Mag. Alexandra Salnikow is a university assistant (prae doc) and PhD researcher at the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna.
MMR-Aktuell 2026, 01113 In light of the present conflicts, ranging from the Russian-Ukraine war to EU-US tensions, Europe faces questions of its own importance in the shifting world order. Against this background, the 17th Summer Discourse on the topic of Security and the Defence of European Values gathered experts from various fields to evaluate the current international political situation. The event took place from 30 July through the 1 August 2025 on the summer campus of the univie:summer school in Strobl (Wolfgangsee). At the centre of the discussion were the possible courses of action for the EU to resolve the current political conflicts, to strengthen the EU economically and socially, and to make the EU fit for the digital age in the area of cybersecurity.
I. Interdisciplinary presentations and workshops
Since 2008, the interdisciplinary Summer Discourse has been held as part of the univie:summer school in Strobl. In various presentations and workshops, renowned experts of economics, law, and culture – from scholars to practitioners – discuss important topics for the future of Europe and the world. The 17th Summer Discourse dealt with the topic of Security and the Defence of European Values in light of present conflicts and wars.
II. Keynote – A Military Strategic Analysis (Situation Report) on the International State of Affairs
Setting the stage for the following presentations, Brigadier General Mag. Berthold Sandtner, Head of the Institute for Higher Military Leadership at the Austrian National Defence Academy in Vienna and the Program Director of the University of Applied Sciences Master’s Programme ‘Military Leadership’, delivered in this keynote speech a so-called Situation Report. (A Situation Report is a short report that is intended to be a quick and concise way to inform a leader – or in this instance the audience – about the military strategic analysis of the international state of affairs.) His verdict: the world is out of joint, as can be seen in the conflicts we are facing all over the world. Sandtner presented the Global North and Global South divide as an important framework for understanding and analysing the reasoning behind those conflicts. The Global North – consisting of mostly former Western colonial powers – is still dominating world politics and economics. Most of the conflicts, however, are in the Global South – the larger part of the world that has been excluded from political, economic, and social power in colonial times, and is now rapidly emancipating itself and rejecting the supremacy and policy of the Global North.
Analysing the current conflicts from a military strategic point, Sandtner noted that they can be divided into two types. On the one hand, there are fault line conflicts such as the ongoing war in Ukraine, with Russia's actions framed as a broader challenge to European stability and values. Sandtner argued that this conflict is not merely territorial but reflects a strategic effort by Russia to expand its sphere of influence and undermine European integration. On the other hand, conflicts of shifting boundaries, such as the conflicts of Thailand and Cambodia or India and Pakistan, are disputes that are part of the power struggle between countries in the reorganization of power and borders in the Global South.
Sandtner concluded that we are facing political realism, meaning that the primary driver of political behaviour right now is power, influence, and opportunism; politicians act primarily to maximize their power and pursue their self-interests, often at the expense of morality and cooperation. He stressed that war – meaning physical military force – is becoming a more commonly accepted instrument of power, as evidenced by rising global military expenditures and the normalization of armed conflict as a tool for achieving strategic objectives.
In the last part of his keynote, Sandtner used military strategic theory to analyse two provocative aspects of the Ukraine-Russian conflict from a military strategic perspective, with a special focus on the implications for Europe. First, he asked whether Europe is at war with Russia and, secondly, whether the conflict in Ukraine will truly end with a ceasefire from the perspective of Russia. In military strategy theory, there are two anchor points: unfavourable conditions (such as a country’s perceived lack of desired influence) and favourable conditions (the corresponding desired influence). Governments define strategic objectives to achieve favourable conditions, such as Russia's focus on fossil fuel dependence. These objectives are pursued using four instruments of power: diplomacy/politics, information, the military and the economy. While strategic objectives are short-term, governments may also pursue long-term visions for the future.
In this concept, war is defined a combined use of at least three instruments of power in an intensity that goes beyond the competition in accordance with good manners. Examining the relationship of Russia and Europe under this concept, Sandtner concludes that in his opinion Europe may not be engaged in an armed conflict with Russia. However, it is in a fault line conflict with Russia just below the threshold of a war because three of four instruments of power are used. In diplomacy, Europe rejects the Russian leadership’s denial of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. There have been multiple disinformation attacks of Russian origin in Europe. Economically, Europe and Russia are in constant conflict, with sanctions on the European side and blackmailing on the Russian side.
Sandtner concluded this keynote by expressing scepticism about the likelihood of a ceasefire in the conflict with Ukraine from Russia's perspective. He argued that Russia has no interest in halting combat unless Ukraine offers unconditional surrender, which would align with its broader strategic objectives. Sandtner emphasized that Russia's ambitions extend beyond the battlefield, aiming to establish political dominance in Europe and positioning itself as a third superpower alongside the US and China.
III. Workshops
The second day of the Summer Discourse started with two workshops, encouraging the participants to actively engage with two very different but both highly controversial security topics: state surveillance and water as a scarce and disputed resource.
a. Workshop I: Water - An Increasingly Scarce and Disputed Resource
Water is a scarce, vital, and increasingly contested resource in the context of global and European challenges. This workshop explored the intersection of water scarcity, security, and European values, reinforcing the importance of collective action and sustainable policies in safeguarding this essential resource for future generations. Dipl. Ing. Elmar Voggenberger-Meissel tackled the topic from a water management and environmental engineering perspective, and Univ.Prof. Dr. Ursula Kriebaum explained how water is governed by international public law.
Dipl. Ing. Voggenberger-Meissel, Group Manager of the Competence Center Water Technologies of the STRABAG AG, started with the insight that water on earth is mostly ‘invisible’, as it is, for example, bound to human, animals or plants. It is indispensable for sustaining life, agriculture, and industrial processes. With the staggering quantities of water required for food production and industrial activities, the hidden dependencies of modern economies on water resources become more visible.
The workshop explored the role of water cycles in maintaining ecological balance. There is the visible ‘blue cycle’ (rivers, seas, evaporation, and rain) and the less visible ‘green cycle’ (water absorbed and released by plants). Human interference can cause disruptions to these cycles. These disruptions, in turn, have far-reaching consequences, including economic stress, food insecurity, and political tensions over water access.
The presentation also drew attention to the link between water scarcity and climate change. As water resources often cross national boundaries, local and regional water supplies are strained, requiring international cooperation. Because of that, Voggenberger-Meissel stressed the need for coordinated policies and agreements to manage shared water resources effectively, highlighting the importance of European integration in addressing these transnational challenges.
With these practical considerations in mind, Univ. Prof. Dr. Ursula Kriebaum, Professor of International Law at the Department of European, International and Comparative Law and Coordinator of the specialization ‘Law of International Relations’ at the University of Vienna, explained how water is governed by international public law, especially from a human rights law perspective, and analysed its implications for governance. She started her presentation with a striking quote from the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights on the right to water from 2002: ‘Water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity.’ Water disputes remain a pressing issue today, particularly in regions like the Middle East, where limited freshwater resources are shared among multiple states.
The establishment of river commissions, such as those for the Danube, Rhine, and Indus, was presented as an example of cooperative governance, mitigating conflicts. These commissions are some of the oldest international organizations and demonstrate the resilience of regulating shared water resources, holding up even amidst broader political tensions. However, this also indicates that the existing governance of water in international public laws only exists for the ‘blue cycle’, neglecting the ‘green cycle’.
Kriebaum also addressed the intersection of water scarcity with human rights, particularly the right to water as recognized by the United Nations General Assembly in 2010. Even though the resolution does not constitute a legally-binding treaty, it serves to increase political awareness of states. The right to water encompasses the availability, accessibility, affordability, and safety of water and is essential for the realization of other fundamental rights, including the right to life, health, and a sustainable environment. The human right to water, however, is distinct from water rights, which are often granted to individuals or companies and can be revoked. The human right to water, by contrast, is inherent and inalienable.
Population growth exerts significant pressure on water resources, not only for direct consumption but also for sanitation, hygiene, and the production of goods and services. Kriebaum argued that governance is key to addressing water-related challenges in addition to improving water-related infrastructure, as it enables the implementation of efficient regulations and systems that meet human rights obligations and prevents conflicts over water resources.
Finally, the workshop underscored the urgency of adopting sustainable water management practices to mitigate future crises. The presenters called for a reduction in resource consumption, particularly in agriculture, which accounts for the largest share of water use globally. They also emphasized the need for long-term strategies to balance economic development with environmental preservation, aligning with the broader European commitment to sustainability and resilience.
b. Workshop II: Fighting Extremism and the Legal Limits of Surveillance
During their interactive workshop, Dr. Jonas Divjak, University assistant (post doc) at the Department of Criminal Law at the University of Vienna, and Hon.-Prof. Univ.-Doz. Dr. Bernhard Schima, LL.M., Director and Principal Legal Advisor in the European Commission Legal Service, divided the participants into groups and asked them to discuss four controversial questions regarding state surveillance and data retention and how it affects fundamental rights and human values.
The first group tackled the question whether we need state surveillance to fight extremism. They concluded that state surveillance is indeed needed to a certain extent for the state to be able to fulfil its obligation to protect its citizens and ensure public safety. They emphasized that surveillance can be a cost-effective tool for law enforcement, for example to prevent terrorist attacks by detecting them early. However, they also noted the importance of defining extremism to avoid a misuse of the term.
The second group underlined the benefits and risks of surveillance. On the positive side, they pointed to increased security, reduced crime rates, and improved efficiency in emergency management, citing examples from countries like China. On the negative side, they discussed the erosion of privacy, self-censorship, and the potential for surveillance to enable authoritarianism and suppress public discourse. They also raised concerns about the risks of personal data leaks.
The third group identified core European values such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, and human rights, emphasizing that security legislation must respect these principles. They argued that state surveillance is compatible with European values only if it adheres to the rule of law, the principles of proportionality, transparency, and legal safeguards. They stressed the need for a fair balance between public safety and individual rights, rejecting general surveillance practices.
IV. Panel Discussion: Europe under Stress: What to Expect from the EU and its Institutions until 2029
The panel discussion, moderated by DI (FH) Mag. Thomas Goiser MBA, MA, CMC, Founder and owner of the Consultancy Thomas Goiser Projektkommunikation e.U, moderator, and podcaster, brought together distinguished experts from diverse fields to explore the theme 'Europe under Stress: What to Expect from the EU and its Institutions until 2029', offering a rich and interdisciplinary dialogue on the challenges and priorities of the EU.
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kritzinger, Professor for Methods in the Social Sciences at the Department of Government at the University of Vienna, provided a thought-provoking analysis of European citizens' attitudes and behaviours toward the EU, emphasizing the importance of understanding these perspectives to assess their impact on EU institutions. Drawing on her research data on the 2024 European Parliament (EP) elections, she highlighted several critical trends. Voter turnout across the EU was significantly lower than national election turnouts, with stark variations between member states (e.g., 90% in Belgium due to compulsory voting versus 21% in Croatia). The election results revealed a notable shift in political dynamics, with centre-left parties losing ground while centre-right and far-right parties gained seats. This trend, described as ‘re-nationalization’, reflects a growing emphasis on national identity, which often correlates with decreased support for European integration.
Kritzinger also explored Austria's nuanced relationship with the EU. While Austrians acknowledge the benefits of EU membership and reject the idea of leaving the Union, their support for European integration remains tepid. This ambivalence is further reflected in policy preferences: Austrians favour EU-level regulation on issues like refugee distribution, corporate minimum taxes, and a European military force, but resist EU taxation and prefer to retain national control over economic matters. This paradox underscores a broader shift in priorities, with migration and security emerging as key areas for EU action, while economic integration – a foundational aspect of the EU – receives less enthusiasm.
Kritzinger concluded by noting the challenges these contradictory attitudes pose for political stakeholders and the legitimacy of the European integration process. The lack of a coherent and unified perspective among EU citizens complicates efforts to navigate and strengthen the EU's role in addressing both national and transnational challenges.
MEP Mag. Lukas Mandl, Member of the European Parliament, offered a compelling perspective on the current state and future trajectory of the EU, emphasizing the critical role of parliamentarism. He described parliamentarism as one of humanity's greatest innovations, enabling societies to resolve differences through elected representatives rather than violence.
Mandl noted that the new European Parliament and Commission have adopted markedly different priorities compared to the previous term, despite having the same leadership under Ursula von der Leyen. These priorities—focused on the economy and security—reflect the evolving needs of the EU and the changing majorities within the Parliament. He praised the Commission's responsiveness to citizens' concerns, as evidenced by von der Leyen's active engagement with Parliament during the transition period.
Looking ahead, Mandl highlighted the significance of the upcoming negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which will set the EU's budgetary priorities until 2034. He also warned of the internal and external pressures threatening the EU, including populism, ideological divides, and geopolitical tensions.
Mandl concluded by affirming the achievements of the EU, emphasising the importance of safeguarding them for future generations. His remarks underscored the high stakes involved in the EU's ongoing efforts to adapt and respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Werner Neudeck, Professor of International Economics at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, provided a critical economic perspective on the challenges facing Europe and the priorities the EU must address by 2029. While acknowledging Europe’s strengths – such as its wealth, welfare systems, and relatively equitable income distribution –he highlighted significant structural stressors and recent developments that threaten the continent’s economic position.
Neudeck noted that Europe has fallen behind economically over the past decades, not only compared to China, which has emerged as the world’s largest economy, but also in comparison to the US. He pointed to declining labour productivity as well as slow technology adoption as key issues. Additionally, Europe’s reliance on free trade and traditional manufacturing exports has been disrupted by the volatility of globalization, compounded by the loss of cheap energy from Russia and defence support from the US.
To address these challenges, Neudeck emphasized two key priorities. First, the EU must focus on stimulating investment, particularly in innovation, to catch up in the technological sector. This should encompass the reduction of regulatory barriers that hinder the growth of technological firms and drive them to relocate outside Europe. Secondly, the EU must aim to create investment incentives. These measures should include shifting investment subsidies from the national to the EU-level to better address cross-border externalities. In addition, he suggested an institutional reform on the EU’s ‘community method’ of decision-making to enable the EU to act faster.
Mag. Verena Ringler, Founder and Director of European Commons, offered a unique and dynamic perspective on Europe's priorities until 2029, drawing on her extensive experience in diplomacy, civil society, and cross-sector collaboration. She framed her insights as three ‘invitations’ for rethinking Europe's approach to its challenges: adopting a systemic perspective, leveraging unconventional alliances, and embracing opportunity thinking.
In her first invitation, Ringler drew attention to the importance of viewing the EU as an interconnected system where institutions and society are in constant interplay. She illustrated this with the European Green Deal, noting that while the framework faces political scrutiny, significant progress is being driven by external actors, such as the financial sector. For example, Norway's sovereign wealth fund recently announced plans to divest from fossil fuels, setting a powerful precedent. Similarly, the European Central Bank has begun integrating climate considerations into its investment decisions. These examples accentuate how external forces can complement institutional efforts to advance critical agendas like climate action.
In her second invitation, Ringer emphasized the power of unconventional alliances as a transformative potential of partnerships between actors inside and outside institutional systems. One of her compelling examples included the free interrail initiative. This idea was proposed by two young Europeans to promote youth mobility and intercultural exchange. It gained traction through the support of a private foundation and a member of the European Parliament. It eventually became an EU-funded program, offering free rail passes to 18-year-olds across Europe.
In her third and last invitation, Ringer encouraged a mindset shift toward opportunity thinking. This comprises recognizing and shaping opportunities, even in moments of stress. She argued that individuals and institutions have the power to redefine their contexts and governance structures, including those of the EU. By embracing this proactive approach, Europe can navigate its challenges and create a more resilient and innovative future.
Ringler's remarks highlighted the importance of creativity, collaboration, and adaptability in addressing Europe's pressing issues. Her call to action – to think systemically, build unconventional alliances, and seize opportunities – offers a fresh and encouraging perspective on the EU's path forward.
V. Panel Discussion: Potentiale stärkerer Resilienz - wirtschaftliche und soziale Perspektiven für Österreich (Potential for greater resilience – economic and social prospects for Austria)
The second panel discussion in German dealt with the potentials of stronger resilience for Austria from an economic and social perspective, gathering practitioners from various industries under the moderation of Univ.-Prof. Dr. Franz-Stefan Meissel, Professor of Roman Law and History of European Private Law at the University of Vienna, Director of the Sommerhochschule, and initiator of the Summer Discourse.
Mag. Dr. Klaus Steinmaurer, Managing Director for Telecommunications and Postal Services Division at the Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH, emphasized the multifaceted nature of resilience and its critical importance in addressing current and future challenges for Austria and Europe. He outlined resilience as a concept that extends beyond security, encompassing economic, technical, digital, normative, and ethical dimensions. Each of these aspects plays a vital role in ensuring societal, economic, and democratic stability. Steinmaurer advocated for a holistic approach in building resilience, avoiding the common pitfall of focusing on isolated aspects (e.g., cybersecurity or infrastructure) without considering their interconnections. However, Steinmaurer underscored the importance of digital sovereignty as a cornerstone of resilience. He called for targeted investments in digital infrastructure, computing capacity, and research, particularly in foundational technologies. Steinmaurer argued that well-designed resilience measures ultimately cost less than the consequences of inaction. He called for open discussions and the involvement of the ‘right people at the table’ to develop effective initiatives.
Drawing from his expensive experience in managing the important Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB), Dipl. Ing. Dr. Johann Pluy, Member of the Executive Board of ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, Department for Operations, Market, Digitalization, delivered a compelling talk on what it entails to be resilient under stress. Using the example of the flood in Austria in 2024, he described the importance of staying vigilant during a crisis and the courage it takes to make decisions under stress. Pluy emphasized the achievements of the Austrian rail system operated by the ÖBB, describing the daily challenges of maintaining a punctual, continuously-operating rail network.
Mag. Stefanie Markut, Member of the Executive Board of WEB Windenergie AG, provided a compelling perspective on resilience from the vantage point of renewable energy. She emphasized that resilience is not merely about crisis resistance, but also about the ability to transform complex challenges into opportunities. Drawing on her company’s experience in wind and solar energy, she highlighted several key aspects of resilience in the energy sector. WEB Windenergie AG achieved a more reliable energy supply by combining wind and solar energy. Markut used this as an example to point to the importance of diversification to ensure technological resilience. Moreover, WEB Windenergie AG as a successful, sustainable entrepreneurial endeavour must also strive for geographical and regulatory resilience, strategic adaptability, interdisciplinary collaboration, supply chain and financial resilience, operational resilience, appropriate cybersecurity, a resilient corporate culture to foster innovation and societal resilience.
Mag. Timon Pfleger, Social Policy Department of the Vienna Chamber of Labor, elaborated on the last aspect Markut’s goals and brought a critical perspective to the discussion by emphasizing the importance of social resilience as a cornerstone of societal and economic stability. He underlined the need to integrate the interests of workers into the broader discourse on resilience, particularly in the context of European values and the social welfare model. A key aspect of his presentation was that social security has a cascading effect, leading to a more stable and resilient society. Thus, he called for a renewed commitment to the European social welfare model, fair labour practices, and democratic inclusivity as essential components of a resilient society. His perspective highlighted the importance of ensuring that resilience efforts leave no one behind, aligning with the broader theme of defending European values.
VI. How the Current and Future Geopolitical Developments are Influencing Europe in the Political, Economic, and Security Domain
In his presentation, Generalmajor Mag. Thomas Starlinger, Security Policy Advisor of the Austrian Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs, provided a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing Europe amidst shifting global dynamics. Moderated by Univ.-Prof. i.R. Mag. DDr. Oliver Rathkolb, Professor of Modern History with a focus on Contemporary History, the discussion underscored the critical intersections of security, economics, and societal resilience in the context of European integration.
Starlinger started his analysis by pointing out that the EU decoupled the sources of its prosperity from its sources for security. – the cheap energy from Russia, the big Chinese markets for export and import, for technological transfer, investment and more, and the security provided by the US. He stressed that especially the decision to rely on the US regarding security turned out to be a mistake, given the unpredictability of the Trump administration.
To understand the current geopolitical developments that are influencing Europe in the political, economic, and security domain, Starlinger categorized countries into three emerging ‘worlds’: The ‘Global West’ – which includes the EU – is a multilateral order which is focusing on protecting and preserving the fundamental principles of the current international system; it is nonetheless open to reforms for a more inclusive and effective system. The ‘Global East’ can be described as a multipolar order which is seeking to overthrow what they see as a US-led international order and some of its fundamental principles. They strive to replace the multilateral order with a power-based multipolar system. The ‘Global South’ aims to reform the international system for more economic development, influence, and status, and is, therefore, in general not interested in taking sides in the global competition of the Global West and East.
Starlinger emphasized the growing complexity of the global geopolitical landscape, identifying three 'mega-trends'. First, there is a shift from cooperation to competition caused by various factors such as the ‘normalization’ of the use of force, arms races, nuclear threats and the weaponization of interdependence. Second, he underlined the harmfulness of the growing polarization such as US vs China or democracies vs autocracies.. Third, global transitions are accelerating, posing additional challenges. Climate change demands a swift green transition and actions in climate security. The absence of international norms on emerging technologies such as AI or Biotech create uncertainty about how to handle their risks. States are increasingly having to deal with the changes in demographics of an ageing society and migration. The Sustainability Development Goals (SDG) are failing, while economic disparities increase. Worldwide, a decline of democracies and restrictions of freedom can be registered.
In this challenging geopolitical landscape, Starlinger stressed that the SDGs are important for Europe because they act as an indicator for the well-being of a country and, therefore, also as an indicator of the state of security and crisis. The EU has recognized this, as can be seen by the current EU Commission President including the SDGs in the EU’s policy. However, Starlinger pointed to the current discussion about the Russian-Ukraine war, which has neglected the conflict’s possible negative impact on the EU’s ability to achieve its SDGs as well as the ultimate implications for the EU’s security situation.
Starlinger also addressed the Indo-Pacific region's growing economic significance, noting that most of global trade passes through the Taiwan Strait. He warned of the potential consequences of geopolitical tensions – particularly between China and Taiwan – on global trade and European economic stability. Most key raw materials must pass through Indo-Pacific Sea Routes and are located in countries without democracy, or which are in a state of crisis. This underscores the need for Europe to engage more actively in global trade dynamics and secure its supply chains.
Another influencing factor to economics dynamics is the rise of tech giants and the role of governments in maintaining the infrastructure of the digital age. Starlinger emphasized that the EU must reflect on its role in this system, as almost all satellites in orbit are run by US companies and the undersea cables are run and maintained by Russian enterprises.
In his conclusion, Starlinger discussed the strategic choices of the EU. He identified the Russian-Ukraine war as a pivotal issue, not only for its immediate security implications, but also for its broader impact on European unity and defence architecture. He pointed to the EU’s € 800 billion defence investment plans as a significant step toward reinforcing its security framework. However, he underlined the importance of long-term strategies – including early warning systems and strategic supply chain diversification – to mitigate future crises. Starlinger called for Europe to position itself as a ‘partner of choice’ for the Global South, advocating for a shift in mindset to foster equitable partnerships. He cautioned against the risks of societal polarization and fragmentation, which could undermine the EU’s ability to act cohesively on the global stage.
VII. Panel Discussion: Cyber (In-)Security
The last podium discussion tackled the highly relevant topic of cybersecurity, an issue which has only become more pressing with the uninterrupted advancement of new technologies such as AI. Moderated by Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Lysander Fremuth, Professor of Basic and Human Rights at the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law at the University of Vienna, the discussion dove deep into the critical security consideration of digitalization.
Mag.a Johanna Schachner, Logistics Department of the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior, presented the key points on the new Austrian legislation on lawful access to encrypted messages by law enforcement. Her insights highlighted the tension between privacy rights and the necessity of ensuring public security in the digital age.
Schachner began by emphasizing the critical role of electronic evidence in modern criminal investigations, with approximately 85% of cases relying on such data. However, the widespread use of end-to-end encryption – now accounting for 97% of electronic messaging – has created significant obstacles for law enforcement. While encryption is a robust tool for protecting individual privacy, it can also create a digital space for criminal activities – including terrorism and organized crime – to evade detection.
Schachner presented the Austrian framework, passed in July 2025, that aims to copes with these challenges. It contains two investigative measures. The first measure is the surveillance of unencrypted messages which is conducted in cooperation with service providers and, therefore, does not require device infiltration. The second measure is the much more vital surveillance of encrypted messages which involves installing software on a target device, typically using ‘zero-day exploits’ (unknown security flaws). This measure will be strictly limited to ongoing communication and should not include access to stored data or the performance of an ‘online search.’
To address concerns about privacy and potential misuse, the Austrian regulations include stringent safeguards and oversight. Surveillance is limited to preventing serious crimes, such as terrorism, punishable by at least 10 years of imprisonment. Judicial authorization is required, with oversight by a three-judge panel. The software must be pre-programmed to access only specific applications (e.g., WhatsApp or Telegram) and cannot cause permanent damage to the device. A legal protection officer continuously monitors the process, ensuring proportionality and compliance with legal standards. Individuals whose communications are surveilled must be informed post-surveillance and have access to legal remedies.
Schachner acknowledged concerns regarding the Austrian approach, including fears of mass surveillance, potential misuse against political opponents or journalists, and the destabilization of IT security due to the exploitation of vulnerabilities. She also noted technological doubts about the feasibility of limiting surveillance to specific applications without broader access to the device. Schachner highlighted Austria’s dependency on foreign intelligence services, such as the NSA and Germany’s BND, for decryption capabilities. Schachner’s presentation underscored that Austria’s new legal framework represents a cautious yet necessary step toward addressing the challenges posed by encryption in criminal investigations.
Prof. Dr. Marcus Helfrich’s, Lawyer and Professor of Economics and Business Law at the FOM University of Applied Sciences for Economics and Management, presentation at the conference offered an exploration of the interplay between security, trust, and European values. His remarks emphasized the importance of understanding security not only as a technical or legal concept but also as a deeply subjective and societal issue.
Helfrich began by distinguishing between two interpretations of security. Objective security refers to the protection against tangible threats, such as cyberattacks, hacking, and other forms of cybercrime. He noted that recent European legislative efforts, such as the Cyber Resilience Act, address these technical aspects of security while also considering broader societal resilience against manipulative threats to democratic structures. Subjective security relates to the perception of safety and well-being among individuals and societies. Helfrich argued that a lack of subjective security can erode trust in democratic processes, the rule of law, and societal unity.
Helfrich identified trust as a cornerstone of both security and the defence of European values. He pointed out four key dimensions of trust: First, the trust in the rule of law as a belief that legal frameworks are applied fairly and consistently, without bias or favouritism. Second, the trust in human rights protections which ensures the dignity and self-determination of individuals, even in the face of competing constitutional aims. Third, the trust in democratic processes, which entails confidence in the transparency and accountability of decision-making processes. Last, the trust in legal frameworks serving society, which is an instilled conviction that laws are designed to benefit society, rather than serving narrow or particularistic interests.
Helfrich argued that European values – while often invoked in political discourse – must be clearly defined and operationalized to address modern challenges. He proposed three core values as essential for fostering security and trust: respect, responsibility, and credibility. Respect involves recognizing the reasoning capacity of individuals and ensuring transparency in decision-making processes. Responsibility means that decision-makers need to be accountable for their actions, adhere to facts, and accept the consequences of their decisions. Credibility and trustworthiness are vital for rebuilding lost trust and maintaining societal unity. This requires aligning actions with words and demonstrating integrity.
Helfrich concluded with actionable advice for those in positions of authority, including lawmakers, legal practitioners, and policymakers. He advocated to explain decisions clearly, to guide through complexity, to take people seriously, to align actions with words and to think before acting.
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Nikolaus Forgó, Head of the Department of Innovation and Digitalization in Law and Head of the Postgraduate Program for Information- and Media Law at the University of Vienna, provided a sobering and critical perspective on the challenges posed by disinformation, the lack of cybersecurity, and the absence of legal frameworks intended to address them. He illustrated the impact of disinformation campaigns with vivid examples to highlight how manipulated content – often powered by AI – can destabilize public trust and democratic institutions. He cited cases such as the alleged manipulated images and videos of Princess Kate and a video falsely claiming European leaders were engaging in illicit activities. Moreover, Forgó referred to incidents like the 2025 power outage in Spain and Portugal, where false claims of Russian cyberattacks spread rapidly, forcing official bodies like the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) to issue clarifications. These examples accentuate the role of disinformation as a strategic tool in modern conflicts.
Forgó criticized the current legal landscape addressing cybersecurity and disinformation, describing it as fragmented, inconsistent, and apparently overregulated without coherence. This generation of EU regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), the NIS2 Directive, and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), has created a ‘jungle’ of legal texts. He pointed out inconsistencies, such as varying fines across these laws, which undermine their coherence and effectiveness.
Under the provocative term ‘Magical Law’, Forgó reprimanded the tendency of lawmakers to produce legislation to resemble a ‘magical ritual’ rather than putting in a true effort to create practical, enforceable rules. He argued that this approach fails to address the real-world challenges of disinformation and cybersecurity. Forgó linked these challenges to the erosion of trust in European values, such as democracy, transparency, and the rule of law. He argued that the legal profession itself bears some responsibility for this erosion, as it often contributes to the complexity and inefficacy of the regulatory framework.
Despite his sombre outlook, Forgó emphasized the need for a more effective and coordinated response to these challenges. He called on legal professionals, policymakers, and public institutions to simplify and clarify legal frameworks, strengthen public sector capabilities, promote transparency and accountability, and recognize the role of information in modern conflicts.
VIII. Defence of European Values in Music and Art
The complementary culture program is a highlight of the Summer Discourse. The Viennese Philharmonic’s performance in the Church in Strobl has become a tradition to wrap up the second day of presentations. The talented ensemble, consisting of Daniel Froschauer, Raimund Lissy, Michael Strasser, and Michael Bladerer, and supported by the charming solo soprano Lydia Rathkolb, captivated its audience with both familiar and lesser-known pieces, thereby sparking dialogue about the important contributions of music.
The Summer Discourse concluded with an analysis of a painting from the Kunsthistorisches Museum’s collection. Dr. Paul Frey, General Manager of the KHM-Museumsverband, presented a detailed analysis of Peter Paul Rubens’ painting ‘Meeting at Nördlingen’ (The Meeting at Nördlingen – Artworks – Kunsthistorisches Museum, URL: https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/the-meeting-at-noerdlingen-1635). Fittingly, the artist depicts a scene right before a crucial battle in the Thirty Years' War. In his analysis, Frey delved deeply into the history of this formative war, which changed European society forever and in which – as in today's conflicts – the struggles for power and the defence of European values were at the forefront.
IX. Conclusion
The conference demonstrated the inseparable link between European values – such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – and the security of the European Union. As highlighted by the speakers, fostering trust in democratic institutions, simplifying legal frameworks, and addressing modern challenges like cybersecurity and disinformation are essential for safeguarding these values. The discussions emphasized that European values are important to pursue stability, resilience, and unity in an increasingly fragmented world. However, there was also a unified appeal for Europe to take action to redefine its importance in the ever-changing world order. The Summer Discourse as an interdisciplinary form provides a space for such discussions to develop strategies for the future of Europe.