László Trócsányi: The power of expert networks is significant
2021. 01. 26.
Having a clear picture of current political disputes between Budapest and Brussels is critical — Interview with MEP László Trócsányi in Magyar Nemzet by Judi Tamara.
A groundbreaking scientific handbook edited by László Trócsányi, President of the Hungarian Bar Association and former Minister of Justice, has been published. In the book entitled The European Panorama, the authors gather the opinions and criticisms of international and non-governmental organizations about certain EU Member States. While the book can be very useful in the ongoing debate on the rule of law, it also highlights that in recent decades, a strong expert, so-called monitoring power has emerged that can also influence the ability of Member States to maneuver on the international playing field.
The volume entitled The European Panorama (co-editors László Trócsányi and László Lovászy) presents the statements made by international and non-governmental organizations and institutions in their reports about EU countries, consisting of hundreds of pages. What was the purpose of creating such a handbook?
In this volume, we examined a total of twenty-six countries of the European Union. We wanted to give readers some knowledge about each country and show what we know as well about the geopolitical situation, national political identity and state system of the Member States. In practice, we have collected a bunch of statements made by international and non-governmental organizations and institutions concerning EU countries, thus illustrating how many different networks of experts, the so-called monitoring system, are in operation today. I would like to emphasize that we are talking about a phenomenon that was not yet known thirty to forty years ago. Today, the U.S. State Department, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Commission also produce annual reports. In addition, a whole arsenal of NGOs are using monitoring as a tool. Is the judiciary independent in that country? Does it pick up the fight against anti-Semitism? How is it fighting corruption? These are just a few areas they study. All in all, therefore, we have produced a groundbreaking and useful handbook that seeks only to show what the experts are saying about these countries.
At the same time, it is worth looking for the answer to the question of why more and more country reports are being prepared today. Who are these experts who rate states? It must be seen that the role of an expert should not be underestimated because, with their opinion, they can also influence a given country’s international relations, as well as the political and financial room it has to maneuver.
When did the development of expert networks begin? When did it become typical for even politicians and organizations serving political purposes to appear in such expert roles?
In fact, this began in 1975 with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has since been a priority in international relations. Founded in 1978 in the United States, Helsinki Watch first began producing country reports, so from the 1970s onwards, human rights no longer appeared as an internal affair of a given state but became more and more important in international comparisons. Under Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the United States specifically sought to mainstream its vision of human rights via its foreign policy. The countries behind the Iron Curtain were already being criticized for a lack of freedom of speech, for example, but because they were not free and democratic states, criticism did not reach them. The next step was regime change, from which the so-called period of democracy-building began. One after another, international and social organizations came forward to provide advice and recommendations to various countries. By the 2000s, Amnesty International had already launched its own country-reporting program. This process led to the fact that today we can talk about strong networks of experts, whose reports are even referred to by judicial forums. In my opinion, there are some essential questions: Who becomes an expert and what will the subject of their monitoring activity be? Is the person independent or ideologically influenced? It is undeniable that there are a large number of cases where the expert report is given a political context, and ideological influence has become more pronounced since the 1990s. For example, the evaluations of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) depend to a large extent on the exact ideology per which the NGO forms its opinion.
Today, we also see clearly that monitoring human rights and the rule of law has an impact on ideological areas such as freedom of religion, the definition of family relationships, or the perception of immigration.
Is this also typical in the case of Hungary? Hungary often receives strong criticism from non-governmental organizations and even EU institutions. How expert can a Tavares or Sargentini report really be?
Indeed, clarity is particularly important in the political debates between Budapest and Brussels. Objectivity is called into question when a politician performs the expert task, as he himself then becomes part of the expert power. The European Parliament essentially acts as a court when it makes a negative assessment of a country based on these reports. And the consequences can be very serious. The Sargentini Report, for example, is part of the Article 7 procedure, which could lead to sanctions against EU Member States.
This is exactly what I would like to draw attention to: We must rely on responsible country reports. And no one should believe that only Hungary is being criticized. There is criticism against each country, and our volume highlights this as well. France, for example, is criticized for anti-Semitism and its integration of immigrants. Another issue is that in the case of artificial monitoring, only some countries receive sentences with more serious consequences. There are specifics in our handbook, as we have essentially made new country reports from various, other country reports. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Who are your target readers? Could the volume be useful to Hungarian diplomats and politicians during very intense debates on the rule of law?
The handbook can undoubtedly be very useful in diplomatic negotiations, but it is intended for a wider audience. Professionals working in public administration, as well as students majoring in law, international and European studies, economics, public administration, and history and social sciences, will especially benefit from it. As the rule of law debate has intensified and is constantly on the table, it doesn’t hurt to be aware of what criticisms have been leveled at other countries.
Expert power is thus able to limit individual states’ room for maneuvering on the international playing field. How does this manifest itself? In the case of Hungary, does this mean that recent criticisms against it, the rule of law debate, have also reduced Hungary’s room to maneuver?
I would rather say that there have been attempts to do so. The 21st century has become a century of monitoring because with the spread of digitization, the collection and processing of information has become much simpler. Moreover, all this goes hand in hand with the strengthening of globalization efforts. The states of the world today cannot shut themselves off; they have to react to what expert networks say about them. I myself have been to Geneva before, where I had to answer human rights questions about Hungary at length under the auspices of the United Nations. Thus, the monitoring system has the advantage; of course, they do also formulate legitimate recommendations and opinions about certain countries. But this requires objective and equal standards. Today, Member States and judicial forums are also critical of expert power, with more and more people saying that the state must be given room to maneuver. A spectacular example of this is the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Hungarian transit zones. It was found in Strasbourg that there was no question of illegal detention, but months later, placement in a transit zone had already been classified as detention in Luxembourg.
It is difficult for some citizens to understand how two courts can reach a different opinion on the same issue in such a short time. For me, however, this simply highlights the fact that there is also some uncertainty in the ranks of the courts about the reliability of monitoring. Numerous studies have already been published on the influence of certain NGOs and their reports on the work of judicial forums.