<|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:"How to Deal with Really Good Bad-Faith Interpreters: M.A. v Denmark."
Abstract:"Can a State that no-longer officially pursues an integration agenda for a group of refugees claim integration as a legitimate aim to interfere with the fundamental rights of said group? If domestic courts' careful consideration of international human rights law and practice widens the State's margin of appreciation, is it then narrowed when States ignore national and international organisations' warnings of non-compliance with human rights law? Can the European Court of Human Rights refer to EU-law to establish the existence of a European consensus when the respondent State in question has opted out of EU-regulation in the area? The Grand Chamber judgment M.A. v Denmark from 9 July 2021 raises these questions but answers only some. This article aims. through an analysis of M.A. v Denmark and its political and legal background, to seek some answers in this carefully worded judgment.."
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 = [5];
Q3 = [1];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
How to Deal with Really Good Bad-Faith Interpreters: M.A. v Denmark
Can a State that no-longer officially pursues an integration agenda for a group of refugees claim integration as a legitimate aim to interfere with the fundamental rights of said group? If domestic courts' careful consideration of international human rights law and practice widens the State's margin of appreciation, is it then narrowed when States ignore national and international organisations' warnings of non-compliance with human rights law? Can the European Court of Human Rights refer to EU-law to establish the existence of a European consensus when the respondent State in question has opted out of EU-regulation in the area? The Grand Chamber judgment M.A. v Denmark from 9 July 2021 raises these questions but answers only some. This article aims. through an analysis of M.A. v Denmark and its political and legal background, to seek some answers in this carefully worded judgment.