Tévhitek az autonómiáról: Székelyföld autonómiájának alkotmányossága = Misbeliefs about Autonomy: The Constitutionality of the Autonomy of Szeklerland

Kivonat, rövid leírás

Hypothesis Methodology and Sources --- There is an overarching agreement in Romanian politics, that a territorial autonomy arrangement would violate the constitution of the country, and is therefore not feasible. This theoretical concept arises from the misinterpretation of the connection between state and autonomy, and as such can be falsified by the experiences of the functioning autonomies, as well as by international law and the corresponding scientific literature. Consequently, my main hypothesis was that the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland does not contradict the constitutional order of Romania. I analysed this hypothesis through legal doctrinal analysis, and comparative legal analysis based on the relevant legal material: The Constitution and laws of Romania; The two Opinions of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Romania on the rejection of the Draft Law on the Autonomous Status of Szeklerland; Decision Nr. 80/2014 of the Constitutional Court rejecting the constitutional amendments proposed by the Special Committee of the Parliament; relevant decrees of the Prefect’s of Romania; the Statutes of European autonomies, as well as the constitutions and laws of their host countries; international legal material ratified by Romania. The issue of the constitutionality of territorial autonomy within Romania emerges every now and then, depending on the political discourse in the country, but extensive scientific scrutiny has so far avoided the topic. In this respect, the novelty of my theoretical approach was twofold: 1.) The constitutional aspects of a Szekler autonomy arrangement in themselves were largely neglected within academia, leaving behind a gap that is very much ripe for scientific review. 2.) Additionally, even if the topic was discussed, it was mostly done within the framework of the “nation-state discourse”, and all the natural conceptual restraints thereof. My dissertation surpassed these constraints, along with some of the most widespread, albeit false presuppositions and misconceptions surrounding the issue at hand. Ultimately, I invited the reader to engage in a mind-game, in order to deconstruct the “constitutional myth” regarding autonomy. --- Novelty conclusions of the dissertation --- • Conclusions of the conducted legal doctrinal analysis, and comparative legal analysis proved that the assumption that autonomy would contradict the constitutional order, and violate the unitary, indivisible, and national character of the Romanian state, arises from the misinterpretation of the connection between state and autonomy. • Chapters 1, and 152 of the Constitution of Romania (stipulating and protecting the above characteristics), are thus of no legal relevance, and cannot be understood as an effective constitutional legal barrier. • Territorial autonomy as an institutional solution does not contradict the constitutional order of Romania. There are no provisions in the Romanian legal system whatsoever, which would constitute a legal obstacle to the creation of an autonomous region. • There are only political obstacles, which tend to be wrapped and presented as legal ones, due to historical resentments towards Hungarians, and the centuries long Romanian endeavour to establish an ethnically homogenous nation state. • While on the one hand we see no constitutional barrier to autonomy, on the other hand: the notion of autonomy is not at all alien to the constitution, as it makes references to several forms of it (personal, functional, and administrative). Furthermore, if one reads the constitution without an ethnocentric mind-set, and in junction with international treaties on minority protection ratified by Romanian, one could easily adopt a more pluralistic interpretation of the constitution, open to accommodate minority claims on ethnic-power sharing.