IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eur/ejmsjr/484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

„So Far and No Further!†- Thoughts on Legitimacy of the Hungarian Border Fence

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Bartko

    (Assoc. Prof. Dr., University of Győr, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Department of Criminal Sciencies)

Abstract

In 2015, Hungary was unexpectedly affected by the irregular migration flow, which marked a beginning of a new era in the history of the European migration - in terms of its quality and its size. The European countries have been forced to admit irregular migrants from the developing countries in increasing numbers. Mass migration - not only because of its irregular nature, but also because of its qualitative and quantitative changes - has created a major challenge for the authorities concerning the legal respones. In many countries, including in Hungary, the public opinion related to the irregular migration has forced the legislators to take the necessary measures against it in order to protect the public safety. In Hungary - although the irregular migration is a multifaceted phenomenon, therefore the legal respones affect many parts of the internal legal system - the law enforcement and the criminal law have been focused by the legislator. In the face of the increased migratory pressure - in order to protect the security of Hungary - the Hungarian government has accepted a package of the legal measures. The first step was the construction of the physical border fence at the Serbian-Hungarian and the Croatian-Hungarian border, and as a second stage the Hungarian Parliament adopted the Act CXL of 2015 which created the legal framework on protection of the mentioned border fence (for example creating new statutory definitions). Whereas not only the Hungarian Criminal Code, but also the Act of Criminal Procedure were amended by the mentioned act, it is necessary to deal whether the construction of the border fence can be considered as a legitimate step with special reference to the international and European commitments of Hungary. The mentioned question is considered as a preliminary one, because in default of legitimacy all of the measures adopted by the Hungarian Parliament and the Government would be considered unlawful. The paper deals with the mentioned problem and analyzes the legitimacy of the Hungarian border fence taking into consideration the international and European standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Bartko, 2020. "„So Far and No Further!†- Thoughts on Legitimacy of the Hungarian Border Fence," European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 5, ejms_v5_i.
    • Handle: RePEc:eur:ejmsjr:484
    DOI: 10.26417/335erv75k
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://brucol.be/index.php/ejms/article/view/6131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://brucol.be/files/articles/ejms_v5_i2_20/Bartko.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26417/335erv75k?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    2. Teck-Hua Ho & Juanjuan Zhang, 2008. "Designing Pricing Contracts for Boundedly Rational Customers: Does the Framing of the Fixed Fee Matter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 686-700, April.
    3. Chip Heath & Marc Knez & Colin Camerer, 1993. "The strategic management of the entitlement process in the employment relationship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 75-93, December.
    4. Summers, Barbara & Duxbury, Darren, 2012. "Decision-dependent emotions and behavioral anomalies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 226-238.
    5. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    6. Heiko Karle & Heiner Schumacher & Rune Vølund, 2020. "Consumer search and the uncertainty effect," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 657766, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    7. Hueber, Laura & Schwaiger, Rene, 2022. "Debiasing through experience sampling: The case of myopic loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 87-138.
    8. Mandel, David R., 2002. "Beyond mere ownership: transaction demand as a moderator of the endowment effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 737-747, July.
    9. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    10. David Johnstone, 2002. "Behavioral and Prescriptive Explanations of a Reverse Sunk Cost Effect," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 209-242, November.
    11. Evan Weingarten & Sudeep Bhatia & Barbara Mellers, 2019. "Multiple Goals as Reference Points: One Failure Makes Everything Else Feel Worse," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3337-3352, July.
    12. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Syed Aliya Zahera & Rohit Bansal, 2018. "Do investors exhibit behavioral biases in investment decision making? A systematic review," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(2), pages 210-251, May.
    14. Hsu, Yuan-Lin & Chow, Edward H., 2013. "The house money effect on investment risk taking: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1102-1115.
    15. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
    16. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    17. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    18. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    19. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    20. Kogler, Christoph & Kühberger, Anton & Gilhofer, Rainer, 2013. "Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 42-53.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eur:ejmsjr:484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Revistia Research and Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://revistia.com/index.php/ejms .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.