<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Another Brick in the Wall: Carrier Sanctions and the Privatization of Immigration Control."
Abstract:"Under carrier sanction legislation, carrier personnel are obliged to control migrants' documentation at the point of embarkation, and to deny boarding to undocumented migrants. In this respect, private carrier personnel become a first instance immigration control, having to deal not only with migrants, but also with asylum seekers who may be in need of international protection. In border control situations, the refoulement of refugees by state agents would violate the state's non-refoulement obligation. Carrier sanctions pose two particular difficulties for the establishment of state responsibility: first, the potential rejection of asylum seekers at the point of embarkation is executed by non-state actors, whose conduct is only under certain circumstances attributable to the state. Second, while states' obligations to protect human rights apply to persons under their jurisdiction, embarkation control takes place on the territory of another state and, therefore, is arguably outside the controlling state's jurisdiction. After providing a brief history of the emergence of carrier sanctions under international law, this article finds that the conduct of carrier personnel -when acting in accordance with carrier sanction legislation -is attributable to the state. Moreover, prohibiting an asylum seeker to board a carrier practically denies the person the right to seek asylum, and may amount to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Finally, it is found that state jurisdiction is currently interpreted restrictively and does not include the rejection of asylum seekers on another state's territory. However, it is argued that human rights bodies should enhance the scope of state jurisdiction in cases where states do abroad what they are prohibited from doing at home.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:
Q1 = [1];
Q2 = [4,5];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
Another Brick in the Wall: Carrier Sanctions and the Privatization of Immigration Control
Under carrier sanction legislation, carrier personnel are obliged to control migrants' documentation at the point of embarkation, and to deny boarding to undocumented migrants. In this respect, private carrier personnel become a first instance immigration control, having to deal not only with migrants, but also with asylum seekers who may be in need of international protection. In border control situations, the refoulement of refugees by state agents would violate the state's non-refoulement obligation. Carrier sanctions pose two particular difficulties for the establishment of state responsibility: first, the potential rejection of asylum seekers at the point of embarkation is executed by non-state actors, whose conduct is only under certain circumstances attributable to the state. Second, while states' obligations to protect human rights apply to persons under their jurisdiction, embarkation control takes place on the territory of another state and, therefore, is arguably outside the controlling state's jurisdiction. After providing a brief history of the emergence of carrier sanctions under international law, this article finds that the conduct of carrier personnel -when acting in accordance with carrier sanction legislation -is attributable to the state. Moreover, prohibiting an asylum seeker to board a carrier practically denies the person the right to seek asylum, and may amount to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Finally, it is found that state jurisdiction is currently interpreted restrictively and does not include the rejection of asylum seekers on another state's territory. However, it is argued that human rights bodies should enhance the scope of state jurisdiction in cases where states do abroad what they are prohibited from doing at home.