Controlling irregular migration: International human rights standards and the Hungarian legal framework

In the summer of 2015 Hungary constructed a 175 km long barbed-wire fence at its southern border with Serbia. New criminal offences and asylum procedures were introduced that limited access to refugee status determination and ignored agreed EU asylum policy, deterring and de facto preventing asylum seekers from entering Hungarian territory. This paper provides an analysis of these new measures, which criminalized asylum seekers, and the subsequent Hungarian policy in relation to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – arguing that the Hungarian authorities excessively abused their discretion in implementing these new policies of immigration and border control

Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases

This paper argues that both criminologists and lawyers need a far more philosophically robust account of joint action, notably as it relates to technical matters of intentionality and responsibility when dealing with joint criminal enterprise cases. Criminology seems unable to see beyond the superficiality of cultural explanations ill-suited to understanding matters of action. Law seems wedded to mystical notions of foresight. As regards the law there seems common agreement that joint enterprise prosecutions tend to over-criminalise secondary parties. This paper suggests that the current discussions around joint criminal enterprise will benefit from a critical engagement with analytical philosophy. The paper will examine a series of technical accounts of shared commitment and intention in order to explain the problems of joint criminal enterprise (multi-agent criminal activity). Este art&iacute;culo defiende que tanto crimin&oacute;logos como abogados necesitan ofrecer una acci&oacute;n conjunta m&aacute;s robusta, desde el punto de vista filos&oacute;fico, especialmente en lo que se refiere a aspectos t&eacute;cnicos de intencionalidad y responsabilidad, al tratar casos de colaboraci&oacute;n criminal. La criminolog&iacute;a parece incapaz de ver m&aacute;s all&aacute; de la superficialidad de las explicaciones culturales, inadecuadas para entender cuestiones de acci&oacute;n. El derecho parece aliado con nociones m&iacute;sticas de previsi&oacute;n. En lo que respecta al derecho, parece que existe un consenso en que los fiscales de asociaciones de malhechores tienden a penalizar en exceso a los c&oacute;mplices. Este art&iacute;culo sugiere que el debate actual sobre asociaciones criminales se beneficiar&aacute; de un compromiso cr&iacute;tico con la filosof&iacute;a anal&iacute;tica. El art&iacute;culo analiza un conjunto de explicaciones t&eacute;cnicas de compromiso e intenci&oacute;n compartidos para explicar los problemas de las asociaciones criminales (actividad criminal multi-agente). DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2847796</p