Position of the Visegrad Group in the migration crisis of the EU

Asgarova Roza (2018) Position of the Visegrad Group in the migration crisis of the EU. Faculty of International Management and Business.

[thumbnail of migration crisis and v4.pdf] PDF
migration crisis and v4.pdf
Hozzáférés joga: Available at the computers of the University

Download (444kB)


Migration Crisis in Europe emerged in 2015, caused by the large inflow of asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa. The number of asylum seekers arriving to Europe, according to FRONTEX, reached 1.8 million people. In comparison with 2014, when the number of all asylum seekers was 280,000 people, this amount was enormous. There are several reasons of such an increase in the quantity of migrants and refugees crossing European border. First of all, the main reason was the war in Syria. Also violations in Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty in the states of North and Equatorial Africa and the efforts of people to escape these areas seeking for better conditions of life are among the reasons of the Crisis. As the main routes, used by the asylum seekers, led to Italy and Greece from Libya and Turkey, most of part of migrants arrived by sea accumulated in these countries. Thus, to resolve the arisen problems, the European Union had to take extra actions. On 14th of September, 2015, the EU introduced the mandatory quota system for allocation of 160,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece among other EU states. This decision was strongly criticized by the member-states of the Visegrad Group, 3 of which voted against it. The member-states of the V4 from the beginning of the crisis supported the voluntary character of the responsibilities distribution. Thus, on 30th of September 2015, based on the article 263 of the EU treaty, which allows to dispute the decisions made by EU institutions, Slovakian authorities filed a legal challenge to the Court European Union against the resettlement plans approved by European Council. This step of Slovakian government was followed by Hungary, which also filed a legal challenge to the Court of the EU against the mandatory quota system on 16th of November, 2015. But their lawsuits were rejected by the Highest Judicial Instance of the European Union. After this, Slovakia, which chaired the Council of the EU in the second half of 2016, proposed the concept "Flexile Solidarity" in the field of asylum-seekers admission by the member-states, which was announced at the informal meeting in Bratislava on 16th of September, as another way to resolve the migration crisis, alternative to quota system on asylum seekers resettlement. Given conception assumed that each member-state of the European Union should define particular forms of its contribution, based on its potential in the field on migration management. This meant that any mechanism of asylum seekers resettlement would be based on voluntary involvement of member-states. But it was criticized by the EU member-states, and subsequently rejected. In summer of 2017, threatened the member-states of the Visegrad Group with the financial sanctions, because they hadn't implemented the decision of the European Commission by not accepting migrants according to quotas. But on 26th of September, 2017, the effect of two-year mechanism on the compulsory relocation of more than one hundred asylum seekers within the EU was completed. Only 29,000 of asylum seekers were relocated within the framework of the programme, which proved inefficiency of this decision. So, here the question is what are the most important reasons for the rejection of the Visegrad Group to participate in allocation of the asylum seekers. The reasons of such a position first of all was the historical tradition, as the CEE countries always served as a shield for Christian Europe and protected if from the raids of the Tatar-Mongols and Turks. The second argument was the cultural and civil factor. The member-states of Visegrad Group wished to preserve their national identity, as there would be "incompatibility of values" with the asylum seekers, who were from completely different cultures and religions. The third reason was preserving of national security, as alongside with asylum seekers, terrorists could penetrate to the countries because of weak border control, which had been the reason of irregular migration. Also, the bad experience of Western European states which had been exposed to terrorist attacks, alerted the national authorities. The fourth argument was the financial factor. The CEE countries didn't have enough financial recourses to afford the hard integration process. Though lots of migrants from Ukraine worked in Poland and Czech Republic, the situation with the asylum seekers from the Middle East would differ a lot, as they should had learnt the relevant languages and professional skills. As the experience shows, these countries are not attractive to migrants by virtue of their social-economic development. Another important issue is that Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia were unsatisfied with the "pressure" of the EU regarding the migration policy. So, all of these explains the attitude of the Visegrad Group towards migration issue and, also, the failure of mandatory quota system proved that this decision wasn't the right way to cope with the crisis. The question how the EU will resolve the consequences of the crisis still remains open, but mandatory character of any policy regarding this issue won't be effective.

English title

Position of the Visegrad Group in the Migration Crisis of the EU


Budapest Business University


Faculty of International Management and Business


Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Tanszék




Nemzetközi Tanulmányok


Konzulens neve
Konzulens típusa
Assignment, Scientific qualification, Institution
Dr. Neszmélyi György

Item Type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Uncontrolled Keywords: Migráció, Schengeni övezet, Dublini egyezmény, Visegrádi Négyek, Összehasonlító elemzés, Európai Unió, Magyarország, Csehország, Szlovákia, Lengyelország
Depositing User: Szabó Zoltán
Date Deposited: 2018. May. 02. 13:23
Last Modified: 2020. May. 14. 05:32

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item