We have to start with the fact that the EU
is trying to build itself as a union of values, respect human rights and
democratic society. As stipulated in its treaties, especially after the entry
of the Lisbon treaty, the EU wants to be both an economic integrationist as
well as a body of pro-human rights. It has expanded its power and competence
over time over the last decades. Comparing to other regional or even
international organization, the EU is considered to be an effective body in promoting
economic wellbeing and fundamental freedoms and human rights protection. It is,
to a certain extent, true. However, the EU is confronting significant
challenges both from its own EU institutions and members regarding human right
protection.
From the EU
side, the Union is facing a bunch of problem such as legislation from the EU
bodies that may open for more HR violations, poor administrative action at the
EU level as well as local, and importantly the weakness of the Rule of Law
enforcement instruments. For example, the EU is supposed infringe or annul the
action of state when it’s outlaw but very often it appears just as an attempts.
For the other time, the EU is using its punishment procedure over an outlaw
state such as the suspension of membership in order to force state to take care
of HR but it can rarely reached since this solution since it rather makes the
situation worse and that the citizens of the Union who will be the first to
suffer from this measure, not the state.
Challenges from
the member states are powerfully vast. As has been discussed about the
nondemocratic act of the Hungarian or Romanian government, states’ sovereignty
poses greater obstacle for the EU to harmonize its values throughout the Union.
Some member states did not want to share
common values with the EU of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. In contrast, member states try to
escape from the EU’s competence or may say it’s not the EU’s business.
The EU can’t do
much when it is confronting with sovereign power of national states. For one
big reason, it is because of the relations between the Principal and Agent relations.
As long as the member states remain the principal, they would always find a way
to limit the agent’s activities or at least ignore the agent’s policy or act.
On the one hand,
member states prefer intergovernmentalist role of the EU, not a supranational
one. Given this preference, states wanted to enjoy much freer behavior, especially
in the political affairs. In this ground, it also means that the EU’s
infringement procedure or annulling the action toward member states can’t be
done by the EU alone but must get consent from member states as well. As
clearly illustrated regarding Hungarian challenges to HR, the EU fails to safeguard
democracy and the rule of law in Hungary since Hungary did not accept the EU
measure.
On the other hand,
if the EU were to use its community’s toolkit to pressure Hungary it rather
worsens the situation. Imposing sanctions on one particular state is feasible
but create another new problems such as political divisions in the Union.
Particularly speaking, when the European parliament attempted to take action
against Hungary, it became apparent that the EU officials and MPs are
internally divided over the priority and severity of the situation. Namely, the
largest party in the European Parliament, the European People’s Party, the
center right bloc in the EP, opposed the proposal.
In short, there are problems from both sides that
deteriorate the EU HR standards. Inadequate mechanism to punish to outlaw
state; limited effectiveness of infringement procedure; role of the Commission
versus the states, especially the stronger ones and the unwillingness of member
states took its root in the EU and it has to be broken in order to become a
fully Union of values, liberty, democracy and human rights protection.
With states, slow is fast and fast is slow. If the EU
forces the Hungarian government, for example, to quickly change their behavior
and respect HR or warn to suspend the Membership’s right would rather
exacerbate the situation. The EU should find another soften and effective mean
and that it should be taken from the ground. It requires active role of individuals,
civil society networks, member states and the EU to cooperatively work together
to resolve all human rights issues.
They forgot that institutions of liberal democracy
cannot be created overnight. It is not only that developing liberal democracy
requires more time; it also depends on continuous support and endorsement by all
the relevant parties including very active role of the people. Suspension of
membership on the Hungarian government is not a good deal but rather creates
lots of revenge. Because the EU wants to move forward but not backward, the
current position of the Hungarian government is much better than it was fifteen
years ago. As long as they are moving forwards even though an inch, it is the
EU’s success already.
Hence, the EU does not need to be perfect and that
human rights protection can also be not perfect. As long as the EU is doing her
job and that member states continue to improve their situation, that’s real
purpose of the EU designer. If going too fast to become a fully HR respect body
but creating another problem of mistrust, discouraging cooperation, and fragility
that may lead to instability among EU member states, it is highly unnecessary
to promote HR in this way.
