Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:06:05.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nation v. State: Constitutionalizing Transnational Nationhood, Creating Ethnizens, and Engaging with Kin-Foreigners in Europe and Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2020

Chulwoo LEE
Chulwoo LEE*
Affiliation:
Yonsei University Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the interstices of international law, quite a number of states have developed strategies to reach out to and engage with their diasporic populations or ethnonational kin outside of their borders who are not their citizens but citizens of the state in which they habitually reside. Some states even provide for that kind of policy in their Constitutions. Some states grant preferential treatment and special rights to “kin-foreigners,” thereby creating “ethnizens.” This article canvasses provisions in national Constitutions in Europe and Asia that provide grounds for engaging with the members of the nation outside of the state, analyzes the modes of engagement—mainly ethnizenship practices and various ways to strengthen links with diasporas—and examines the rules of engagement. It shows that the international norm has not provided effective guidelines regarding the strategies of transnational nation-building beyond the personal boundaries of the state and concludes that the decoupling the nation from the state registered by the transnational nationhood strategies falls short of constituting a departure from the logic of the Westphalian nation-state.

Keywords

diasporatransnational nationhoodethnicityethnizenshipdual citizenshipconstitutional nationalismsovereignty
Type
The Decoupling of the Nation and the State
Information
Asian Journal of Law and Society , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 5 - 38
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor at Yonsei University Law School. Correspondence to Chulwoo Lee, Yonsei Law School, 50 Yonseiro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea. E-mail: [email protected]. An overlapping version of the study is available in Korean in Lee (2019). The author thanks Jelena Džankić, Osamu Ieda, Gwangwen Jiang, Zoltán Kántor, Joon Gyu Kim, Jaeeun Kim, Sung Ho Kim, David Law, Mehari Taddele Maru, and Keun-Gwan Lee for their advice and help in various stages of this research. The author takes sole responsibility for any errors.

References

REFERENCES

Bauböck, Rainer (2007) “Stakeholder Citizenship and Transnational Political Participation: A Normative Evaluation of External Voting.” 75 Fordham Law Review 2393–447.Google Scholar
Bauböck, Rainer (2010a) “Cold Constellations and Hot Identities: Political Theory Questions about Transnationalism and Diaspora,” in Bauböck, R. & Faist, T., eds., Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts, Theories and Methods, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauböck, Rainer (2010b) Dual Citizenship for Transborder Minorities? How to Respond to the Hungarian-Slovak Tit-for-Tat, EUI Working Papers, EUDO Citizenship Observatory RSCAS 2010/75, Fiesole: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers (1998) “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in Hall, J. A., ed., The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 272–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers (2000) Accidental Diasporas and External ‘Homelands’ in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Present, 71 Political Science Series, Vienna: Institute for Advance Studies.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers, & Kim, Jaeeun (2011) “Transborder Membership Politics in Germany and Korea.” 52 European Journal of Sociology 21–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers, Feischmidt, Margit, Fox, Jon, & Grancea, Liana (2006) Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Caglar, Ayse S. (2004) “‘Citizenship Light’: Transnational Ties, Multiple Rules of Membership, and the ‘Pink Card’,” in Friedman, J. & Randeria, S., eds., Worlds on the Move: Globalisation, Migration and Cultural Security, New York: I. B. Tauris, 273–91.Google Scholar
Chung, In Seop, ed. (2002) Jaeoedongpobeop [Overseas Koreans Act], Seoul: Saramsaenggak.Google Scholar
Chung, In Seop (2003) “Europe eui jaeoedongpo jiwonipbeop eui geomto [Review of Support Laws for Co-Ethnics Abroad in Europe].” 48 Gukjebeophakhoe nonchong [Korean Journal of International Law] 189–217.Google Scholar
Damanakis, Michael (2005) “The Metropolitan Centre, the Diaspora and Education.” 13 Hellenic Studies 27–62.Google Scholar
Deets, Stephen (2008) “The Hungarian Status Law and the Specter of Neo-Medievalism in Europe.” 7 Ethnopolitics 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewansyah, Bilal (2019) “Indonesian Diaspora Movement and Citizenship Law Reform: Towards ‘Semi-Dual Citizenship’.” 12 Diaspora Studies 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumbrava, Costica (2014) Nationality, Citizenship and Ethno-Cultural Belonging: Preferential Membership Policies in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Džankić, Jelena (2012) Country Report: Montenegro, EUDO Citizenship Observatory SCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2012/05, Fiesole: Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Ereminal, Natalia, & Seredenko, Sergei (2015) Right Radicalism in Party and Political Systems in Present-day European States, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
European Commission (2008) Croatia 2008 Progress Report, SEC(2008)2694, 5 November.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) Monitoring Report on Croatia’s Accession Preparations, COM(2013)171, 26 March.Google Scholar
Fowler, Brigid (2004) “Fuzzing Citizenship, Nationalising Political Space: A Framework for Interpreting the Hungarian ‘Status Law’ as a New Form of Kin-State Policy in Central and Eastern Europe,” in Kántor, Z.et al., eds., The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building and/or Minority Protection, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 177–238.Google Scholar
Fukurai, Hiroshi (2018) “Fourth World Approaches to International Law (FWAIL) and Asia’s Indigenous Struggles and Quests for Recognition under International Law.” 5 Asian Journal of Law and Society 221–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamlen, Alan (2008) “The Emigration State and the Modern Geopolitical Imagination.” 27 Political Geography 840–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, Foti, Nick, & Rockmore, Daniel (2014) “‘We the Peoples’: The Global Origins of Constitutional Preambles.” 46 George Washington International Law Review 101–35.Google Scholar
Gjevori, Elvin (2018) “Kin State Non-Interventionism: Albania and Regional Stability in the Western Balkans.” 24 Nations and Nationalism 171–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Górny, Agata, & Pudzianowska, Dorota (2009) “Same Letter, New Spirit: Nationality Regulations and Their Implementation in Poland,” in Bauböck, R., Perchnig, B., & Sievers, W., eds., Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, expanded and updated edn, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 123–49.Google Scholar
Hayden, Robert M. (1992) “Constitutional Nationalism in the Formerly Yugoslav Republics.” 51 Slavic Review 654–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora (2001) “Interim Report on the Persons of Indian Origin Card (PIO Card) Scheme,” Chapter 24 of Report of the High Level Committee of the Indian Diaspora, Delhi: Indian Council of World Affairs, http://indiandiaspora.nic.in/diasporapdf/chapter24.pdf (accessed 23 January 2014, copy with author).Google Scholar
Horváth, Enikő (2008) Mandating Identity: Citizenship, Kinship Laws and Plural Nationality in the European Union, Alphen aam den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Howard, Marc Morjé (2009) The Politics of Citizenship in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ieda, Osamu (2004) “Post-Communist Nation Building and the Status Law Syndrome in Hungary,” in Kántor, Z.et al., eds., The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building and/or Minority Protection, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 3–57.Google Scholar
Ieda, Osamu, ed. (2006) Beyond Sovereignty: From Status Law to Transnational Citizenship?, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (2009) 1 Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, https://echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf (accessed 2 August 2019).Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian (2005) Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kadirbeyoglu, Zeynep (2012) “Country Report: Turkey,” EUDO Citizenship Observatory RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2012/10, Fiesole: Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Kántor, Zoltán (2006) “The Recommendation on the Concept ‘Nation’ of the PACE.” 1 Regio 87–99.Google Scholar
Kántor, Zoltán, Majtényi, Balázs, Ieda, Osamu, Vizi, Balázs, & Halász, Iván, eds. (2004) The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building and/or Minority Protection, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaeeun (2011) “Establishing Identity: Documents, Performance, and Biometric Information in Immigration Proceedings.” 36 Law & Social Inquiry 760–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaeeun (2016) Contested Embrace: Transborder Membership Politics in Twentieth-Century Korea, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kis, János (2004) “The Status Law: Hungary at the Crossroads,” in Kántor, Z.et al., eds., The Hungarian Status Law: Nation-Building and/or Minority Protection, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 152–76.Google Scholar
Kovács, Mária M., & Tóth, Judit (2009) “Kin-State Responsibility and Ethnic Citizenship: The Hungarian Case,” in Bauböck, R., Perchnig, B., & Sievers, W., eds., Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, expanded and updated edn, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 151–76.Google Scholar
Kovács, Mária M., & Tóth, Judit (2013) Country Report: Hungary, EUDO Citizenship Observatory RSCAS-CIT-CR 2013/18, Fiesole: Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Law, David (2016) “Constitutional Archetypes.” 95 Texas Law Review 153–243.Google Scholar
Lee, Chulwoo (2010a) “South Korea: The Transformation of Citizenship and the State-Nation Nexus.” 40 Journal of Contemporary Asia 230–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chulwoo (2012) “How Can You Say You’re Korean? Law, Governmentality and National Membership in South Korea.” 16 Citizenship Studies 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chulwoo (2013) “Citizenship, Nationality, and Legal Status,” in Ness, I., ed., The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration, Oxford: Blackwell, 1–7.Google Scholar
Lee, Chulwoo (2019) “Jaeoe dongpo jeongchaek gwa chogukkajeok minjok eui heonbeopjeok jeongcho [Diaspora Engagement Strategies and the Constitutional Founding of Transnatonal Nationhood].” 37 Europe Yeongu [Journal of Contemporary European Studies] 29–78.Google Scholar
Lee, Hye-Kyung (2010b) “Preference for Co-Ethnic Groups in Korean Immigration Policy: A Case of Ethnic Nationalism?” 41 Korea Observer 559–91.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeanyoung (2001) “Korean Minority in China: The Policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the Question of Korean Identity.” 4(2) Review of Korean Studies 87–131.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeanyoung (2002) “Jaejung dongpo gwallyeon jaengjeom e daehan dae jungguk jeokkeukjeok oegyo bangan [For a Proactive Diplomatic Policy toward China with Respect to Issues Concerning Co-ethnics in China],” in Chung, I. S., ed., Jaeoedongpobeop [Overseas Koreans Act], Seoul: Saramsaenggak.Google Scholar
Li, Buyun, & Wu, Yuzhang (1999) “The Concept of Citizenship in the People’s Republic of China,” in Davidson, A. & Weekley, K., eds., Globalization and Citizenship in the Asia-Pacific, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebich, André (2000) “Plural Citizenship in Post-Communist States.” 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loh, Yeong-Don (2003) Jaoedongpobeop gaejeong, eotteoke doeeogago inneunga [Amending the Overseas Koreans Act—How Does It Go?], Seoul: Dahae.Google Scholar
Luk, Ngo Chun (2018) Diaspora Status and Citizenship Rights: A Comparative-Legal Analysis of the Quasi-Citizenship Schemes of China, India and Suriname, Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Manby, Bronwen (2016) Citizenship Law in Africa: A Comparative Study, 3rd edn, New York: Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
Medved, Felicita (2009) “From Civic to Ethnic Community? The Evolution of Slovenian Citizenship,” in Bauböck, R., Perchnig, B., & Sievers, W., eds., Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, expanded and updated edn, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 305–38.Google Scholar
Münz, Rainer (2003) “Ethnic Germans in Central and Eastern Europe and Their Return to Germany,” in Münz, R. & Ohliger, R., eds., Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants: Germany, Israel and Post-Soviet Successor States in Comparative Perspective, London: Frank Cass, 261–88.Google Scholar
Mylonas, Harris (2012) The Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylonas, Harris & Žilovic, Marko (2017) “Foreign Policy Priorities and Ethnic Return Migration Policies: Group-Level Variation in Greece and Serbia.” 45 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 613–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Csongor Istvan (2007) “The Moral of the Hungarian Status Law Saga.” 48 Acta Juridica Hungarica 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, Natsuoka (2006) “The ‘Triadic Nexus’ in Kazakhstan: A Comparative Study of Russians, Uighurs, and Koreans,” in Ieda, O., ed., Beyond Sovereignty: From Status Law to Transnational Citizenship?, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 359–80.Google Scholar
PACE (1999a) Links between Europeans Living Abroad and Their Country of Origin, Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, Doc. 8339, 5 March 1999 (official documents of PACE are available at http://semantic-pace.net/?search=KjoqfGNvcnB1c19uYW1lX2VuOiJPZmZpY2lhbCBkb2N1bWVudHMi&lang=en) (accessed 1 August 2019).Google Scholar
PACE (1999b) Links between Europeans Living Abroad and Their Country of Origin, Recommendation 1410 (1999), 26 May.Google Scholar
PACE (2003) Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by the Kin-State: The Case of Hungarian Law on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries (“Magyars”) of 19 June 2001, Resolution 1335 (2003), 25 June.Google Scholar
PACE (2004a) Links between Europeans Living Abroad and Their Country of Origin, Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Doc. 10072, 12 February.Google Scholar
PACE (2004b) Links between Europeans Living Abroad and Their Country of Origin, Recommendation 1650 (2004), 2 March.Google Scholar
PACE (2005) The Concept of Nation, Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 10762, 13 December.Google Scholar
PACE (2006) The Concept of Nation, Recommendation 1735 (2006), 26 January.Google Scholar
PACE (2009a) Engaging European Diasporas, Recommendation: The Need for Governmental and Intergovernmental Responses, Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Doc. 12076, 5 November.Google Scholar
PACE (2009b) Engaging European Diasporas, Recommendation: The Need for Governmental and Intergovernmental Responses, Recommendation 1890 (2009), 20 November.Google Scholar
PACE (2009c) Engaging European Diasporas, Recommendation: The Need for Governmental and Intergovernmental Responses, Resolution 1696 (2009), 20 November.Google Scholar
Pogonyi, Szabolcs, Kovács, Mária M., & Körtvélyesi, Zsolt (2010) The Politics of External Kin-State Citizenship in East Central Europe, EUDO Citizenship Observatory RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-Comp. 2010/6, Fiesole: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Rumpf, Christian (2003) “Citizenship and Multiple Citizenship in Turkish Law,” in Martin, D. A. & Hailbronner, K., eds., Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals: Evolution and Prospects, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 361–73.Google Scholar
Scheppele, K. Lane (2015) “Understanding Hungary’s Constitutional Revolution,” in Bogdandy, A. v. & Sonnevend, P., eds., Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 11–24.Google Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet (2000) “Citizenship and Membership in the Israeli Polity,” in Aleinikoff, T. A. & Klusmeyer, D., eds., From Migrants to Citizens, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 386–433.Google Scholar
Shevel, Oxana (2010) “The Post-Communist Diaspora Laws: Beyond ‘Good Civic versus Bad Ethnic’ Nationalism Dichotomy.” 24 East European Politics and Societies 159–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel, Mark (2009) The Constitution of Vietnam: A Contextual Analysis, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Sievers, Wiebke (2009) “A Call to Kinship? Citizenship and Migration in the New Member States and the Accession Countries of the EU,” in Bauböck, R., Perchnig, B., & Sievers, W., eds., Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, expanded and updated edn, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 439–57.Google Scholar
Skrentny, John D., Chan, Stephanie, Fox, Jon, & Kim, Denis (2007) “Defining Nations in Asia and Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Ethnic Return Migration Policy.” 41 International Migration Review 793–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, Clair (2012) “Introduction: Nation-Building in China and Vietnam.” 29 East Asia 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, Nigel (2006) “The Innocence of Article Eighteen, Paragraph Two, Subsection E,” in Ieda, O., ed., The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building and/or Minority Protection, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 225–41.Google Scholar
Thunø, Mette (2001) “Reaching Out and Incorporating Chinese Overseas: The Trans-Territorial Scope of the PRC by the End of the 20th Century.” 168 The China Quarterly 910–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tóth, Judit (2000) “Legal Regulations Regarding Hungarian Diaspora.” 2000 Regio 37–64.Google Scholar
Tóth, Judit (2003) “Connections of Kin-Minorities to the Kin-State in the Extended Schengen Zone.” 5 European Journal of Migration and Law 201–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuda, Takeyuki, & Cornelius, Wayne A. (2004) “Japan: Government Policy, Immigrant Reality,” in Cornelius, W. A., Tsuda, T., Martin, P. L., & Hollifield, J. F., eds., Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 439–76.Google Scholar
Udrea, Andrea (2014) “A Kin-State’s Responsibility: Cultural Identity, Recognition, and the Hungarian Status Law.” 14 Ethnicities 324–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentinčič, Dejan (2014) “Slovenia’s Attitude towards Slovenian Minorities in Neighbouring Countries.” 6 European Perspectives 63–83.Google Scholar
Vargas, Jorge A. (1998) “Dual Nationality for Mexicans.” 35 San Diego Law Review 823–52.Google Scholar
Vasiljević, Jelena (2012) “Imagining and Managing the Nation: Tracing Citizenship Policies in Serbia.” 16 Citizenship Studies 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venice Commission [European Commission for Democracy through Law] (2001) Report on the Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by Their Kin-State, CDL-INF(2001)19, 22 October, reprinted in Venice Commission, ed. (2002) The Protection of National Minorities by Their Kin-State, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 15–42.Google Scholar
Venice Commission (2002) The Protection of National Minorities by Their Kin-State, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Venice Commission (2004) Opinion on the Draft Law Concerning the Support for Romanians Living Abroad of the Republic of Romania, Opinion No. 299/2004, CDL (2004)053, 4 June 2004.Google Scholar
Venice Commission (2007) Opinion on the Constitution of Serbia, Opinion No. 405/2006, CDL-AD(2007)004, 19 March.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venice Commission (2011) Opinion on the New Constitution of Hungary, Opinion No. 621/2011, CDL-AD(2011)016, 20 June.Google Scholar
Verhovek, Sam Howe (1998) “Torn Between Nations, Mexican-Americans Can Have Both,” New York Times, 14 April.Google Scholar
Verma, Sohali (2013) Instruments of Engagements: Assessing India’s PIO and OCI Schemes, CARIM-India Research Report 2013/21, Fiesole: Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael (1983) Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Waterbury, Myra A. (2010a) Between State and Nation: Diaspora Politics and Kin-State Nationalism in Hungary, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterbury, Myra A. (2010b) “Bridging the Divide: Towards a Comparative Framework for Understanding Kin State and Migrant-Sending State Diaspora Politics,” in Bauböck, R. & Faist, T., eds., Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts, Theories and Methods, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 131–48.Google Scholar
Xavier, Constantino (2011) “Experimenting with Diasporic Incorporation: The Overseas Citizenship of India.” 17 Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar