한국이 현재의 국적과 관계없이 韓民族 혈통자에 대한 지원을 내용으로 하는 在外同胞의 出人國과 法的地位에 관한 法律(이하 재외동포법으로 약칭)을 제정하여 국내외적으로 논란에 휩싸이고 있는 것과 마찬가지로 최근 유럽에서도 유사한 논란이 제기된바 있다. 즉 90년대 들어 냉전이 종식되자 적지 않은 구 공산권 국가들이 海外同胞를 지원하는 법률을 제정하였는데, 이 같은 법률들이 국제인권규범을 포함한 국제법 질서에 합당하냐는 논란이다. 유럽에서는 헝가리, 슬로바키아, 불가리아, 슬로베니아, 루마니아, 그리스 등 여러 나라가 외국적인 자국계 해외동포에 대한 우대를 규정하는 법을 제정한 바 있다. 특히 헝가리가 해외동포법을 제정하자 인접국인 루마니아와 슬로바키아가 항의를 제기하였고, 이 문제는 베니스 위원회의 조사를 받기도 하였다. 베니스 위원회는 교육과 문화분야에서의 우대를 허용될 수 있으나, 여타 분야에서의 해외동포에 대한 우대는 원칙적으로 불가하다는 결론을 제시하였다. 문제의 헝가리 법은 2003년 6월 대폭 개정되어 사회경제적 분야에서의 우대는 대부분 폐지되었다. 유럽의 법들을 한국의 재외동포법과 비교하면 가장 두드러진 차이점은 유럽의 법들은 해외 자국민의 문화적 정체성을 유지, 발전시키도록 지원하는 내용을 중심으로 하며, 교육과 문화분야에서의 유대의 강화를 목적으로 하고 있는 반면, 한국은 이러한 분야에서의 유대강화에 관한 내용은 전혀 없이 사회경제적 분야에서의 우대만을 규정하고 있다는 점이다. 이러한 한국의 재외동포법은 국제인권규범상의 인종이나 민족적 출신에 근거한 차별금지 원칙에 위배되며, 베니스 위원회가 제시한 결론과도 상충된다.
The Korean Constitutional Court declared on November 29, 2001 that article 2 (b) of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Ethnic Korean of 1999(the Act) and article 3 of its administrative decree unconstitutional and ordered changes to the Act by the end of 2003. The Act extends certain benefits to many overseas ethnic Koreas in terms of immigration, sojourns, economic activities, medical insurance and some welfare benefits. However, the scope of overseas ethnic Koreans benefiting from the Act is limited to those who held the citizenship of the Republic of Korea(the R.O.K.) before emigrating, or got official confirmation of the R.O.K. citizenship before their naturalization to foreign nationality, and their descendants. So most of ethnic Koreans in China as well as in the CIS are not allowed to benefit from the Act because they emigrated before the Republic of Korea came into being. Three ethnic Koreans from China filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, alleging that the Act violated the equal protection clause of the Korean Constitution. The Court found the Act infringed on the rights of some overseas ethnic Koreans, who were denied the benefits granted to other oversea Koreans. The Ministry of Foreign and Trade Affairs and some scholars, including this author, criticize the Act, because it is unconstitutional and also violates the non-discrimination principle of international human rights norm, as it provides preferential treatment based on national or ethnic origin and contend the repeal or fundamental change of the Act. But other civil rights activists opposed to this opinion and insist that many countries have similar laws to provide preferential treatment for their kin-minorities. Actually the concern of the kin-stale for the fate of the kin-minorities who are citizens of other countries is not a new phenomenon in international law. Especially, subsequent to the end of cold war and the collapse of communism, the issue of the protection of kin-minorities became prominent in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Many Central and Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Greece, etc, enacted special laws which provided preferential treatment for kin-minorities with foreign citizenship. However, according to author's analysis, such European laws have quite different legal character, aims and contents from Korean Act. Many of preferential treatments in European laws may be justified by the legitimate aim of fostering the cultural links between people in the kin-states and kin-minorities. The Venice Commission also insisted that preferential treatment granting benefits to the persons belonging to their kin-minorities not be granted in fields other than education and culture, save in exceptional cases and if it is shown to pursue a legitimate aim and to be proportional to that aim. But Korean Act provides preferential treatment only in fields of social and economic rights to the overseas ethnic Koreans and has no single article on educational or cultural field. Author's conclusion is that Korean Act is not consistent with the principle of international human rights norm as well as the Venice commission's conclusion.