<|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:"Detention in the Hungarian Transit Zones: a Case of Higher Fundamental Rights Protection by EU Law vis-a-vis the ECHR."
Abstract:"In recent years, the concept of detention has been at the centre of important judicial discussions at the ECtHR and the ECJ. The two European courts have issued several landmark judgments on the threshold at which a situation constitutes a detention in the context of the Hungarian transit zones. A salient feature of the judicial saga of the Hungarian transit zones is that EU law seems to offer a higher level of fundamental rights protection than the ECHR. This article proposes to study the judicial saga as a case study to explore the phenomenon of higher protection under EU law. It is submitted that EU law offers a higher level of protection of the right to liberty and security in this judicial saga. It is argued that the phenomenon of higher protection under EU law is not in itself problematic, since both EU law and the ECHR are equipped to deal with such situations and, on the contrary, this may lead to a virtuous cycle between the two legal systems. However, it is suggested that the two European courts should enter into dialogue in such situations with a view to facilitating the role of domestic courts. This seems all the more important as such situations may become more frequent in view of the growing role of the EU as a fundamental rights standard-setter.."
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 = [0];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
Detention in the Hungarian Transit Zones: a Case of Higher Fundamental Rights Protection by EU Law vis-a-vis the ECHR
In recent years, the concept of detention has been at the centre of important judicial discussions at the ECtHR and the ECJ. The two European courts have issued several landmark judgments on the threshold at which a situation constitutes a detention in the context of the Hungarian transit zones. A salient feature of the judicial saga of the Hungarian transit zones is that EU law seems to offer a higher level of fundamental rights protection than the ECHR. This article proposes to study the judicial saga as a case study to explore the phenomenon of higher protection under EU law. It is submitted that EU law offers a higher level of protection of the right to liberty and security in this judicial saga. It is argued that the phenomenon of higher protection under EU law is not in itself problematic, since both EU law and the ECHR are equipped to deal with such situations and, on the contrary, this may lead to a virtuous cycle between the two legal systems. However, it is suggested that the two European courts should enter into dialogue in such situations with a view to facilitating the role of domestic courts. This seems all the more important as such situations may become more frequent in view of the growing role of the EU as a fundamental rights standard-setter.