Magánjogi Tudományok Intézete

Permanent URI for this community

https://krepozit.kre.hu/handle/123456789/446

Browse

Browsing Magánjogi Tudományok Intézete by Author "Pomeisl András József"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Unity in diversity?
    (Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar, 2020) Prieger Adrienn Dóra; Pomeisl András József
    Nowadays, regarding the immigration crisis, the EU accession process of Turkey and the West Balkan, and the Brexit, there is a fierce debate on the suzerainty of Member States, on the future development of the EU and, in general, about the European identity between the V4-countries and some other Member States. The V4 countries are often charged with that they are hostile toward the idea of European integration, and accept a selfish and old-fashioned nationalistic position in this debate. However, at their summit on 12th October 2018 at Štrbské Pleso, the heads of V4 countries noted that the EU-project need to be defended as a successful project of peace and cooperation, also noted that the task of the V4 countries is to unify the European Union, and the division of Europe into old and new, and the vision of two-speeds Europe were rejected. Indeed, after the European parliamentary elections in 2019, the V4 countries played a crucial role in the election of Ursula von der Leyen as the President of European Commission, and this event has shown that the aim of V4 countries was not to paralyze the functioning of the EU, but to develop it in the direction they preferred. As the European Court of Human Rights has pointed out in many resolutions, freedom of expression is a fundamental value of a democratic society with a view to free discussion of public affairs. It is obvious that a meaningful debate can only arise if participants in the debate accept the possibility that there can be several different, arguable positions, so it makes sense to raise and collide arguments and counterarguments. An approach that tends to recognize only a single arguable position is much more suited to a theocratic monarchy than to democracy. Nevertheless, in many cases, one of the parties tries to suppress public debates by stating that there is only that position that he represents, and any other position is illegitimate, because it is incompatible with the predominant and unquestionable paradigm. This is true in case of fundamental issues such as the establishment of a special constitutional system or the goal and means of European integration. In our present study, we are discussing this latter issue, since the challenges of our time, whether mass immigration into the EU or the aspirations of Turkey and states of the Western Balkans with Islamic majority for EU accession or the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union all raise the question of what the aim of the European integration process, what is the real basis of it, and by which means could we maintain this process in the future. We should see that debates within the European Union, whether on the sovereignty of the Member States or the cultural identity of Europe or the desirable evolution of EU law, cannot simply be described as the Battle of Good and Bad where an educated party, committed to modern ideas, human rights and integration and a barbarian, profit seeking party, a fan of outdated ideas and hostile to the integration, fight for Europe’s soul. Such a perception of the debate is the remnant of the ideology of colonialism in the nineteenth century: this is the ethnocentric and cultural-chauvinist approach of the colonizing powers of Western Europe which deeply looks down and despises the other ‘barbarous’ regions of the earth, including Central and Eastern Europe, which is accepted as a disciple but never as an equal partner. The difference between the points of view is undeniable and is not new. It is not because states in the Soviet sphere of interest still carry the marks of the National Socialist and Communist barbarism in their minds, although there is no doubt that one of the main fractures lies between Western and Central Europe. Not from the 15th-18th century in which the order-based monarchies were transformed into absolutist and colonial great powers in Western Europe, where anticlericalism and secular thought were strong, and in which local authorities of states struggling with Eastern invaders (Tartars, Turks and Russians) strengthened in Central Europe, where the system of order based state preserved and the national identity formation role of Christian faith survived. On the other hand the truth, , is that the different approaches can be traced back even earlier to the time of the formation and consolidation of the western culture, so the eight-eleventh century when the boundaries of the Western (Christian) culture were formed and when Europe first distinguished itself from the surrounding world. Basically two models can be detected which are intended to create the same goal: the unity of Western Christian peoples by two different methods: the imperial models built on the traditions of the Roman Empire and linked to the name of Charles the Great, Frank King and Emperor of Rome (768-814), and the culture model built on the tradition of the Christian Church and linked to the name of Otto, German King and Roman emperor (983-1002).