The paper analyzes ethnic data collection pertaining to criminal justice in Hungary. It shows that Hungary's approach to resist ethnic data collection by law enforcement authorities is not a good policy and it causes severe constitutional problems in other, non-criminal legal circumstances, where ethnic data is used in the context of additional rights and affirmative protection provided for ethno-national minorities. The paper follows a twofold analysis. First, it sets forth general problems relating to ethnic data collection, including a brief analysis of a uniquely Hungarian constitutional institution, the minority self-government structure. The focus of scrutiny then shifts to the criminal justice system, in particular the analysis of policing of racially motivated crime, and the question of police ethnic profiling.
Thepolicy of “proscription” or “designation” of groups and individuals as “terrorist” has been deployed as acrucial legal weapon in the global war on terrorism. Despite its serious humanrights implications, judicial review is excluded from this highly politicisedprocess, which has been embraced uncritically by the international communityand member states' domestic legal system. The essay aims to survey certaincontradictions within legal regimes imposed by the UN Security Council, the EUand the Hungarian Government, aimed at freezing assets and financialtransactions of terrorist organisations and organs associated withanti-democratic political regimes. It is argued that legal regimes that wouldserve the thorough implementation of anti-terrorist sanctions brought by the UNSecurity Council or the European Council are extremely underdeveloped. In otherwords, the three normative levels of sanction measures-(1) legislation passedby the UN Security Council; (2) the implementing legislation of member statesand the EU; (3) sui generis EU sanction-regulations-arenot harmonized. Even though the examples are brought from Hungary, a newEU-member state that so far has not been directly affected by terrorism,arguably the scrutinized controversies point to general Rule of Law questionsthat presumably most European states are bound to face.
With special focus on free speech, as well as on classroom surveillance (proliferating in the Covid-pandemic digital learning environment), the paper aims to identify contextual dimensions for academic freedom as a matured legal concept – and one to be assessed via a business and human rights approach, due to its peculiar position between the public and private spheres. The project is triggered by the fact that despite its widespread usage in international documents and domestic constitutions, academic freedom remains underdeveloped in terms of conceptual tools, operationalizing mechanisms, monitoring methods and benchmarking schemes. There are also competing notions on how to best conceptualize it: as an individual right, a set of requirements for autonomous institutional design, a field to be regulated for market service providers or public commodities, a tool for international policy making, or academic ranking – not to mention the challenge of how to incorporate challenges brought by social justice movements. These considerations all require different policy tools and adjacent legal targeting.