Conference Agenda

The current global digital rivalry is dominated by the two: the US and China. This race for cyber supremacy is shaped by three core factors: access to open-to-risk capital, innovation, and the disruptive impact of AI technologies. The EU, its institutions, national governments’ agencies, businesses, research centres while possessing a unique regulatory framework centred on such values as privacy, fairness, and fundamental rights, do not play any substantial role in this race. Instead, the EU focuses on regulation, emphasizing axiological principles that reflect its historical identity rooted in peace, solidarity, and human dignity. The overarching feature is that all the laws, policies and regulations as well as the general governance framework are deeply immersed into the axiological expectations of the European elites. This idealistic approach might not be resilient enough to suffice as a proposal in the strongly competitive world exposed to challenges like menaces to peace, inequalities, the just aspirations of the Global South, climate change and the likes.

The global digital superpowers have secured their dominance through significant investments in innovation, fast-tracking AI breakthroughs, and leveraging vast amounts of capital. In contrast, the EU focuses on regulatory values that underscore its commitment to a human-centric digital space. Indeed, the EU has carved a niche as a "global regulator” deeply embedded in values. However, the question arises if it puts itself aside of the technological competitive arena. Without a more dynamic investment in technological innovation, the EU risks becoming a reactive actor, rather than a proactive leader. The EU must balance its values-based and risks-advert regulatory agenda with an increased focus on incentives that push for innovation and digital competitiveness. This recalibration involves leveraging the EU's institutional strengths, including its market power, research capacities, and collective bargaining. There is still a chance for the EU to protect its distinct identity that reflects its unique position without compromising its foundational values.

The EU has the potential to build out a unique role in the digital race by championing ethical governance. To do so it must recognize that the values may need to evolve to meet the new challenges like geopolitical tensions, inequalities, and technological disruptions brought by AI. The EU have to be resilient and not resigned. It needs to rethink its role and to use its institutional power that will reflect its actual political and economic position actively shaping the future of AI, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure.

The European Health Data Space (EHDS) represents a significant advancement in
the EU’s digital and health policy. EHDS aims to create a sound and unified
framework for the secure exchange and use of health data in the European Union.
The unfettered access to data in digital technologies used in healthcare services

conditions the innovativeness and competitiveness of the healthcare sector in the EU.
In order to fight the problem of data scarcity and as a cornerstone of the European
Health Union (COM(2024)206 final), the EHDS aims to create a unified framework for
the secure exchange and use of health data across member states. The EHDS
should be analysed against the background of the existing policy and legislative
measures mostly focused on the data protection mechanisms ( ex. GDPR, Data
Governance Act).
The EHDS can be seen as another important measure deeply rooted in the ambition
to establish sound, safe and values-based environment for the development of digital
technologies. With the adoption of the EHDS both primary and secondary use of
health data will be facilitated with the strong emphasis on full compliance with the
EU’s data protection standards. The EHDS aims at promoting both individual values,
where patients will have an immediate access to their data in the electronic form, but
also more collective ones, linked with overall logic of EU’s digital sovereignty – in this
sense the EHDS will empower the use of health data for research, innovation, policy-
making and regulatory activities. It is a promising element of strengthening the
position of the EU as an important promoter and investor in novel technologies used
in healthcare.
The goal of the proposed paper is to reflect on the question on how does the EHDS
align with the efforts to strengthen EU’s digital sovereignty, by protecting values
related to data and privacy and promoting innovativeness at the same time.

Technology-neutral regulation is a popular slogan in EU lawmaking. Present in the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and name-checked in instruments such as the DSA and the AI Act, technology neutrality is touted as a way to regulate innovative technologies while fostering innovation. However, the operationalization of this concepts suffers from various challenges, not least a lack of consensus about what neutrality means in the first place. In this paper, I argue that the fuzziness of technology neutrality contributes to the erosion of legal limits to private and public power. This argument is grounded on the black-letter analysis of recent EU digital law instruments, as well as by the analysis of policy documents and soft law instruments that deal with lawmaking in the digital sphere and the implementation of technology-neutral regulation, as well as the theoretical literature on technology neutrality. Drawing from these sources, I begin my argument by mapping three different tools EU lawmakers use to pursue neutrality: the use of vague terms in legal instruments, the stipulation of delegated and implementing law instruments that are meant to supply technical details left open by the original legal text, and the reliance on context-specific determination of the technical contents of the law at the moment of application. After outlining how these three strategies coexist in EU law, I illustrate how they all disguise political and legal problems as technical issues, effectively delegating the power to determine the technical contents of the law. In doing so, technology neutrality allows private actors to entrench their power over digital infrastructure, while helping public actors to outsource legally questionable practices and avoid the reputational and legal costs of overreach. To conclude the paper, I show how unchecked technological neutrality might undermine some of the key aims of the digital acquis and propose potential remedies and future paths for research.

How does the European Union (EU) frame cybersecurity in its strategic approach? Given the widely recognised supremacy of the US and China in technological advancements and dominance in cyberspace, the EU has been facing the challenge of defining its position towards cyberspace governance, one of the key geopolitical challenges of the 21st century. The present contribution aims to ascertain how the EU frames cybersecurity in its strategic approach. We undertake a frame analysis of EU strategic documents in the cybersecurity realm and identify four frames delineating the EU’s key priorities within the digital sphere. While the analysis reveals oscillations between promises and paradoxes regarding the EU’s ambitions as a digital actor, highlighting tensions between the EU’s human-centred purposes and its strategic geopolitical interests, we emphasise the significance of the human-centred approach as one of four equally pivotal dimensions of the EU cybersecurity policy. By consistently labelling its cybersecurity strategy under the human-centred approach, the EU has been positioning itself as a pioneer in human rights in the digital realm, striving to develop a human-centred digital development model that prioritises individual rights, transparency, and trust. However, this dimension has evolved alongside the EU’s growing ambitions for technological leadership, competitiveness in cyberspace and digital sovereignty. Eventually, the EU faces a fundamental dilemma: maintaining its relevance as a global actor in the digital space while safeguarding its core values, including the protection of individual rights and the promotion of an open and secure cyberspace. This challenge includes reconciling the EU’s pursuit of digital sovereignty with its commitment to fostering a safe and inclusive digital environment for all its citizens in the spirit of the human-centred approach.