Suchergebnisse

The author analyzes an action of Slovakia against a decision of the Council of the European Union on relocation of refugees from Italy and Greece to other Member States in terms of the argumentation of Slovakia. Furthermore, the author explores argumentation of Hungary, which filed its action against the decision of the Council of the European Union for similar reasons as Slovak Republic did. These reasons are based on the fact that majority of Eastern European members of the Union is missing economic and social capabilities to integrate refugees from Africa and the Middle East. Because of this reason, some of Member States (Slovakia and Hungary) have decided to challenge decision mentioned judicially. Strong disagreements over relocation of refugees within European Union could serve as possible crucial base for future development of political relations between EU Member States. Within the research the author presents an assessment of Slovak and Hungarian argumentation, and at some places, he compares it to argumentation of the Czech Republic, which has opposed the relocation of refugees, as well. In his study author applies official EU documents, official documents of Member States and statements of their officials, mass media publications, just to name a few. In the second part of the article the author pays attention to possibilities for development of arguments related to the violation of the principle of proportionality, which was not sufficiently developed by Slovakia. The author concluded that the most sustainable solution to resolve migration crisis for EU would be financial support to be provided to neighboring countries (of crisis regions) most affected by migration, but not relocation of refugees within European Union.