By Melina Joseph
Within the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission Subcommittee on Terrorism, the questions of civil unrest and violence have arisen.
Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán claimed that a country can adopt democratic institutions while still refusing to embrace multicultural and globalist sentiments. Thus, illiberal democracy is serving as the point of focus in the CJEU, where it will be determined whether Hungary has violated EU law by restricting the movement of refugees.
Judge de Lapuerta was skeptical about Hungary's presence in the EU, observing that, “Being part of the EU is a privilege, not a right.” Still, he remains concerned that the Court is playing European politics as opposed to working to find concrete solutions. For instance, the Court has yet to find a two-thirds majority on this matter, demonstrating the clear ideological divisions among judges.
The Advocate General for Prosecution was adamant about Hungary violating human rights while avoiding sanctions. Due to their oppression of refugees, he argued, Hungary has shown that they have no future intent to abide by EU law.
It was remarked that the European Union had limits and were prepared to institute consequences. To this, the defense sought to show that Hungary was being threatened as opposed to being given warnings about their behaviour. They compared putting Hungary on a waiting list for a period of time to the action of a parent disciplining a child. Overall, the defense felt that Hungary’s membership in the EU was valued greatly, something that will soon be determined.
The European Commission Subcommittee on Terrorism fleshed out the idea of social media being used to derail terrorism. Previously, roughly half of the members agreed to work on prevention through social media measures, while the other delegates focused on how awareness networks and education systems could help reduce radicalization. Other concerns were brought up as well, from the desire to help refugees retain their cultural identities to the argument of how inclusive events could endanger refugees by providing targets for radicals.
Ultimately, two working papers were drafted, each focusing on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in lowering radicalization. Delegates agreed that sophisticated social media filters could keep terror organizations from posting material to recruit and incite others. Encryption technology could effectively protect the system against hackers.
The time sensitivity of the AI project proved to be more controversial. The bloc of delegates who supported the creation of an AI system in eight months stated that companies would not need more time for creating this technology. On the other hand, others argued that because AI is complex to program, at least a year is needed to create and test out the system. These delegates felt that it would be unreasonable to expect companies to do this level of work in under a year. As far as economic consequences go, a quality system could only be worth its time and value if enough of both was offered.