During the public hearing on the Draft Law regarding Cooperation with the Diaspora – Emigrants, 14 proposals were put forward for the document’s design, out of which two were accepted.

The Ministry of Diaspora, which proposed the regulation, agreed to an amendment to Article 60. This amendment mandates the deletion of personal data concerning deceased emigrants one year after the death is recorded, regardless of how much time has elapsed since the actual death.

Additionally, an amendment to Article 6 was accepted, requiring this governmental department to hold yearly regional consultations with local governments. These meetings aim to align plans, facilitate information exchange, and collaboratively organize initiatives focused on cooperation with the diaspora, thereby fostering two-way communication.

“The proposed change will enhance comprehensive cooperation between the Ministry of Diaspora and local governance units to jointly plan projects and activities aimed at engaging the diaspora – emigrants, ultimately aimed at creating and enhancing conditions for their integration into Montenegro’s social and economic life,” the document states.

The proposal for the diaspora to appoint voting representatives in parliamentary committees was rejected. The reasoning behind this decision is that current regulations do not accommodate the designation of “external members,” and introducing such a provision would be both formally unfounded and practically inappropriate.

According to a document published on the Government’s website, the adoption of the Law on Cooperation with the Diaspora – Emigrants represents “one of the top priorities” for the Ministry of Diaspora, as outlined in the Executive Branch’s Work Program for this year.

A public hearing was held from June 11 to July 1, and a working group to prepare the draft law was constituted on May 15. The document notes that no non-governmental organization (NGO) responded to the Public Call for Nominations of NGO Representatives for the Working Group.

“The proposed norm is linguistically clear”

The department led by Mirsad Azemović dismissed the objection regarding Article 2 of the law. The proposer argued that it is vague how one might determine “the perception of Montenegro as one’s home country or country of origin.”

Article 2 of the Draft specifies that diaspora – emigrants “refer to Montenegrin citizens and other individuals of Montenegrin origin residing abroad who view Montenegro as their home country or country of origin and heritage, which is democratic, independent, sovereign, and civil.”

The explanation for rejecting the proposal asserts that “the proposed norm is linguistically clear.”

In June, “Vijesti” posed a question to the Ministry of Diaspora regarding how they would assess whether someone “perceives Montenegro as their home country or country of origin” and “heritage as democratic, independent, sovereign, and civil.” Despite multiple inquiries, no answer was received.

Lawyer Boris Marić expressed at the time that norms allowing for various interpretations are problematic.

“This specific norm is not mandatory and cannot be applied unconditionally,” he cautioned.

Marić noted that these topics have been debated for two centuries—what constitutes an ethnic community, a nation, a people, and how these concepts interrelate.

He believes that delving into this realm should involve thorough consultations with comparative practices and experienced individuals.

“Countries with clearly defined national identities, like Croatia, Serbia, or Slovenia, can formulate such laws more seamlessly. In contrast, Montenegro operates on a civic state concept—however it is viewed—which complicates definitions. We need to ensure inclusivity without exclusion, which requires a serious and meticulous normative approach,” he stated.

Which proposals were rejected?

The proposal for the diaspora to appoint representatives with voting rights in parliamentary committees faced rejection. It was explained that current laws do not allow for the institution of “external members” and introducing such a change would be both legally unsound and inappropriate.

The initiative to rename the law to the “Law on Cooperation of Montenegro with Montenegrin Emigrants” was also rejected for being unnecessarily limiting and overly formal, as the existing title has gained acceptance in practice.

A proposal to specify the number of Council members for Cooperation with the Diaspora by country was dismissed, as the current wording—indicating that the Council will have at least 67 members from diverse countries, with country representation based on diaspora size—is deemed sufficiently clear.

The suggestion to transfer certain law provisions to a by-law for easier amendments was also turned down. The Ministry asserts that these articles are functioning adequately and pose no practical barriers. Moreover, the proposal to guarantee legal assistance to returnees in tracing their origins was rejected on the basis that the right to pursue such activities already exists.

The ministry’s responsibility to host annual regional consultations with municipalities was not accepted because similar efforts are already carried out through existing strategic frameworks. The request for the Ministry to be legally obligated to support diaspora-focused events in collaboration with local governments was also rejected, as such initiatives are included in the law without a strict obligation.

The proposal to incorporate the involvement of university professors, athletes, and other experts from the diaspora into educational and public programs was dismissed, as this practice is currently allowed and applied where feasible. Additionally, the request to mandate local governments to regularly exchange diaspora data with state authorities was rejected due to challenges in implementing such a practice in municipalities with fewer emigrants.

The proposal that municipalities with larger diasporas should receive more seats on the Council was dismissed, as it would lead to imbalance and unfair representation among local communities. The suggestion to obligate the Ministry to publish detailed reports on projects and budgets focused on the diaspora was also rejected; this information is already part of regular annual reports.

Finally, the proposal for the Ministry to provide local government agencies with data on emigrants from their regions was rejected, as such actions would violate privacy laws and create opportunities for potential abuse.

News