Actually, your approach is good! But the most of the people in the World including Europe are disregarding these types of deep discourses! It’s the main problem what we can see in this context! We have to find a solution for this , first of all!

The fundamental foundation of all human institutions—from the family unit to international organizations—begins with a paradigm shift in understanding the physical origin of human rights. Rather than treating rights as mere social constructs or legal abstractions, we must recognize that they are rooted in the very laws of nature—specifically, in the physical Constructal Law, which governs the flow and evolution of all systems.

This natural foundation reframes human rights not as privileges granted by governments, but as inherent features of our existence, flowing from our need to move, speak, think, and act within systems that evolve toward greater freedom and efficiency. The civil application of these rights—through law, governance, and education—then becomes the means by which society either honors or suppresses this natural order.

Only by aligning our civil institutions with this physical reality can we hope to build systems that are both just and sustainable. This shift is not merely philosophical—it is practical, offering a deeper framework for addressing modern crises in governance, economics, and global civility.

Global Civility: Physical Constructal Law

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5Z2SQBN

Background:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

The European Union has been criticized for often ignoring or inadequately responding to silent authoritarianism—a subtle erosion of democratic norms within member states. While the EU has mechanisms like Article 7 to address rule-of-law violations, political considerations and a desire to maintain unity sometimes lead to delayed or weak enforcement, especially when authoritarian shifts occur gradually and without overt repression. This selective response raises concerns about the EU’s commitment to upholding its democratic values uniformly.

Dear Dr. Arvidsson,

My suggestion is that you take a broader perspective so you will see that what you are documenting in Estonia, with some new academic jargon, is just another, current example of what sociologists, anthropologists, historians and political scientists have recognized as part of European legal culture that has always been authoritarian. It is rooted in Medieval traditions and the Church that go back to the Romans and that are reinforced today by corporate authority in the modern form of feudalism. The legal system is characterized at its core by a (centralized) prosecutorial system generally without juries and equal access to attorneys for civil and criminal law, a civil service bureaucracy that trains obedient functionaries and is filled with elites with a top-down perspective. "Democracy" is just the veneer for order. For a real democratic system, you would need to change the political and legal culture including the civic education and family socialization as well as the existing balance of economic and military power. By definition, culture and its "deep structure" work to maintain themselves over generations and resist change. The idea of trying to convince the EU to change this is a myth or a children's fairy tale that works to keep the system in place. You can find my work on Research Gate on measuring human rights progress and democracy and holding government and projects accountable, on constitutional reform to balance powers, on deep structure and political and legal culture, on culture change and related areas. Here is where I suggest the real debate should be focused. David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

David Lempert I agree, there are deep structural issues, for example in Eastern Europe, things that will take generations to change. The EU it self can only legislate, what happens in the hearts and minds of those working in the system is something else. We often overlook issues such as those raised by North (1991) and in the fields you mention. SO yes you are right, we need a broader lens. Question is then if we end up with an article or a book, or a series of books but its a much deeper rooted issue than we often think. Warm wishes Henrik

Henrik G.S. Arvidsson I believe the European Union, in its pursuit of unity and stability, faces a critical challenge regarding the erosion of democratic substance in certain member states. While the EU is a strong proponent of democratic values, there are instances where judicial systems maintain the appearance of democracy yet fail to protect vulnerable groups, such as minorities, fathers, and dissenters.

This silent authoritarianism, as I see it, may not always be overt but is deeply ingrained in the practices that undermine the essence of democracy. By preserving form but eroding substance, judicial systems in some member states may suppress dissent, deny equal protection, or allow discriminatory practices to thrive.

In such cases, I believe the EU must step up its commitment to ensuring that democratic principles extend beyond superficial appearances. It must hold its member states accountable, addressing these covert authoritarian tendencies that undermine the values the EU stands for. The challenge, however, lies in finding a balance between respecting state sovereignty and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights for all citizens.

In a complex society it is virtually impossible to have 'fair' laws. There will always be someone to whom the law is being unfair. In an adversarial system of justice we will always have 'losers'. Law was never about fairness it is about control.

As Austin pointed out law is ‘a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by intelligent beings having power over him’

Austin 1832: 18

The European Union is attempting to direct that power at countries with a very wide range of societal traditions that originate in several traditions. It is a daunting task and by necessity will take generations to evolve. While the UK was a member of the Common Market, as it was at the time Lord Denning spoke of European law as being an incoming tide "flowing into the estuaries and up the rivers" in Bulmer v. Bollinger [1974] and five years later described it in more invasive terms as having not stopped at the high water mark and to have broken the dykes and the banks, submerging the surrounding land. He went on to say that “we have to learn to become amphibious if we wish to keep our heads above the water”. Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 456, 462).

His graphic imagery depicts EU law as perhaps going too far, from the benign flow of a river within its banks to a deluge to the land we wished to keep dry. This was of course the view of the various political parties and groups who became the ‘Brexiteers’. EU law to them is imposed on us, it has gone too far and it forces us to be something we perhaps did not want to be. It is difficult to paint a more authoritarian picture than that.

It is clear that many in Europe today believe that to be the case even among the founding member states. The re-emergence of right wing nationalism holds that the national traditions should maintain prominence and that the EU law cannot have primacy where it conflicts with national laws based on different cultures. To extend Lord Denning’s watery metaphors far from the people becoming amphibious the flood must be reversed.

It seems, from what we know about the kind of sovereignty that the Eurosceptic nationalists prefer however that this ‘reclaimed land’ is unlikely to be a liberal one. The urge to regain what is perceived as a lost sovereignty is likely to result in more authoritarianism rather than less and it would be of a less silent or cloaked variety than that imposed by the EU and ECHR.