Law and (B)Order: Will Border Fence and Transit Zones Stop the Asylum Seekers’ Wave on the Balkan Route?

  • Szilveszter PóczikEmail author
  • Eszter Sárik


The chapter describes relevant topics in the field of migration in the Central Eastern European region, emphasizing but not getting lost in discussing the Hungarian point of view, since the country plays a crucially important role on the Balkan route due to its geopolitical position. Besides presenting true and fair views on the broader international context of mass migration, the paper provides the readers with a follow-up on the political events from the beginning of 2015 in Hungary and on the Balkan route. The chapter formulates valid and important questions in terms of the debate of “law versus ethics” related to the principles of international law and attempts to give an analysis on the critical collision of international and national laws, and it also provides details on the dangers and importance of the collision of national and international interests.


Migration Law Ethics National interests Hungary 


  1. Bíró Nagy, A., Boros, T., & Varga, Á. (2012). Right-wing Extremism in Hungary. International Policy Analysis. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 UNTS 150.Google Scholar
  3. Crowley, A., & Rosin, K. (2016). Migration governance and enforcement portfolio review, May 12, 2016. Open Society Institute. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from
  4. Desiderio, M. V., & Weinar, A. (2014). Supporting immigrant integration in Europe? Developing the governance for diaspora engagement. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe.Google Scholar
  5. Engin, K. (2017). A year of lonelines son Greek Islands: The EU-Turkey refugee agreement. March 15, 2017. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved March 29, 2017, from
  6. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gulyás, Z. (2016). Rendészeti válaszok a modern kori népvándorlásra [Police reactions to the international migration flow]. Belügyi Szemle, No. 12, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffmann, T., & Ziegler, T. D. (2015). The legal regulation of refugee management. Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
  9. Keserű, D., & Glied, V. (2014). Migrációs tendenciák, kihívások az Európai Unióban [Migration tendencies, challenges in the European Union]. In I. Tarrósy, V. Glied, & Z. Vörös (Eds.), Migrációs tendenciák napjainkban [Migrations tendencies today] (pp. 255–257). Pécs: Publikon PH.Google Scholar
  10. Klaus, V., & Weigl, J. (2016). Völkerwanderung. Kurze Erläuterung der aktuellen Migrationskrise. Edition Sonderwege.Google Scholar
  11. Mariani, T. (2013). Chinese migration to Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Provisional version. Council of Europe. Doc. 13197, Reference 3968 of 24 June 2013. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
  12. Póczik, Sz. (2008). A nemzetközi migráció tendenciái a 20. és 21. században elméleti és történelmi nézőpontból [Tendencies of the international migration in the 20th and 21st centuries from theoretical and historical point of view]. In Sz. Póczik & S. Dunavölgyi (Eds.), Nemzetközi migráció – nemzetközi kockázatok [International migration – international risks] (pp. 31–120). Budapest: HVGORAC.Google Scholar
  13. Póczik, Sz. (2014). Nemzetközi migráció, biztonságpolitika, biztonság [International migration, security policy and safety]. In I. Tarrósy, V. Glied, & Z. Vörös (Eds.), Migrációs tendenciák napjainkban [Migration tendencies today] (pp. 101–132). Pécs: Publikon PH.Google Scholar
  14. Póczik, Sz. (2016a). Grundzüge der Geschichte der Roma in Ungarn ab Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts bis heute - Eine historische Skizze. In R. Kropf & G. Polster (Eds.), Roma und Sinti von 1938 bis zur Gegenwart Tagungsband der 36. Schlaininger Gespräche 21–25. September 2015. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland (WAB) (Vol. 158, pp. 347–369). Eisenstadt 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Póczik, Sz. (2016b). Foreign fighters from the Balkans and Hungary in the Middle East. Defence Review - The Central Journal of the Hungarian Defense Forces, Volume 144, Special Issue 2016 (1): 52-70.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Ritecz, G., & Sallai, J. (2016). A migráció trendjei, okai és kezelésének lehetőségei 2.0. [Trends, reasons and possible treatment of migration Ver. 2.0]. Budapest: Hanns Seidel Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Sárik, E. (2010). A büntetőjogi gondolkodás és a vallás kérdései a posztmodern tükrében [The theoretical questions of criminal law and religion in the light of postmodernity] (pp. 82–122). Budapest: Belügyi Szemle.Google Scholar
  19. Stefkovics, Á. (2017). The present political landscape in Hungary in the context of public opinion. Focusing on Hungary 2017/2. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from
  20. Tökés, R. (1996). Political transition and social transformation in Hungary. Revista Cidob D’afers Internacionals 34-35.10 años de España en la Unión Europea, pp. 79–101.
  21. Turcanu, F. (2010) National and right-wing radicalism in the new democracies: Romania. Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
  22. UNHCR. (2015). Global trends forced displacement 2015. Annex 1. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from
  23. Várdy, S. B. (1997). The Trianon syndrome in today’s Hungary. Hungarian Studies Review, XXIV(1–2), 73–79.Google Scholar
  24. Várdy, S. B., Tooley, T. H., & Huszár Várdy, A. (Eds.). (2003). Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century in Europe. New York: Social Science Monographs: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of CriminologyBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations