Trócsányi, L: Dilemmas of Drafting the Hungarian

Prof. Dr. László Trócsányi is a professor of constitutional law at the Universityof Szeged, Hungary, who served as an ambassador to Paris, France (2010¿2014). Hepreviously sat on the bench of the Constitutional Court of Hungary (2007¿2010)and was involved in the activity of the Venice Commission of the Council ofEurope (2005¿2013) as the substitute member for Hungary. After2000, he served as an ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg(until 2004). Trócsányi is also the founder and a partner ofNagy & Trócsányi (currently suspending his partnership,since 2007.) Professor Trócsányi has been appointed Ministerof Justice of Hungary in 2014, which position he still holds atthe time of publication.

In 2012, the new Fundamental Law of Hungary called the attention of Europe andthe world to many new questions. Traditional concepts of constitutional law aregoing through significant change in the 21st century. It has become necessary torethink doctrines we previously accepted as singular and single truths. The issue ofconstitutional identity is gradually moving to the foreground for the Member Statesof a unifying Europe. It is a concept, however, which remains the topic of widespreadacademic debate as to its elements and content. In contrast, the European Unionseeks to find the framework of national identity in its jurisprudence.The new Fundamental Law of Hungary, primarily due to its unique tone,became the subject of investigation by the several ¿public law laboratories¿ ofEurope. Domestic and European fora raised their voices on the FundamentalLaw; new forms of participative democracy¿mainly expert bodies¿issued expertopinions on the Hungarian constitution. These often conflicting opinions callattention to the fact that there indeed are parallel, multiple truths and that thoseinterested and engaged in politics and constitutions find themselves facing brandnew dilemmas. This book intends to introduce some of the main points of debatesine ira et studio, that is, ¿without hate and zealousness¿. These arguments are putforward with the intention to create some sort of a ¿constitutional dialogue¿ onthese issues.