the EU and simplify the intense pressure on Greece and Italy at the height of the migra-tion crisis. It also became obvious that life will not stop after the relocated migrants as newcomers will become permanent residents. In order to tackle this problem, another idea occurred: asylum seekers from the crisis areas should be officially transported to Europe via a European resettlement system. This is currently operating on a voluntary basis, to which every country can make its own commitments. The commitment of Hungary in the resettlement framework is 0.
Most of the declarations in the field of combating new threats and migration challenges, however, require joint actions within the European Union. The representatives of the V4 states declare full engagement in such activities, especially concerning practical support for the Balkans region as an important migration route. What is more, after several discussions on migration crisis, a decision was made to establish the joint Migration Crisis Response Mechanism (MCRM) enabling coordination among governmental institutions responsible for migration.60
It is our common position concerning the reform of the Common European Asylum System that an asylum system to be developed should be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st century, and to provide protection to the ones in need of international protection, while acts resolutely against abuses of the asylum system. We must avoid cre-ating a procedure that would only mean an additional pull factor. The solution lies in the mitigation and management of the root causes of crisis situations in the countries of origin.61
With regard to the relocation, all V4 countries, without exception, consider that the idea is bad and does not work. The essence of the earlier V4 cooperation can be found in preparing their position. The reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) should be based on responsibility and voluntary contribution. The reform of the CEAS should be coordinated at EU level. The essence of solidarity does not lie in compulsory distribution but in comprehensive measures and in trust.62 The most determined position is represented by our country, which has opposed the Council’s decision from the outset and does not implement it. Moreover, Hungary submitted to the European court its appeal against the decision of the European Commission about the mandatory settlement of peo-ple.63 The quotas or the permanent mechanism of relocation met with opposition from other countries including Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.64 From the perspective of governance, the policy of the Slovak Government reflected the wider public discourse on the issue and was particularly reactive to outside events and forces. The government was not especially proactive in seeking to outline its own policy. The position before March 2016 included several core components: rejection of any mandatory European redistribution mechanism, strong border protection, and the prioritization of solutions aimed at addressing the root causes of migration.65 Slovakia, on the other hand, does not reject categorically the performance, in particular, depending on the court’s decision. Poland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe – its population is overwhelmingly Polish and Roman Catholic. The Czech Republic opposed the migration quotas and offered other solutions to the migration crisis, such as more effective protection of the external borders of the EU. It tends to provide more support to the EU countries which face new challenges by the
mi-60 Joint Statement of Ministers on establishment of the Migration Crisis Response Mechanism in Warsaw on 21 November 2016.
61 Visegrád Group Ministerial Meeting, Joint Declaration of Ministers, Budapest, 5 October 2017.
62 Kisiel, Kamil (2017): Opportunities for Joint Action by the Visegrád Four in Dealing with the Migration Crisis.
Changes in Migration Crisis Management in 2016–2017 in Europe and Hungary. Scientific Conference on 15–16 June 2017, Budapest. 79.
63 C-647/15 on 3 December 2015.
64 Joint Statement of Ministers on establishment of the Migration Crisis Response Mechanism in Warsaw on 21 November 2016.
65 Dubeci, Martin (2016): Slovakia: Migration Trends and Political Dynamics. 3. Available: www.globsec.org/
publications/slovakia-migration-trends-political-dynamics/ (Accessed: 13.07.2018)
gration crisis and find ways to improve the security situation and economic conditions on the ground in the countries of origin in order to mitigate the push factors for migration. The migration pressure is on the Mediterranean Sea and Italy today, therefore, the V4 countries declared to provide 35 million euros to protect the maritime borders of Libya.
In case of safe countries, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic also set up a list of their own national assessments. For example, Serbia and Hungary are considered safe countries of origin, while Slovakia does not put it on its list. As Brussels and Berlin applied different approaches to managing migration, it was important at international level that co-operation, such as the V4 could effectively express their united position. The EU’s draft measures were far behind reality, and Hungary, experiencing migration pressure on a daily basis, was able to articulate its position and enforce its common will together with the other three Visegrád countries.66
“The European Court of Justice has made an outrageous and irresponsible political decision in the quota case that would not be with the interests of all European nations. Pol-itics has raped European law and European values, he said, stressing that there is a huge wimping out in the case of quotas, since less than three weeks before the deadline for this decision expired, only 25% achieved the targets. After that, it is an un-European behaviour to say that the quota’s failure is based on the four Visegrád countries.”67
It is in the nature of the European Union’s recent system that small countries have practically no opportunity to enforce their interests if they differ from the position of the majority. There are two ways to compensate this. Either they join a big country and try to follow its interest or attempt to make alliances with countries that have a similar position.
Such an alliance exists between the Benelux States, the Scandinavian States, the Baltic States and the Mediterranean States, so it would be a completely logical expectation to es-teem the alliance of the V4 states, but for some reason, while the aforementioned alliances and common positions are accepted within the EU, the V4 alliance is very often being criticized. I believe that the idea of the Union is based on equality and partnership, so this principle must be valued. Everybody has to accept it and the covenant must be tightened to show that small countries have to be taken seriously and have the right to be respected.
Bibliography
Balla József – Kui László (2017): A határőrizeti célú biztonsági határzár és határőrizetre gyakorolt hatásai. [The Temporary Technical Barrier at the Border and its Impacts on the Border Surveil-lance.] Hadtudományi Szemle, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Csobolyó Eszter (2017): A határőrizeti célú ideiglenes határzár mint kritikus infrastruktúra. [Tem-porary Technical Barriers as a Critical Infrastructure.] Hadtudományi Szemle, Vol. 10, No. 3.
482–494.
66 Pintér Petra (2017): A migráció, mint biztonságpolitikai fenyegetés kormányzati kezelése Magyarországon és Szlovákiában. [The Management of Migration as a Threat of Security Policy in Hungary and Slovakia – from a Communication Aspect. Security Challenges in the 21st Century.] In Finszter Géza – Sabjanics István szerk.: Biztonsági kihívások a 21. században. Budapest, Dialóg Campus. 691.
67 Press report made by the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Available: http://tiszanews.org.
ua/index.php?module=news&&target=get&id=20434 (Accessed: 25.03.2018)
Dubeci, Martin (2016): Slovakia: Migration Trends and Political Dynamics. Available: www.globsec.
org/publications/slovakia-migration-trends-political-dynamics/ (Accessed: 13.07.2018) Gyeney Laura (2016): Az Európai Unió Migrációs Politikája „Tényleges megoldás egy valós
válságra”? Iustum Aequum Salutare, Vol. 12, No. 2. 279–302.
Hautzinger Zoltán (2016): Szemelvények a migráció szabályozásáról. [Excerptions on the Regu-lation of Migration.] Pécs, AndAnn.
Kisiel, Kamil (2017): Opportunities for Joint Action by the Visegrád Four in Dealing with the Migra-tion Crisis. Changes in MigraMigra-tion Crisis Management in 2016–2017 in Europe and Hungary.
Scientific Conference on 15–16 June 2017, Budapest. 79.
Morehouse, Christel – Blomfield, Michael (2011): Irregular Migration in Europe. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
Pátyodi Szandra (2017): Az Európai Unió válaszai a migrációs kihívásokra. [The Answers of the European Union to the Challenges of Migration.] Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények XIX.
Petővári Bence (2010): A paradigmaváltás esélyei a fejlett országok migrációs politikájában. [The Chances of the Changes of Paradigm in the Migration Policy of the Developed Countries.] PhD dolgozat, Budapest, Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok, Doktori Iskola.
Pintér Petra (2017): A migráció, mint biztonságpolitikai fenyegetés kormányzati kezelése Mag-yarországon és Szlovákiában. [The Management of Migration as a Threat of Security Policy in Hungary and Slovakia – from a Communication Aspect. Security Challenges in the 21st Century.] In Finszter Géza – Sabjanics István szerk.: Biztonsági kihívások a 21. században.
Budapest, Dialóg Campus.
Ritecz György – Sallai János (2016): A migráció trendjei, okai és kezelésének lehetőségei 2.0.
[Trends, Reasons and the Options for Treatment of Migration 2.0.] Budapest, Hans–Seidel.
Tálas Péter (2017): “The past few years have only been the premonitory signs of the migration crisis.” Conference presentation Boundary Stones: Can the Schengen Zone Be Dismantled by Mistrust? 20 May 2017.
in the Field of Law Enforcement
Jozef Balga
Introduction
The rectors of the European Universities in 1988 in Bologna, on the occasion of the 900th anniversary of the founding of the oldest university in Europe, signed the Magna Charta Universitatum.1 In this document, the Rectors highlighted the irreplaceable role of univer-sities in spreading knowledge among the younger generation and the fact that the cultural, social and economic future of society requires considerable investment, especially in con-tinuing education. They also emphasized that universities must provide future generations of students with education that would teach them, and through them also others, to keep in mind the great harmony of the natural environment and life itself. The basic principles on which the mission of universities needs to continuously rely on are part of the document.
One of the principles highlighted the autonomy of universities as institutions at the heart of companies organized differently, depending on geography and historical heritage.
Through research and education, they produce, review, valorise and transmit culture. This also means that their research and education must be morally and intellectually independ-ent of any political or economic power. The fundamindepend-ental principle of university life is the freedom of research and education. Respect for this basic requirement must be ensured by governments and universities. Universities as guardians of European humanist traditions provide universal knowledge and are evidence of the vital need for mutual understanding and influence of different cultures.
Magna Charta Universitatum also emphasized that, in fulfilling these principles, it is necessary to use effective means corresponding to the present conditions. In order to preserve freedom of research and education, the means of exercising freedom must be available to all members of the universities. The recruitment of teachers and the regulations governing their position must be in line with the principle that research is an integral part of education. Each university – having regard to its specifics – must oversee the freedom of its students and provide students with conditions in which they can acquire a culture and receive training in their own interest. Essential to their continued development of the university, they regard the mutual exchange of information, documentation and numerous joint projects aimed at improving their study. In conclusion, this document highlights the
1 Magna Charta Universitatum. Bologna, 18 September 1988.
need to promote the mobility of teachers and students, to cope with the equivalence of status, titles, examinations (without prejudice to national diplomas) and scholarship admissions.
The Magna Charta Universitatum is one of those documents that, despite the time, have proven their timeliness and the vision of higher education for the 21st century.
The Joint Declaration of European Ministers of Education, adopted on the 19th of June 1999 in Bologna (the Bologna Declaration below), was one of the most important documents that influenced the European higher education area.2 Among other things, it was inspired by the Sorbonne Declaration of 25 May 1998.3 The Sorbonne Declaration highlighted the central role of universities in developing European cultural dimensions. It highlighted the support for the creation of a European area of higher education as a key prerequisite for promoting the mobility of citizens and their ability to work in the labour market as well as in the overall development of the continent.
The Bologna Declaration specifically drew attention to increasing the international competitiveness of the European higher education system and increasing the global attrac-tiveness of the European higher education system. The document also includes the primary objectives of creating a European area of higher education and the global support of the European higher education system.
The first objective was to adopt a system of easily readable and comparable academ-ic degrees through the introduction of the Diploma Supplement, in order to promote the opportunities for European citizens to work in the labour market and the international competitiveness of European higher education systems. The second objective was to adopt a system of study based essentially on two main cycles: pregradual and gradual. An access to the second cycle should require a successful completion of the first cycle of study lasting at least three years. The title awarded after the first cycle should be relevant to the European labour market as a suitable level of qualification. The second cycle should lead to the aca-demic rank of Magister (Doctor). The third objective in line was to set up a European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as an appropriate means of promoting broad student mobility. The content of the penultimate objective is to support mobility and to remove obstacles for free movement with special attention to students (the ability to access learning and teaching), teachers, scientists and administrative staff (recognition and valorisation of the period of study undertaken in the European competitive research, teaching without damaging to their statutory rights). The last objective was to promote European cooperation in quality assurance, with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies and promoting the necessary European dimension in higher education, particularly with regards to the preparation of study plans and cooperation between institutions in the field of study and research. The Bologna Declaration initiated the unification of the European higher education area and the beginning of a new enhanced European cooperation in this field.
2 The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999.
3 Sorbonne Joint Declaration. Available: www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/io/cop034_sorbonne_dec-laration.pdf (Accessed: 15.12.2017)