majority the into integration of catafalque the on culture their sacrifice to minorities truth in fearing secession, but in spite of this they stress the fact that it would notbe just to ask (2001), GeorgeSchopflin (2000) whoeven though agree with Kymplickais thatthere some Pal Kosto (2001), Papanikolatos Nafsita (2001)and Dimitras suchasPanayote authors 66). Consequently, treatmentthe national is minorities of aquestion ofnational (2001, security still they collaborate. which andwith them oppressed havehistorically that powers external beenallies of seen as having are minorities Moreover, state). within the conclave even close be arenotto for becausefear the motivated not Szeklerlandopinion, thiswould3 counties last Hungary,in might nearby my join (However, 64). existence thatthey the of (2001, kin-states the practically they are in the middle of Romania forming rather a OMCaims at encouraging cooperation, theexchange of practicebest andagreeing common targets andguidelines for Consociationalism has been identified by Arend as Lijphart amodel of democracy and government insocietieswith ethnic, On the other side of the coin, there is the voice of of Deets(2002,2005)and voiceStephen is coin, side the there On the other the of standalone not Kymlicka hishedoes with backedby arguments, is other actually 2 agreement to deal minority level agreementto he and ontheEU with problems 6 3 (OMC) to develop cultural diversity. cultural develop to (OMC) CEU eTD Collection the other authors gave to the term. According toher (1997, 175) comprehensivenessin the relies reason main The law. ofinternational and rights thein human expert definition, in the senseOberreuter that it encompasses or Ruth Lapidoth.most Heinrich Crawford, J.Steiner, LouisSohn,James such asHenry human subjectrights area of the meaningsOut of all of common having as scholars by formulated different others, several are them, there explanation, I chose the one givenmake laws one’s own 1997, 29;Benedikter(Lapidoth 2009).Besides this etymological by Ruth Lapidoth,meaning“nomos”, law. or rule Thus, original meaning the of term the referred right tothe to in described literature. the as its types autonomy and of theconcept to on bymoving subchapter next the continue can fears of state majority bethe justified. the sometimes that acknowledging although autonomy, and rights minority collective support denial of is rights these destabilizing either. Consequently,agree with authors Ido whothose 192), and(Kymlicka, 1995, secession that mightalso bea peril when granting autonomy, the 45).(2002, autonomy than rather arrangements non-territorial or of form territorial administrative the his argumentsby even internationaladding that organizations such as the EU orOSCEstress Etymologically the term “autonomy” derives from the Greek “auto”, meaning self and I analysis, present the to central be will autonomy of concept the that reason the For social rightsa threatto unity Allowing dopose self-governmentfor fact that the relate to matters ofthe entity usually entity.authorities powers autonomous the and The of culture,region. economics in aspecific majority the and in yetconstitutes state, population the the of andmajority the from Autonomy differs that sociala group to self-identification of affairs. The isTerritorial aiming granta certain autonomy involves an arrangement to degree extent of a division of powers between the central 1.2.2 Autonomy 7 CEU eTD Collection local and regional communities”. The challenge of this approach lies in the establishment of establishment in the lies approach this of challenge The communities”. regional and local level citizens the and closer to “democratization togovernment powers devolution of through isbasically which it, of cornerstone isa subsidiarity that sense in the democracy entity. autonomous an in territory the how to organize several plans are there see, will reader the as because initiatives time they change.throughout established if once even so flexible, but This rigid not are arrangements aspectautonomy that is important from the point of view of the Szeklerit. subchapter to much next Idedicate term the herespace to this since autonomy devote incases not regions the(Lapidoth autonomous 1997,51-52;Ghai2000,9).Iwill inextreme interfere canonly whereas they authorities, thesupervise decentralized control and exercise to is empowered fully state the of decentralization case In the representatives”. locally elected bythe functions areexercised implying that“alltransferred powers, of transfer the it to refers this, more is than autonomy administrative authorities, regional the delegation thatmay of powers include limited participation persons locally of the in elected of a certain kind denotes While decentralization decentralization. is similarto autonomy autonomyadministrative granted. Thethirdcan enjoy about, she rights the talks of type territory a specific on members resident the only autonomy territorial of in case the location, while the first one refers to all the members of the thesis. of chapters the in following minority,very the often irrespective betweenof their cultural/personal,territorial territorial and administrative autonomy, terms that I will refer to According (2009,128),autonomy Benedikter bein to has brought to line with such 35) andotherauthors She (1997, as Bakk acknowledgefact and the Benedikter Thus the most evident difference between cultural 37) (1997, makes simpleLapidoth adistinction Besides the of definition concept, the and territorial autonomy is that totality of totality powers. of assigned powers varies widely, ranging from a minimum to almost the 8 CEU eTD Collection Government Initiative defines regionalization as regionalization defines Initiative Government Romanian opposition and makingmore it acceptable for them. the of contra-arguments the off ward to trying autonomy, territorial to as alternatives appear point the from of important very are view decentralization, implicitly and regionalization of Consequently, the autonomy 2003b.). oftheEUCouncil Assembly (Parliamentary areasof activity particular to referring project becauseregionalization and federalismin that confers thedifferent degrees of autonomy localto Szekler authorities, special powersor status.This organizationbroad involves acertain of type degree of autonomy debate conflicts. implies Thelatter solveapplied territories the inquestion to interstate granting they often are organization territorial willasymmetric or regionalism is why this definition, workbook they intertwined, are very donotappearinoften their ‘pure’form fulfillingcompletely the framework in beginning conceptual the which casethe fits. claims basedare this is and underpinned, itiswhy understand necessary from to the refer to the principle they all its documents, and of initiative autonomy Szekler the of phases seein the will reader subsidiarity, it constitutes thirdthe of tier local thenational governance besides As and 2009,128). (Benedikter the ones basically one integral pillar on which the The book edited by Gerald Marcou (2002,13)and edited bytheLocal published byGeraldMarcou The book in forms, sensethat the very take on different in projects autonomy Because reality, local and regional identity, and through the development of its potential. its of development the through and identity, regional and local of features of appropriate, and where fabric its economic of mobilization developingsupra-local)the area(sub-national aspecific but through a independent process,which action the capacity forcreates at aimed 1.2.3 1.2.3 Regionalization decentralization and 9 CEU eTD Collection allocationof €348 billion. 4 support although from sourcessome such other EURegionalas the FundDevelopment further with provided were EUaverage, the 75%of below wherewas GDP the states the accession, their after even be successful, to turned As theseinitiatives sooner. thegap close help to them ISPA, SAPARD or such PHARE, as states candidate the to funds pre-accession CEE countriesmuchvery behind lagged provide theirneighbors, EUdecided western the to with the compliance and processofnegotiations the However, EU. tothe countries (CEE) European and Eastern EUaccessionthe 2002,14; strategy (Marcou Coman al.356).et. 2001, general definition it can be looked at in two ways: as a part of government reform or as part of in 1997. Through in inLaw Regional ratification the 1997.Through on Development 151/1998 the of Romania 2002,(Marcou 23). be partners. cannot authorities subordinate be because allocated funds cannot structural the 17). Althoughisfor no decentralizationit in there direct without requirement EUregulations, asarose disparities aconsequence 2002,18;Hajdu that of transition the (Marcou period 2007, findupgrade their andinfrastructure deal to also asolution with to increasingthe regional obtain financial support. They needed fundsbecausethe of lackthe offoreign investment to to inorder (NUTS) units statistical territorial called so establish the had to states candidate For the period Forthe 2007-2013, the European Union's regional policy EU'sis the second largest budget item,with an To begin with the latter, in 2004 started the big wave of the accession of begin in bigwaveaccession To the Central the 2004 started of latter, of with the Consequently its purposeis the of promotion Besidesregional development. very this The Romanian regional policy was proposed by the Green Paper for Regional Policy Regional for Paper Green the by proposed was policy regional Romanian The the funds these absorb to in order that mention to important is it token, same the By a) acquis communitaire As EU accession strategy accession As EU began well before this date. As the economy of the 10 4 . CEU eTD Collection 6 regional level(Marcou, 2002,20). 5 detailsinto enter to not is paper of the however aim the decentralization, of discussion scopes of the state are, how much power it is willing to devolve. yet question ishow farreachingfunds,of the the website 2010)but Romania (Government of assignment the implies that level, local the on decide them letting by efficiency increase to local governments on the principle of subsidiarity,organizations? other the or authorities local to ingrant to power much orderhow revolves: debate the which to enhance transparency around question essential the raises Thisdefinition very sector”. private the or organizations and functions subordinate from to orquasi-independent central the government government “theand ofauthority is and for transfer responsibility 1999, 2)decentralization Seddon public important institutions, the World Bank deals with the issue. According to the latter (Litvack of (Ebel Open the Society Institute 2007; Kandevaand Peteri 2001),while among other wereseveral edited by books there Initiative Local fiscal andadministrative, Government the As especially pathof the decentralization, management” 2002,14). aguidanceon (Marcou which wasnecessary for “both and democracy improving for system of the public fall communism, of the after countries bytheCEE undertaken programme decentralization II 8 NUTS established were there 358) 2002,21-22;Coman (Marcou al.locallevel anduppergovernments 2001, et. intermediate It is important to note that NUTS have no legal personality, they were designed exclusively fordata collection. larger of the equivalent the is II NUTS local. two and levels regional three levels: NUTS five are There 6 . Although, I realize the importance of expenditure and revenue assignmentin the of more importance the The Romanian granting autonomy acknowledged government As part of the government reform, to some extent regionalization is part of the b) As government reform 5 regions, where regionalization is based on the 42 existing 42 the on based is regionalization where regions, 11 CEU eTD Collection Local Local Public Finances, which was replaced by 195/2006Law on the samethe theme. based laws several reforms suchasLawon inRomaniadecentralization are on 189/1998 the fiscal and either. Thebasics of state administrative by Romanian the embraced 2-3). Out in last weareinterested 1999, of are these (Litvack that two and Seddon the fiscal and exist: political, administrative that isadd typesof decentralization the to important use it itself butto as aconceptin Whatis theprocess concerning body paper. the the of 12 CEU eTD Collection (Marle andPaul When anationalist 1997-2000). communism took within turn, 3years after from 62.2%, while77.3% to the Romanian population density from increased35.1% 20.1% to in density 1960,the inethnic of was Hungarians purpose reduced on Region, Autonomous the moreover, the Romanian inUniversity, wasmergedwith Babes Bolyai Kolozsvar University In1959,theHungarian minority in the fear from region restricted the of protests. rights lastdidfor not long, because during after the Hungarian and revolution of 1956, Romanians tranquility the However, Paul 1997-2000). and (Marle largeof majority a Hungarians Szekler Moreover,rights. in Hungarian ‘Autonomous 1952 the Province’ was comprisingestablished, political and cultural extensive quite given were Romania from Hungarians communism, 2007, 61-62).After unificationthe with Romania aswell yearsduring the first of Romania is to ceded (Andreescu view when it point was of research turning point of the the in alawful process (Csapó2005). and democratic representatives, their to authority of transfer the through self-determination to right their back territorial 13th they the unitsfrom 1960s,andtoday the claim century until self-governing people, Szeklers 75%are and21%Romanians (Csapó2005). Szeklerland in wasorganized in territory total the Outof 808.739 squarekilometers of Szeklerland,Transylvania. a10.000 economic and social motives as well. arealso there but culture and identity of preservation is the main reason seethe will reader As the autonomy. of territorial achievement the importance utmost itof consider Szeklers the It contains datanot only on historicalthe background of claimsthe butalso reasons the why autonomy. territorial for demanding people Szekler and of the motives roots the familiar with Although Although has Transylvania a verylongdating history, backcenturies, from to the live of whoThe blockHungarians, group inoneethnic are aspecific Szeklers in reader the ofmaking purpose serve the to designed paper was the of This section CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2.HISTORICAL CHAPTER 13 CEU eTD Collection cautious stance and did not force the idea of autonomy, right after becoming coalition partner becomingafter coalition idea force the not autonomy, of right did stance and cautious opposed the idea of the Hungarian Autonomous Region, consequentlystill Romanians theof DAHR majority took a the more however, normalize, to began Romanians and Hungarians between relations political the coalition ruling the of members became they as although Until (Andreescu 2007,67). was high autonomy project1996 the DAHR’son the agenda, in them inRomania ever of since Democratic Alliance 1990, representing Hungarians imperiled, an important step in the life of the Hungarian minority was the establishment of the is nationhood their that felt parties both when communities, two the between relationship Pippidi Pippidi 198) (2007, 63).Accordingtargeting Alina Hungarian the 2007, (Andreescu to Mungiu- population discourses nationalist on the whichcapitalized 1997-2000), andPaul in(Marle charge”now only meant at the beginning that “the the regimeformer change to claim back their former rights, which they were entitled to. second echelon Hungarianthe minority sufferhad to during theera and communist this gave theimpetusafter of the Communistin Hungarian this territory” (Kovrig 1986,481).These weremost the important measures that Party was positions; same at the while time from “Romanians Transylvaniawereforced tosettle outside acceptemploymentin districts”predominantly Romanian being from excluded executive use Hungarians atwork and“they wereforbiddento mother-tongue their forced to were Paul 1997-2000). began and (Marle of population the eraof the “romanianization” the power inCeausescu came to autonomous1965 the region andwas abolished (Bakk2009,30) In spite of these facts that definitely played an important role in modeling modeling rolethe in animportant played factsthat definitely of In spite these Not even the regime change after 1989 brought a true relief, since the shift inpower theshift relief, since a true brought 1989 after even change Not regime the Romanian nation from from nation Romanian external internal and menaces. with a Romanianthe nationalism an ethnic essentialistcombines philosophy suffused and a traditionalism that attempts to preserve the 14 CEU eTD Collection Szeklerland. for which only the viablein way theirwould betheterritorial consideration autonomy of while themain was thepreservation purpose national identity of the multiculturalin a society, and ethnic, historical were preponderantly claimsthe that anticipate nextsession, Ionly the advanced them in front of the Romanian Parliament. As I will present the autonomy projectin rights they to, initiativewere entitled they the took and puttheir on demands paperand claim backtheir again to the had opportunity minorities asthe regime, fall dictatorial the of middle back date of tothe grievances 20 the of the roots claims. The Szekler autonomy warm-bedthe the of represent that formulated, 21). ideology achievementthe of Szeklerlandterritorial autonomy for (Bakk2004,37;Filep 2007, of their as acore had organizations All these wascreated. (HCP) CivicParty Hungarian the later while formed, was (SZNC) Council National Szekler the this organization within Hungarian Council presided bybishopNational László(THNC), T its7 from during DAHR the a biggergroup secession of behavior,led the criticized until to its which the2003, when within DAHR opposition the in the Government. Consequently, theissue autonomyof ceased tobe a priority of the DAHR In sum is this historical the background on which Hungarianthe weredemands th century, the period of communism, and after the 15 th Congress, the Transylvanian Ę kés, andyear inthesame CEU eTD Collection formulation of a minority law, in time the weight was gradually shifted towards aframework towards shifted gradually was weight the in time law, minority a of formulation the was on accent at the beginning the if Zoltán Bognár (2005,89,92) According to (2009). Memorandum for Szeklerland’s Special legal Administrative and Developmental Status National Minorities Law onthePersonal Autonomy ofNational Minorities Autonomy of Statute Szeklerland regardingperiod issue the of autonomy.documents The I analyze are the following: legalthan pointof view, presentingreader tothe Hungarianthe policy from package this In this paper I will focus on the second phase, by analyzing the draftlaws from a policy rather (2004), firstthe onelastedform 1989 until 1996, and the second from 2003 until present. the Bakk Miklos to according laws: draft and memorandums statutes, as such documents several began. autonomy the project secondthe phase of Miklos(2004), Bakk to from 2003, when according years, the throughout behind alternativeplayersit, designs thatwereformulated possible the as wellon touching political the plan, policy autonomy Hungarian the present will I chapter in this arrangements, and structure state Romanian current the fit Szeklerland of autonomy territorial for elite The autonomy papers from The anincreasingcurve from autonomy intheirevolution.papers 1989 show project 3.1 Theautonomy Practically, one can talk about two phases of the autonomy project comprised of comprised project phasesthe autonomy of two talk about can one Practically, In order to assess how the claims of the Szeklers and implicitly the Hungarian political CHAPTER 3. THE AUTONOMY INITIATIVESCHAPTER 3.THEAUTONOMY (2005), Autonomy Statute of Szeklerland (2003), Autonomy PackagePlan 16 (2004), Bill on the Legal Status of (2003), (2006), and (2006), the Framework CEU eTD Collection Package Plan formulated: the formulated: allocated totheHungarian minority and(Márton Orbán 2005). resources supervision over the the of appropriation the andinternal the party within plurality lackto the they achieve of Furthermore, pointed beseizedif had autonomy.to they wanted to pursuing the idea thattheautonomy of and argued momentum integrationthe of in the EU On the same token, the THNC criticizedwhich tobringthey intodiscussionwanted 2004, 52;Filepagain (Bakk 2005,89). 21;Bognár the DAHR for losing manyThese build began groups to theirpolitical own ideology the question around autonomy, of precious years without theHungarianformed. created. Later SZNCwas Party within Civic the was organization this party party during its 7 a whole, some tensions began appear.to These led to the secession biggerof a group from the untilSecondly,because the whichrepresented theminority as DAHR, Hungarian within then disputes. heated it raised areaand policy public in the Romanian regionalization appeared Miklósto Bakk happened (2004,50),this for 2reasons:first because since issue of 1997 the 2007, 16),from 2003 the issue of territorial autonomy came in again. spotlights the According and Andriescu initiative rather (Kántor forward Majtényi than pushing autonomy the 2004; and its position fortifying on electorate, the focused winning more andwas coalition partner bills came into being. After almost 7 years of neglect,documents. from 1996in the built were elements when functioning real statutes of form the in the later and DAHRautonomy for became During 2003, concerning the Szeklerland autonomy initiative, 2 conceptions were initiative, theSzeklerland autonomy 2conceptions During 2003,concerning 3.2 TheAutonomy Documents The period from The from period because exactly isimportant 2003 onwards more these substantive by an expert group coordinated by Miklós Bakk. The first coordinated byMiklós Bakk.The on wasdrafted byanexpertgroup one Autonomy Statute of Szeklerland th Congress, the THNC, presided by László T 17 by the SZNC and the Ę kés, and in the same year Autonomy CEU eTD Collection Autonomy package-plan capital grants and for borrowing.access tomarket state andnon-earmarked tothistransfers 103adds the Art. beretained. will of settlement the 90% of in 74 states incomethat the and tax generated territory andduties 80%of the all taxes 215/2001 enacted by As Romanian the forParliament. thebudgetandfinancial Art. resources, specifies that local governments will function according to the Local Administration Law administration:of levels three all on found be to are institutions these All region. the representing president region, as body Committee and a executive the Self-governing the authority, decision-making sedes (chairs), instructure region from Autonomous the wouldbe constituted Self-governing the Council as organizational and the addition, In well. as symbols national (Szekler) the defines document the local (villages,Hungarian and Romanian become official on the territory of Szeklerland and atthe same time towns,Government. In followingthe articles issueof the languageis statingtackled thatboth municipalities). Regional Parliament, andResolution of Self- the Charter 1201/1993 and EU the 1334/2003of Document, Geneva meeting, Copenhagen the of Document the as such regulations minority Art.international several to and integration EU values, 69democratic subsidiarity, of principle the to Government, aiming to underline the European trend. It defines the term defines the It underlinetrend. European the aiming to Government, and decentralization,regionalization. choosing territory any on plied be can frame Consequently, this but autonomy, Szeklerland’s model the Preamble refers amongthe others principleto the EU Regional Policy ofSzeklerland. Statute Autonomy of subsidiarityDraft Law on theand Establishmentthe EU Charter of Szeklerlandof Local Self- as Region with Specific Legal Status Csapó’s József of basis the the Framework Plan on Regions on Plan Framework the an asymmetrical regionalization should in beinitiated (Bakk2004,52-53).Actually Romania. The second draft was the work of an expert group of the THNC. This was a long term made of three constitutive parts: Framework Plan on Regions Autonomy Statute defines the cadre according to which the authors want to According to this last scenario, even before the integration, the before even scenario, last this to According 18 from 1995. In the Preamble itmakes reference region , which in, which the , , CEU eTD Collection development. balance Solidarity the anotherhave 20%on Base, which would regional theunequal to and budget central to the wouldgo 20% 60%areretained, region the from taxes out of the lines for the regional development. In thoughcomparison is the establishment of the Solidarity with Council, the which would Autonomy be responsible in broad Statuteisinteresting What itself. and region the state by of the of duties scope the to referring granted, the SZNC, be will ones additional framework in the specified rights the besides that means a territory to of granting the that Plan specifies Framework the Further, administration. projection of the authors would be granted legal personality with own laws and self- 53). This showed that while the SZNC based its claims on the international pressure, the pressure, international the on claims its based SZNC the while that showed This 53). 2004, regions reorganizationof the (Bakk up the ideabrought of a general secondthe draft Szeklerland’s territorial autonomy without the territorial-administrative reform of Romania, suggested and self-determination conceptof proposal based firston the one its a general which through process wholethe has country togo(Bakk2004, 53). of part as aspirations autonomy Szeklerland’s represent to in order integration theEU through Statute, there is a regional Council, Committee and aPresident. is tothe similar structure The organization highly emphasized. issuesare language which the the Romanian on that territory. framework language rightthe to own would law, make Hungarianequal which in status the to Furthermore, the itdelineates specified therights interritory Szeklerland the andaddsto of important arguments but also presents the process as part of Romania’s integration in theautonomous EU. region, by referring to the preservation of their identity and culture as most The Draft Law The Draft As a conclusion, the conceptual differences between the first two drafts are that, while arethat, drafts first the two between differences conceptual As aconclusion, the All in all, the package plan tries to link the concept of regionalizationThe Statute to autonomy is basically the application of the Framework Plan to Szeklerland, in Szeklerland, to Plan Framework the of application the basically is in fact motivated the pretense of the Szeklers to establish to the of motivated Szeklers thepretense the fact in 19 specific legalstatusspecific CEU eTD Collection minority but no territorial or regional autonomy or division is mentioned. is division or autonomy regional or territorial no but minority Hungarian whole the well as encompasses document this the THNC, Lawof Framework the to Similarly community. Hungarian the within monopoly financial and political DAHR securedthe latter becausethe with Romanian the parties fear of disputes the from much substantialnotdare toaskfor too not document enough,the membersof DAHR did the was advocacy for the cultural autonomy of minorities. According Mártonto and Orbán (2005), the tothe isdedicated section separate a novelties, these Besides Minorities. National of Council Authority existingnewInterethnic Relations institution: and theof establishmenta of the use of mother tongue.the and religion freedom of media, for culture, dedicated provisions are 13).Separate (Art. Moreover,assimilation against directed ones the in general especially minority rights with concerned it talks about the competencies of the presently already does refer to all minorities in Romania, irrespective of their territorial localization. territorial their of irrespective Romania, in minorities all to refer does Minorities National of Autonomy LawonthePersonal Framework space,the geographical focusedothers on establishing for self-governing units minority the inhabiting on a specific development. territorial media, and traditions, economic following culture, topics: would the cover competencies Their (Art,5(2)). form thestate over institutions taken the educational coordinate wouldmanage and government thatby self-governments with central the cooperating the being aim such personal of its theestablishment Itdefines etc. cultures languages, minority of preservation restrictions, territorial without minority Hungarian whole the to refers THNC might becomemight interested in time in regionalization the of Romania (Bakk2004,54). internal into that account fractions those THNCtook of regional the general political concept The The main difference between this document and the previous two is that while the The Bill ontheLegal of Status National Minorities Framework Framework Law onthePersonal Autonomy ofNational Minorities 20 from from 2005 of DAHRis the by the CEU eTD Collection than an elaborate policy paper, which aims to motivate the Szekler claims for territorial for claims Szekler the motivate to aims which paper, policy elaborate an than equal granted withrights Hungarians. wantto tackle thequestion Romanianthe minorityof livingin region,this whowouldbe modes representatives the the to broad) very (although remarks some endIn the were there missing either. wasnot documents toEU region. Reference development and administrative problems was: the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland the regional in ethnic “therepresentation disproportionate or mother theirtongue” againstusing barriers offices of the “official identity as such national people’s the andthatendangered facedopinion intheir central Szeklerland problem each for paragraph one administration”. dedicating while Szeklerland, for autonomy achieve territorial to scope the with by them formulated already documents previous The solution they envisaged2009). for (Sípos region development theseadministrative independent status, aspecial of establishment only solution for these issues was the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland, in other words, the Szeklerland facesoncultural,levelsfinancialsocial, economic, etc. and suggestedthat the problems the to EU andthe of Romania attention draw the it wasto aim of the that expressed Status of Szeklerland Csíkszereda, the Szeklerland. inand it addition Appendix ethnic an with contains composition the from of population the 2003 version,itis thesame phrasing with its onlydifferencethe Preamble that wasshortened Unlike presented the documents, ispreviously memorandum this more ashtick rather In the Preamble of summedIn the Memorandum the of upthe Preamble authors (Nyugatijelen 2009) the Lastbutnotleast, in 2009, when a Local Great Assembly Government placeintook The Autonomy Statuteof Szeklerland Memorandum onthe Special Administrative andDevelopmental Legal was presented. The representatives of the Szekler local local governments of Szekler the Therepresentatives presented. was 21 from notbringfrom does 2006 anything newto the - special status, independent CEU eTD Collection towards the tacit DAHR approach concerning the question of autonomy, they prioritized they autonomy, of thequestion concerning DAHR approach tacit the towards opposition DAHR internal the of members the of revulsion their of asanexpression created elaboration of these draft proposals: the DAHR, THNC and SZNC. Romania. of whole territory Since the last the on two arrangements regional weresuch further of forerunner be the could that process broader making a acceptitsingling Szeklerland but out a partof initiative by the not to Government move alessmethod toRomaniantends argumentation topersuadethe towards direct minority the EU integration, of opportunity the Grasping process. regionformation the fundingby autonomy, their governingbodies, astheircompetencies the as well and defining territorial of the sustainability and feasibility practical the on either andalso legal aspects on the more emphasis they butput content political the not only on laws concentrated draft community Ríz(Bakk 2004,41-42, 2000). national Hungarian the of autonomy territorial regional the and autonomy administrative self- local Romania, from community national Hungarian the of autonomy personal the which following: documents, arethe his Csapóbuilt previous which József conception on in formsthree were pursued of autonomy triadic this autonomy that inheritingthe period, and arguments theybring alsothe in tojustify order their demands. Consequently, are there autonomy minority theHungarianconcerning of identify package policy important to the are regionalization. and integration EU of process in the them embedding cleverly however autonomy, Furthermore, as one could observe, there were three important playersin the important werethree there as could one observe, Furthermore, In comparison with before elaborated documents the 2003,in secondphasethis the highlight aspects Itried that those to Going above describedthe documents through 3.3 Summary 22 CEU eTD Collection way for the validation of the international minority rights in the Romanian state. Romanian in the rights minority international the of validation the for way Statute (2003, 2006)itwas trying toopen theinternationaltowards andcommunity dig the in Autonomy of the however, Preamble the (Bakk2004,43-44), autonomy the aspirations served astheall for that doctrine umbrella concept encompassing internal self-determination, militating for 2007, territorial openly 18)basingautonomy its(Petre onthe arguments to right radical, most the SZNCwasthe while regionalization, asymmetric and country of the decentralization administrative basedthe on autonomy territorial Szeklerland’s and autonomy cultural the THNCpropagated the civil society.the Thus, representpoliticalbut players not On THNCandnot they since hand,the other the SZNCwere thisare cautious, counterparts. more in toavoid careful billsin bigfrictions designing the their with order Romanian reorganization of developmentthe regions (Apostolescu 2005). the respectively decentralization administrative is awell established after be achieved, can Szeklerland autonomy of territorial in the which only way the that on a pressconference expressed representative DAHR Árpád Márton, as and considers electorate their representing minority autonomy Romaniaon wholethe territory the encompassing Hungarian of DAHR thearguedfor autonomy cultural three Thus, the conceptions. differently concerning However, I must add, that in spite of their political rhetoric, the DAHR was much 23 CEU eTD Collection Development, 8 development regions for statistical purposes were constituted corresponding One 2007, 16). nr.later, through of year enactmentthe of 151/1998 Regional Law the formulated in “Green of the Charter DevelopmentRegional in Romania” in 1997 (Hajdu Union. for membership in EUcountries the candidate with becomethe and other aprospective gap andsocial close theeconomic to if itwanted a must but a choice not was for Romania Regional and TourismDevelopment website2010).As a consequence, regional development economy lagged that muchbehind the EUmemberother (Romanian states Ministry of stirRomanian the to sametime the at and in thecountry existent disparities regional the was not only by comingthethe EUStructural to andequilibrate Funds,Cohesion butalso to population. of Hungarian the by representatives the initiated Romanianthe Legislative Council,Governmentandin Parliament turning down bills the the with Hungarian by autonomy project, inalso referring end the of chaptertothethe arguments of connection its and are priorities its what entails, it what it, needs Romania why autonomy endeavors. tothe reaction more hostile of the coin, the Romanian governmenthas a different stance towards the problem and an even cultural, social and economic problems the community argues toexperience, on the other side CHAPTER 4:REGIONALIZATION REACTION ANDTHEMAJORITY After having Hungarianthe seen grievances, argumentsand solutions alternative tothe In order to achieve this aim, the basis of the regional development policy was a study The rational for the development of the regional policy of Romania was multiple: it Regional 4.1 Policy policy, regional Romanian the of development the present first will I chapter this In 24 CEU eTD Collection on on 3 specific namely objectives, 242): (NDP 2005, economicRomania EU.Subsequently, vis-à-vis disparities the of global objective leans this Romania’s efficiently capacity 2005,4). Structural the manage to Funds (PND development, which justify from support the while EU, the on hand, other the it underlines ithand,comes todemonstrate inthat Romaniaserious exist structural problems hampering one the on purposes: two serves it essence in and development for investments public the Cohesion Policy of the EU. In fact the 2007-2013 NDP is a tool that aims to prioritize among Governmentthe tosupportthe socio-economicof Romania development conforming with the whichelaborated, is a of document strategic planningand financing multi-annual approved by was Plan Development National the Funds, Cohesion and Structural the later and SAPARD) Development from each region (Law 151/1998, Art. 9(1)). award of projects and the administration of the funds,the is managing the Agency entity for national RegionalThe (1)). 10 (Art. funds attracted privately other and EU the as well as counties the of budget own the from fund, development national the besides financed are programmes development law regional this the to according Consequently, Romania. integrate the in whichwasto elaborated lawpersonality. Law315/2004, order was replacedbythe This financinglegal andhave no level,administrative-territorial units not NUTSII to the which are through the EU Structural Funds in the regional development of Accordingly, the global objective of Accordingly,is global the objective of NDP2007-2013 the socio- the reduction of ISPA, (PHARE, funds pre-accession the tointegrate in order same the At time, x x x the improvement and more efficient utilization of the autochthonous capital autochthonous the of utilization efficient more and improvement the developmentthe of basicthe infrastructure toEuropean standards the improvement of the Romanian economic competitiveness on the long run 4.1.1. TheNational DevelopmentPlan 2007-2013(NDP) 25 CEU eTD Collection with its 42 counties. Also, the economic and social developmentis understandable is the main priority, without sincewhich not territorial the referdoes organization, to document the On thesametoken, region. it takesCentral in the interest as particular have given aspirations Hungarian the while each, to theattention present administrative structure of the country of regions. the development to indirectly or either directly contribute priorities share of the total sum diminishingdisparities of regions amongdevelopment the of country the the3 gets (NDP 2005, 350), howeverDecentralization thefinancial 339/2004.Moreover, allocation isalsotelling inasmuch as the it must be clearlyon Regional Development andseen the decentralization process detailed in theFramework Law on that all the otherRomanian policy,regional developmentshould be that inaccordance with Lawthe 315/2004 objectives, sets out6 national priorities of development that mustbe treated primarily (242): in document,the toguide achievementof the order wellas towards global the as specific Thus, this plan practically covers all the regions and it gives the same amount of in 6 can the readersee, As the Consequently,following asocio-economic analysis SWOT of in12 sectors Romania 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. diminishing of development disparities among the regions of the country agricultural sector in developmentthe of andtheincreaseeconomy of the rural productivity capacity administrative of consolidation the development of human resources, the promotion socialof inclusion and the protectionthe improvementand of qualitythe of environmentthe infrastructure transport the of modernization and development the economy knowledge-based of development the and competitiveness economic of enhancement the th national priority the document reflects on the on reflects document the priority national 26 rd biggest CEU eTD Collection funds derivefrom this document (NSRF 2007, 3).To be more specific, the connection among EU of implementation for the (OP) programmes operational the Moreover, job creation. and Strategy, economic growth notably byfocusing EUpoliciesthe on other, Lisbon onthe and hand one the on Policies Cohesion Social and Economic Romania’s between linkages advancement. The NSRF has its integrating and on for theRomania’s EUfunds works genesisduties asEUmemberstate in the NDP, and its key aim is to make the correct rights minorities,to as they view themas fundamentally anddestabilizing dangerous. givemore extensive to not representatives Romanian the among thedetermination exists Romanianmoreoveritnot tomention mistrust, unequivocally feelings,the factthat evokes injustices thecommunity has throughouthistory,undergone definitely that the hurts smaller is regions.The ethnic factor in presentundeniably and Hungarian the discourse the of organization the of foundations the down puts Regions on Plan Framework the endeavor, Asthis of either. asign Romanian regions predominantly giveto other status to same the identity and they culture, what excludingdeem feasible autonomous region, within without an national Hungarian and region central the assert to in away units administrative-territorial representativescorrespond with beyondthem, although economicand social Hungarian the purposes, put great emphasis on the prevail. form of administration view statistical of points and economic contrary, the ethnic including the on pure criteria, and naturethe of documentthe andits aims, iteven thus does not arise grouping the of regions the the division touching minorities specific issue uponthe inany Thismightbe to objectives. of of the due of the The NSRF is a further example of how the Romanian government tries to fulfill its they moreover, viewpoint, Hungarian the contradict not does however, aims All these 4.1.2. National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 (NSRF) 27 CEU eTD Collection laggingbehind, not the through however redistribution public butof resources through focusing on ones the (NSRF 2007, 141) needs andresources” specific theiraccording to social, balanced sustainable and development territorially of Romanianthe Regions, (ROP 2007,8): 5 OPs. other the ROP contributes to the achievement of this aim, together with the NDP, NSRF 2007-2013 and the memberstates, EU other the and Romania between disparities development economic NSRF. the on strategically based however OPs, the through done is funds the of implementation factin proper circumstantiallytechnical the out the OPs.In details, whichareworked memberThis is states. document nature, meaning of strategic not itfocus that does on aiming accelerate convergence to from the with vision EU process the NDP 2007-2013, the NDP, NSRF and OPs is the following: the NSRF takes over and develops the strategic Consequently,“The ROPstrategic objective consistsin supporting the economic, The main characteristics that make ROP different from the other OPs are OPs following from other the makethe that ROPdifferent main characteristics The socio- of diminishing is the Romania of objective development general the As x x x x it promotes a itbottom-uppromotes approach of economic development synergy with them this by it programmeis iscomplemented 5andoperate in other the expectedto others the with comparison it gives the regionslagging relatively priority to behindandless in developed capitalizing local on andresources opportunities local inithas anaccentuated approach problems,treating the such as 4.1.3. RegionalOperational Programme (ROP) 28 CEU eTD Collection administer the public issues in the name and interest of the collectivity they represents by represents they collectivity of the interest name and issues inthe public the administer solveand to local administrations public the of and capacity right tothe refers autonomy territorial units are public services for which transferthe is made (Tudorel basedal et. 2006, 59). the of management the and on responsibilities legal process, twodecision-making pacification, of principles: domains the 26). In refers transferof authority to (Art. thisand casethe sources budget other decentralization from central the assums aswell revenues from own madeup are regions administrative ofthe Theterritorial- budgets local level (Art.2). from to central financial andresponsibility and local administrative and authority of transfer the represents autonomy. lawdecentralization this to According Local the with accordance in be should policy development regional Romanian the before, mentioned as I framework, and indispensable of piece bigger project development an part of the a asanintegral in. However, interested is very community Hungarian the parameters, historic and ethnic cultural, the considering without top-down, from made was itself regionalization of subsidiarity. of principle the to resembling aims, Hungarian the with coincides that characteristic development, territorial balanced a than rather efficiency economic the on since focus all they factor, equilibrating OPsand the restof the to counter-weight a represents It points. andstrong resources history, proper basedtheir be on can regions down one used in abottom rather than ROP differsprogrammesup approach form inapplying a top other the the majority regionsof the more OPs,attractive since places enhances andmakes that economichuman infrastructure social growth and resources the to live,the visit, means invest inof and business, aminimum all develop of regions that local assuring resources, capitalizing on the developmentwork (ROP 2007, 7). Thus for different decentralization process decentralization According to the Constitution the public administration from the administrative- Although this programme tries to take into account the local into process account totake the thisprogramme the Although specificities, tries detailed in the Framework LawonDecentralization in detailed Framework the 339/2004. 29 CEU eTD Collection better fitting in the Romanian regionalization and decentralization plans. Moreover, by Moreover, plans. and decentralization regionalization in theRomanian fitting better manner in same atthe amuchmoderated time and lowerpace, although original conceptions, closer tothe it,marks it astep representing but path the towards territorial off autonomy, of initselfthat autonomy local the of far from is be could beingtargeted, councils called broadening the decentralization, then region, through separate one become could Szeklerland (Tudorel al et. 2006, 61): detected be can deficiencies following the as finances or administration of decentralization autonomy. towards path the warranting aswell, thus spheres etc. legal, economic cultural, social, the on of decentralization scope (EU Information Center, .n.d., 6-7). well as county councils. Local autonomy is manifested inonly administration the andfinances respecting the rule of law. This right is exercised through the local councils and mayors as Thus, supposing that within Thus, supposingregionalization the process that through reasonable time, the in even success full render yet not could Romania that seems it However, the extending aspect, this exploit to like would representatives Hungarian the Actually x x x x x them fulfill to in allocated order resources local andthe authorities to transferred decision-making powers and theresponsibilities between discrepancy local autonomy to related insufficientregulation concerning the legal andconstitutional guarantees money fundslimits that the ofefficientexpenditure of preponderance the targeted regulated transparently and fewaccurately with are domains there in areas some still persists decision-making discretionary 30 CEU eTD Collection Romania isasovereign, independent,indivisible National unitaryand State as follows (Csapo 2004;Legislative Council 2004): being its unconstitutionality but other reasons were brought upas well, which I briefly sum up argument main the it, on opinion negative its expressed Council Legislative the autonomy, of regions. personalities concerning autonomy the the Hungarian demands of community and division the bodies, I will also reflect upon the personal opinions ofsome Romanian politicians and public National Minorities. Autonomy of National Minorities refusing the for Parliament and Government Council, Legislative Romanian the of motives the present when their Iwill bills.intheir Romanian counterparts refusing subchapter Subsequently, this of arguments the payingto attention through begun, secondly processes the completion of muchmaneuver forfor Hungarian the room minority, first of all pushingtowards through the in arefarundergoes from present, thisthe being iswhyIwould complete, saythat thereis and undergone country the changes the However, autonomy. of aim final the for enough broad not although claims, Hungarian the with in contradiction not are they that importantly, altered the administration of the country, what their aim is, the changes they brought and most territories. their govern assigned better could representatives and Hungarian the empowered local would be process, self-governments of deficiencies enforcing the decentralization the x One year after having drafted the drafted having Oneafter year So far I have presented, how the processes of regionalization and decentralization and regionalization of processes the how havefar presented, So I 4.2. Majority reaction/opinion The violation of the provisions of the Constitution, especially Art. 1 that states: Autonomy Statute Plan Moreover, after having presented the official opinions of the state and the half success of the of success half the and (2003)andthe Autonomy Statute PlanAutonomy Statute 31 Framework Law on the Personal the Law on Framework Bill Bill on theLegal of Status onSzeklerland’s territorial , consequently, it consequently, , CEU eTD Collection unconstitutional and breaching the international law as well as law international the breaching and unconstitutional would ethnic infringesame state within on criteria the principle of the being equality, thus Hungarian national identity and equalopportunities constitution the according to inexistent policies well as theGovernment(2004; Csapó2004), referring same tothe almost justifications: which not includedoes budgeting regional localities, the determination and use of national symbols, the return of public money own commercial police,companies, social security and inner public policy structure. with institutions, independent of establishment by the a territory, out tearing for claims makes asymmetric, autonomous regions based on ethnic claims, nor they warrant collective rights. Szeklerland. does not allow the parallel existence of another, separate state entity, namely an autonomous x x x x The Lower House of the Parliament (Csapó 2004) also refused the recommendation as x x x x x x x The financial management regulations that violate the Art. 138 violate Art. the thatregulations managementThe financial of Constitution, the Other reasons: the establishment of the Self-Governing Council, the denomination of The equalization of Hungarianthe language with Romanian by formalizing it and autonomy misinterprets community Hungarian the is that argument Another The EUintuitionssupportthe neither establishmentCouncil arguesthatthe of the granting of specific rights to an administrative-territorial entity organized on organized entity an administrative-territorial to rights specific of granting the the of protection the for guarantees legalandconstitutional already There are The assignment of local fees and taxes is in the scope of local and county councils The financial management cannot be granted to a political-administrative entity national over the policy priorities of regional prevalence the of The unacceptability Unconstitutionality 32 CEU eTD Collection people, consequently how difficult will be for the Hungarians to change this mood, who mood, this change to Hungarians the for be will difficult how consequently people, Romanian the for is factor national the strong how shows Constitution the of article first the since thisis is in aim.exactly most the counter-argumentthe factimportant grounded The that be changed, must one old the structure regional new a of establishment an of case in the that Constitution;in the changes proposed the form howeverin written put already have politicians and itscholars is to be seen how much theysome of willstandis This counter-arguments the why,agroupof the ground. Hungarian can achieve. It is self-understandable interest. benot oraccusedof theirconsidered Hungarian aspirations to the promoting duty, patricide region.Kantor (2004), According to Romanian the parties took rejectionthe Hungarianthe of deny furtherminority rights and especially autonomy from an overwhelmingly Hungarian Szeklerland, and it seems fear secession of the clearly thatis: representatives Romanian the already enunciated, (2004) from the arguments that James Hughes Marius suchothers as Turda(2001,197)or Andreescu (2007, 69), Gabriel this is a very important reason why they given iton by now (Nyugatijelen 2009). was noreport since it there was stalled but (2005) of Parliament the it infront andadvanced accepted by the Romanian Government with some changes (Legislative Council 2005) as well Minorities was refused as well. as was refused Autonomy of Minorities National However, it is also evident that without making changes in the present constitution, present in the changes making without that evident is also it However, Havingconsidered one allconclusion be can that these arguments, certainly drawn However, in out the However, worked 2005 the DAHR the Plan, Statute Autonomy the Likewise , which was positively evaluated by the Venetian Committee; moreover, it was (2004) drafted by the THNC and handed in by (2004)drafted THNCandbytheDAHR handed the 33 Framework Law onthePersonal Bill on the Legal Status of Status BillNational on theLegal CEU eTD Collection group of Hungarian and Romanian intellectuals that elaborated a Memorandum intellectuals that elaborated on the of andRomanian group Hungarian leader Enache, the an of in LigaProEuropa, the NGO established Provincia, a the 1989 and Gherman, of president Ligathe Transilvania (aRomanian Banat regionalistSmaranda party), Romania’s economic Among development. supported voicesthiswere Sabin the that project and national integrity state.” the (Hughesof 2004). plans were the territorial to athreat Hungarians andconstituting as the “it empowering inwas seen 1998, worked out in order to get financial support face the cost of losea clash theirthan from sovereignty. fromavoid try andrathertheir question the counterparts to (Verdery 1996,118-124), Romanian the EU for rights and demanded“see democracy” questforautonomy group asa the to contribution while that for Hungarians this debate againclear became once it Consequently, unacceptable. is individual the of choice the consideration into taking without rights collective claims that a project that issue, explaining on the his personal opinion expressed Oprescu (n.d.) political autonomy 2009).Onthe (Origo.hu same token, another Romanian politician, Dan and personal and buthesupported cultural rights minority rights, recognizenot collective president, stated very firmly that “there will never be territorial autonomy in Romania”, he did concerning the cause of theconcerning cause minority Hungarian the B from of Romania, WhileFebruary László his expressed 2009. Sólyom, Hungarian the president, support in presidents Romanian and between Hungarian meetingthe on a wasremarkable culture ethnic factor. national or the namely principles, same by the motivated autonomy for fight basically themselves When the 8 NUTS regions were established under the Law of Regional Development Regional Law of the under wereestablished regions 8NUTS the When 4.3. Summary Moreover, as a sign that Romanians view autonomy as a threat to their country and In spite of this fact however, the regions were formed were theregions however, this In spite fact of 34 ă sescu, Romania’s CEU eTD Collection the timing of these structural reorganizations. the of structural timing these andthirdly tothese regions begranted that will thosecompetencies andpowers definition of the first one is the redefinitionmust solved: basic problems be arethree that inmy there of Subsequently,opinion, regions. of regions and theexclude redefinition the not do they opinions, see from the could However,asone resources. set of criteria to be applied, theirallneeds but and accordingdevelopspecific to region toonly them of one rights secondly the system. administrative-territorial national regions, butshewould it, after 2013,in postpone parallel with reformationthe wholethe of minister of Regional Development and Tourism, whodevelopmentregions. do not exclude the redefinition into counties the grouping forces when be driving the should criteria socio-economic the that of the Ponta(Ziare.com such member as Victor of Party,2010a), Social-democratthe deems who considerations historical of theethnic or criteria whoexcludefrom set the representatives for borders the of historicalthe 34-35; as regions 2007, well Enache 2001). (Filep regional division of the country. All these groups advocate for a division that shows respect Consequently, it turns itConsequently, thattheisgrant Romanianmajority turns out very notto determined Last but not least there are those persons such as Elene Udrea (ziare.com 2010b), the On the other side of the coin, there is the large majority of the Romanian 35 CEU eTD Collection claims within the regionalization and decentralization project the country has to undergo. has to country the project and decentralization theregionalization claims within that the country will comply with the EU rules, ones. collective than grant rights minority personal the Hungarian minority extendstandwould they rather to In the pressure, identity order n.d., 5). (Munigiu-Pippidi tried to embed its of Hungarians, secession the regionthe of andeventually chipof the theirnational own irredentism fearthe Romanian parties the identity”, cultural very distinct their accommodate issues”salient 2001, (Kántor 258). minority over decides in the which institutions, ethnically-based separate create “to and also minority bein would toinfluenceina relative majority order process” thedecision-making them develop aterritorially autonomous region in Transylvania,inwhich“the Hungarian minority autonomy,was granted asktheRomanian Hungarian statetolet the representatives wherethe countries from European other learning andexampleof the mentioned reasons, above the by motivated region, Hungarian a predominantly is Szeklerland As rights. minority scope the of law,letterof restricts the the which always not does respect state, Romanian during communism weremadetothem injustices historical argue, asthey identity, since language, and culture that Hungarian of the preservation werethe ones accentuated most the which among reasons, entitlescountry. The Hungarian minority from Romania, embarkedthem in nation-building, for multiple the unity of or sovereignty toto the asathreat state nation majority by the perceived generally claim backpreserve order asenseto theiridentity cultural iscommonand membership,of that promote their former nation-buildingin Moldova (Gagauzia), dependingontheir circumstances on specific embark rights. Moreover, the Since the prospect of Sincejoiningof the openednewprospect the EU horizons for Romania oncondition can find which “to formula a is in quest the elite Hungarian while the However, National minorities, not only in Romania but Austria (South Tyrol) for example or CHAPTER 5.CONCLUSION 36 CEU eTD Collection Source: (Bognár 2006, 116-117 (BognárSource: ) 2006, Table 1 in thesis. the whichIanalyzed aresummarized, initiative inIn ordertoanswer documentsof the thetable below question, Hungarian this the autonomy structure andarrangements? state Romanian fit current the Szeklerland of autonomy territorial for elite political Hungarian the of claims the how was: question research my Consequently, 37 CEU eTD Collection types of regionalization: edited 14) propose5 Romanian. book According the by authors the Marcou(2002, to Gerald in of stage present regionalization/decentralization the a bit considering aswell, excessive considerations. policy from butnot lackingall strategic Hungarian areoutvoted endeavors political reasons, that itseems yet because autonomy, territorial regarding claims further Hungarian smoothen itit),wouldbills to on hadabargaining comments chip any have two the their own (with of accepted had theGovernment in. If be supportive to declared they autonomy personal/cultural Minorities and the Bill on the Legal Status of National Minorities National of which Autonomy promoted Personal the on Law Framework the both refused it since partner whereas inmy opinion stick criteria compromises, inclined latter the andand not is towards itapproach to does would include cultural and historical as factors well. The DAHR ismore inmoderate its SZNC the however criteria, development socio-economic partiesthe agree on both Moreover, as well, that Romanianhistorical region,regions butother asseparate canbedeveloped only Szeklerland coincides it amodel not presents of basis on which the undergoes, country the decentralization process with the Romanianit is more plied equalizationto the RomanianRomanian administrative system, Autonomy the package plan represents forward,a step since realities. By embedding goal thefitin did not the that was aninitiative of Szeklerland, if Statute Autonomy see that the planon in thethe regionalization level can one importantly, More region. historic basedon a and of Szeklerland territorial autonomy the of all regions.personal/cultural autonomy encompassing minority, the wholeHungarian while 3to the other On the other hand, I think that regarding territorial autonomy the Hungarian claims are to the ofwhich2refer out such documents, 5 were there table shows, As the x administrative regionalization administrative the Romanian state shows Romanian tobe state not only buta badstubborn bargaining 38 CEU eTD Collection are built around the present administrative-territorial system based on counties. However, itis However, counties. on based system administrative-territorial the present are builtaround absorption of funds and implicitly influence the socio-economic development of them. making ordefining powers them as administrative-territorial improve couldunits the redefinition bordersthe of of grantingregions, them legal personality, giving them decision- ifthe analyze to research, further topic the of can constitute be. It might this causes of the what analyze not did I efficiency. utmost the with funds EU the absorb not do they since results. better give might autonomy territorial for afterwards only and decentralization regional Romanian present the however, considering is this theirrole, Hungarian theminority follow the is perspective representatives because comprehensible also that fact the hand other the on opinion, my in follow to policy right is a that country, whole well-beingthe tofocus of on government wants the isit Romanian the understandable why Hungarians havea smaller range ofvision, concentrating ontheminority itself. Inthis sense, While has the Romanian in a state stake equalizationthe and closing upof all regions, least regionalHungarians wouldskip to in quickly autonomy, at casethe of Szeklerland. regional decentralization, approach while would the Romanian cautiously theparties is in pace: the difference the regionalization, and decentralization agreewith representatives policy analysisin Ididit the paper,appears both that Romanian and Hungarian In my opinion, until 2013 no significant changes will take place, because all the plans the all because place, take will changes significant no 2013 until opinion, my In sooner laterit will orof Eventually, theredefinition appears that regions be necessary, in bethe type. can Presently, In included according Romania essence, to second the x x x x regionalization through federal entities. through regionalization regional autonomy regional decentralization regionalization existingthe through local governments 39 status-quo , pushingfirstfor CEU eTD Collection decentralization beplans can formulated. decentralization and regionalization place whichcan andthefuture take according reorganization the to of utmost importance that by the end of this cycle, to have a well defined set of criteria 40 CEU eTD Collection Coman, Pena; Crai, Eugen; Radulescu, Monica and Stanciulescu, Gabriella. 2001. “Local andStanciulescu,Coman, Gabriella. 2001. Eugen; Radulescu, Monica Crai, Pena; Chiriac, Marian 2005. Brusis, Martin. 2003.“The European Union andInterethnic in Power-sharing Arrangements “Romániai 2006között Az Bognár, Zoltán.magyar1989 és 2006. autonómiakoncepciók. Thomas. 2009. Benedikter, _____. 2004.FrameworkLaw onthe Autonomy Personal Minorities National of 2004. “Azszakasza_____. autonómia-tervek kétErdélyben of (The TwoStages 1989 után” _____. 2003. “Néhány_____. 2003. szempont azautonómia onthe újragondolásához”(Some Thoughts 2003.Autonomy Bakk, Miklós http://adatbank.transindex.ro/ (coordinator). Plan Package Árus,.2009. Zsolt Andriescu, Monica. 2007. Apostolescu, Bogdan. 2005. “Viktor Orban:Apostolescu, Bogdan.2005.“Viktor Romania drepturile nurespecta minoritatii Andreescu,“Cultural Gabriel Autonomy and IssueofHungarian the Territorial .2007. and Government in Romania”. In Emilia Kandeva editor, Kandeva Emilia In in Romania”. Government Issue 1 Issue National andReligious Minorities in Romania) si religioase in Romania (ChallengesofDiversity. Public Policies Relating to Accession Countries”.http://adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.php?alk=48&k=5 (accessed July 15, 2010) In 85-117 Foundation, Research Budapest, Public Minority European Comparative Liberalism,(Autonomy, Social-democracy), Egry és BognárGábor Zoltán eds. Bills Drafted Between 1989 and 2006). In FejtôFerenc, Salat Levente, Ludassy Mária, torvenytervezetek”kidolgozott Autonomy (Hungarian from Conceptions Romania. http://www.sznt.ro/en/images/del_9_autonomy_guide.swf 20April,(accessed 2010) andSouthAsia to AutonomyinEurope http://adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.php?alk=48&k=5 (accessed 10April, 2010) IX, 1-2,no. 31-32 After 1989), Autonomy-projects the 20 April 2010) =6&lang=en =6&lang=en (accessed 4May, 2010) http://www.sznt.ro/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=4&Itemid Rethinking of the Autonomy), belso.php?alk=48&k=5 (accessed 10April, 2010) maghiare-din-Transilvania.html (accessed 1September, 2010) presei/Politica/20672/Viktor-Orban-Romania-nu-respecta-drepturile-minoritatii- maghiare din Transilvania”, din maghiare Central Central University,European Budapest Romania-Compromises (1996-2004)on Languageand EducationRights Identity”, Hungarian Studies Provocarile diversitatii. Politicipubliceprivind minoritatile nationale The Szeklers Autonomy Struggle for and Their Solving EthnicConflict ThroughSelf-Government- AShortGuide Pattern ofMinority and MajorityRhetoricin Post-Communist BIBLIOGHRAPHY Journal of Ethnopolitics Journal ofandMinorityIssues inEurope 1-2,61-84 Krónika Magyar Kisebbseg 41 Autonómia,liberalizmus, szociáldemokrácia Gardianul http://bakk.adatbank.transindex.ro/ (accessed http://bakk.adatbank.transindex.ro/ , edited by EURAC, Bolzano, source SZNC , Cluj EDRC , http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista- (Hungarian Minority), Year Minority), (Hungarian Stabilization ofLocal , MA Thesis , SZNC , CEU eTD Collection Hajdú, Zoltán (editor). 2007.Hajdú, Zoltán (editor). website. 2010. Romania Government of Filep, Béla.2007. EU Information Center. N.d. Ghai, 2000. Yash. Lage der deutschen Zur “Bleiben, gehen, wiederkehren? 1991. Gabanyi, Anneli Ute. Law Framework Official on Decentralization 339/2004, Journal 668/2004 “RegionalismEnache, (Regionalism 2001.integrare” Smaranda. si and Integration), In “ReconsideringMinority Stephen.Policy”. East-European Deets, 2002. DAHR. 2005. Bill on Legalthe Status of National Minorities _____ 2005. _____ 2004. önkormányzása” (The nemzeti közösség magyar “Az (romániai) József erdélyi Csapó, .1995. Constitution of http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=371Romania .2003. Ebel, Robert, D. and Péteri, Gábor. 2007. D.andEbel, Péteri,Gábor. Robert, 2010) (accessed 15July, 07” http://www.focuseco.ro/publicatii/fonduri_structurale.pdf Funds) the Environmental NGOs Structuralof andCohesionin theImplementation ofEU implementarea FondurilorStructurale http://www.gov.ro/content/descentralizare/l/1 (accessed 1September, 2010) (accessed 15July, 2010) Development inRomania States (accessed 20April, 2010) Hungarian minority inTransylvania Autonomy forHungarians in Romania?-Thepros the and consofautonomyrights for inMinority in Quoted Romania). Jeroem van Marle and LeoPaul .1997-2000. Minderheit in Rumänien” (To Stay, Go or Trun back? About The State of the German http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=50949 (accessed2010) 15August, Provincia for Open Foundation Society & LGI, Budapest Politics andSocieties http://adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.php?alk=48&k=5 (accessed 10April, 2010) (accessed2009) 10December, -catid=8%3Aautonomia&Itemid=11&lang=en option=com_content&view=article&id=56%3Athe-szeklerland-szekelyland-autonomy (accessed1Szeptember,2010) Astatutum&Itemid=14&layout=default&lang=hu http://www.sznt.eu/hu-sic/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=10%3 Képvisel 1. no. Community), National Hungarian the of Self-Government Hungary. Governments, Central Central University,European Budapest , Cambridge University Press, New York. , Published within the EU project: “Suistainable development for the Region Székelyföld Autonómia StatútumáravonatkozóSzékelyföld törvényjavaslat Románia Autonómia Ę The Szeklerland Autonomy , Year II, nr. 6-7 (14) házában - A Törvényhozási Tanács negatív véleményezése -ATörvényhozásiTanács házában Cooperating RegionalistandAutonomy Movements in Europe Autonomy and Ethnicity: Negotiating CompetingAutonomy andEthnicity:Negotiating ClaimsinMulti-ethnic Local Government Initiative of the Open Society Budapest, Local Initiative OpenSociety GovernmentInstitute, the of , Vol. 16. No. 1, 30-49 The DecentralizationPublic Administration. Regional of Rolul Organiza , Iasi, http://eudirect.ro/pdfs/descentralizare_curs.pdf The Decentralization of Public Administration, Public of Decentralization The Kosovo Decentralization Book Briefing http://www.jeroenvm.dds.nl/romhaut.htm#concl 42 ú i de Coeziune ale (The Uniunii Europene i deCoeziune Role , SZNC, http://www.sznt.ro/en/index.php? SZNC, , Ġ iilor Neguvernamentale de Mediu în Magyar kisebbség Magyar East European , MA Thesis , SZNC, , , Kosovo , Year I. CEU eTD Collection Marius Turda, “Trasylvania Revisited: Public Discourse and Historical Represemation in Represemation andHistorical Public Discourse Revisited: “Trasylvania Turda, Marius 2002. (ed.). Gérard Marcou, and 1999. Litvack, Jennie Jessica. Seddon, Law on Regional 315/2004, Official DevelopmentJournal 577/2004 Law on Regional 151/1998, Official DevelopmentJournal 265/1998 Kovirg,1986. “The Benette. in Magyars Romania: Problems of a "Coinhabiting" Kosto, Pal.“Territorial Autonomy asa 2001. in Minority Rights Post-CommunistRegime Zoltán.“Nationalizingthe Kántor, The Caseof Minorities andPolitics: Homeland 2001. Márton, János and“Elemzés Orbán, Balázs a2005-öskisebbségi.2005. törvénytervezetr van,Leo .1997-2000. Marle Jeroem and Paul, Lapidoth, RuthEschelbacher. 1996. ______. 2001.“Western Political Theory and Ethnic in Relations In Eastern Europe”. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Zoltán Kántor, and 2004.“Autonómia-modellek Majtényi, Balázs. Erdélyben- Jöv Kandeva, Emilia2001. (ed). Hughes, James. 2004. 1990. Hannum, Hurst. States Institute of Peace Press, Washington D.C. 1-2. andFuture (Autonomy-models- Strategy),stratégia” Identities: Romanianand Hungarian Case Studies al., et inTercsenyi Balazs Romania” Contemporary a European Union: Comparative Perspective Institute, Washington, D.C. 2010) (accessed 15August, http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2004/300/00/4/leg_pl304_04.pdf http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=17129 (accessed2010) 15August, Nationality”, OxfordYork, University 200-219. Press, Exported? Western PoliticalTheory in Easternand EthnicRelations Europe WillKymplicka andMagdaOpalski Societies”.(eds.) In Identities: Romanianand Hungarian Case Studies eds, in etal.in Hungarian Balazs Tercsenyi Romania”, (Analysis of the 2005 Minority editor (AnalysisLaw).In Barna 2005Minority Draft of Bodó the http://www.jeroenvm.dds.nl/romhaut.htm#concl 20April,(accessed 2010) theHungarianminorityinTransylvania rightspros ofautonomy for and cons University Press, 13-105 Western Relations Eastern PoliticalTheoryandEthnic in Europe Will Kymplicka and MagdaOpalski (eds.) Clarendon Press, Oxford Basingstoke, HampshireBasingstoke, ;NewYork. Central andEastern Europe:theMythof Conditionality Conflicting Rights Südosteuropa Autonomy, Sovereignty,and the Self-determination: Accommodation of Europeanization andRegionalization intheEU'sEnlargement to Multicultural Citizenship: aLiberalTheoryMinority Rights, of , University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia Stabilization ofLocalGovernments Regionalization Forand Accessiontothe Development , 35 (9), 475-490., 35(9), Autonomy : Flexible Solutions to EthnicConflicts 43 Decentralization Notes Briefing Autonomy forHungarians in Romania?-The , LGI/OSI, Budapest, LGI/OSI, Can Liberal Pluralism Exported? Be , Budapest, Regiobooks, , Budapest, Regiobooks, 249-275 Magyar Kisebbség Nation-building andContested Nation-building andContested , vol. 2,LGI/OSI, Budapest Can LiberalPluralism Be , Palgrave Macmillan, , NewYork, Oxford Romániai Magyar Romániai , World Bank World , , Year IX, no. 197-206 Ę , United kép és , New Ę l” CEU eTD Collection ______. 2005. Romanian 2004.“VéleményGovernment. Székelyföld autonóm jogállására vonatkozó (The autonómiakoncepciók összehasonlítása” született “Az 1990óta Ádám .2000. Ríz, Provincia. 2001. Ethnic inEurope? Work “CanSouth-Eastern 2001. Democracy Dragos. Pestrescu, LandAutonomy - on Raluca.“MediaSzekely Referendum of the Coverage Petre, 2007. .2003. Committee Affairs Political - Europe of Council the of Assembly Parliamentary Panayote, Dimitras and Nafsita, Papanikolatos. 2001. “Reflections on Minority Rights Politics Origo.hu. 2009. Origo.hu. N.d. Oprescu, Dan. Nyugatijelen Present).2009. (Western ______n.d. Mungiu-Pippidi,Alina. 2007.“Integrarea european PND_2007_2013.pdf (accessed 20July, 2010) Magyar kisebbség of Szeklerland), Autonomy Statute onthe (Opinion kapcsolatban” törvényjavaslattal Comparison of Autonomythe after 1990), Concepts Hungarian Case Studies al. eds, et Tercsenyi Balazs in Romania”, inPost-Communist Consolidation Democratic vs. Nationalism 4, 17-24 si comunicare Priorities”, Professional and Commercial Versus Ethnic 2010) resolution inEurope Positive regions experiencesofautonomous asasource conflict ofinspirationfor Eastern Europe Can Liberal Pluralism BeExported?Western PoliticalTheoryandEthnic Relations in Centralfor East Countries”.European InWill Kymplicka and Opalski Magda (eds.) 2010) 10May, (accessed basascu-soha-nem-lesz-teruleti-autonomia-szekelyfoldon.html Territorial Autonomy on Szeklerland) 20090202- http://www.origo.hu/nagyvilag/ (accessed 1 September, 2010) (accessed 1September, http://www.divers.ro/opinii_ro?func=viewSubmission&sid=2600&wid=37620 (Considerations (accessed 10May,2010) _kozigazgatasi_es_fejlesztesi_jogallasaert.php http://www.nyugatijelen.com/kronika/szekelyfold_sajatos DevelopmentStatus), fejlesztési jogállásáért http://www.osi.hu/ipf/publications/AlinaPP-nation.pdf (accessed 20July, 2010) on the Bill on the Legal Status of National Minorities), http://www.sar.org.ro/euroreg_final.pdf accessed http://www.sar.org.ro/euroreg_final.pdf Central Szórvány Szórvány Foundation – Marineasa 155–198 Publisher, Évkönyv 2004–2005 Subjective Transylvania: ACase Study ofPost Communist Nationalism ăú Memorandum Soha nem lesz területi autonómiaSzékelyföldön National Development Plan2007-2013 i de Est “(). In Consideratii asupraproiectului Legiistatutuluiminoritatilor nationale (Romanian Magazine of Journalism and Comminication), Year II, no. II, Year Comminication), and Journalism of Magazine (Romanian , NewYork, Oxford University 186-199 Press, , Year IX, No. 1-2 http://www.hunsor.se/dosszie/auton_coe.pdf (accessed 20April, http://www.hunsor.se/dosszie/auton_coe.pdf (Hungarian Annual from Romania 2004-2005),Temesvár, (Memorandum for Szeklerland’s Special Administrative and Administrative Special Szeklerland’s for (Memorandum . www.provincia.ro (accessed 15July, 2010) , Budapest, Regio, Budapest, books Nation-building andContestedIdentities:Romanian and Romanian Journal of Political Science of RomanianJournal Memorandum Székelyföld sajátosközigazgatási és 44 ú ă i statutul i minoritstatutul , http://www.inforegio.ro/user/File/ Korunk Revista romanadejournalism , no.1,81-86 (There WillNeverBe (There ăĠ ilor Europa din , vol 7, nr. 1 CEU eTD Collection Verdery, 1996. Katerine. Tudorel,Andrei; Profiroiu,MariusMihai. Administratiei and Turturean,“Reforma 2006. ______2006.Autonomy of SzeklerlandStatute http://www.sznt.eu/hu-sic/index.php?option= Autonomy of http://adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.phpSZNC.Statute Szeklerland 2003. jogállású önállóés közigazgatási Legyen sajátos autonomia. Zoltán “Megoldas: Sípos, .2009. Ziare.com. 2010a. az erdélyi magyar Gondolatok integráció– éseurópai Vízi, “Autonómia .2004. Balázs Ian Shapiro, Kymlicka,Will.and 1996. Schöpflin, 2000. George. Romanian Parliament. 2005. “Közös jelentésRomanian Parliament. 2005.“Közös A nemzeti szóló jogállásáról kisebbségek Romanian Ministry of Regional andDevelopment Tourism website. 2010. 2005. “A ______. nemzeti jogállásáról romániai kisebbségek szóló törvénytervezet Romanian Legislative a Council.“Vélemény 2004.autonóm Székelyföld jogállására ______. 2007. ______2007. ro/articole/38.pdf ro/articole/38.pdf 20July,(accessed 2010) The Romania), Case of Administration. Public Local of Reform (The Romaniei”, Cazul Locale. Publice =hu (accessed10April, 2010) com_content&view=category&id=10%3Astatutum&Itemid=14&layout=default&lang ?alk=48&k=5 (accessed 10April, 2010) (accessed 10May, 2010) Region!), Development Sufficient (Solution:becomeLet Szeklerland Autonomy. Self-Székelyföld!”, fejlesztési régió University Press. York New Schools, Law American of Association Philosophy Legal and Political September 2010) 1 (accessed ca-pd-l-e-responsabil-de-adoptarea-tacita-a-legiii-regionalizarii-1005445 on Regionalization) regionalizarii (PontaSays Forthat PDL IsResponsible theTacitAdoptionofLaw Year IX,1-2,no. 31-32 for Chancesfrom Autonomy HungariansTransylvania),the of autonómia esélyeir Press Minorities), t ö r v é n y t e r v e zJuly, 2010) e t r –Concepts Development Policy Magyar kisebbség Minorities), National of Status Legal the on Bill the on (Opinion szakvéleményezése”, Magyar kisebbség vonatkozó törvényjavaslatról” (Opinion Autonomy the on of Szeklerland),Statute documente/POR/POR_august_07.pdf ue.ro/upload /118786170647.pdf National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013. http://www.fonduri- Regional OperationalProgramme 2007-2013http://www.mdrl.ro/_ Magyar kisebbség Ponta spune caPD-L eresponsabil deadoptareatacitaalegiii Ę l” (Common Report on the Bill on the Legal Status of National , Year IX, No.1-2 , Year IX, No. 1-2. Nations, Identity, Power What Was Socialism andWhat Comes Next? Ę , http://www.ziare.com/victor-ponta/presedinte-psd/ponta-spune- l” onthe European (Autonomy – Thoughts andIntegration Theoretical andAppliedEconomics ,Year IX, No. 1-2. (accessed 20July, 2010) http://www.mie.ro/index.php?p=159 (accessed15 Ethnicity andGroupRights Transindex (accessed 20July, 2010) 45 , New, York University Press, New York. http://itthon.transindex.ro/?cikk=10116 , nr.2http://www.ectap. , American Society for , Princeton , Princeton University Magyar Kisebbseg The Regional , CEU eTD Collection ______. 2010b. 2010) (accessed1September reimpartita-in-regiuni-de-dezvoltare-dupa-2013-1023993 http://www.ziare.com/udrea/ministrul-turismului/udrea-vrea-ca-romania-sa-fie- Development2013), 2013 (UdreaWants Regionsafter Redivide Romniain to Udrea vrea caRomaniasafiereimpartita inregiunidedezvoltare, dupa 46