<|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:"The Discretion of States in the Dublin III System for Determining Responsibility for Examining Applications for Asylum: What Remains of the Sovereignty and Humanitarian Clauses After the Interpretations of the ECtHR and the CJEU?."
Abstract:"In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its judgment on the case of MSS v Belgium and Greece, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment on NS and ME, established an interpretation of the so-called sovereignty clause of Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin II) by which its activation became mandatory in certain cases of serious risk of human rights violations. As a result, a regulation that in principle contained a power for states became the guarantee that the system respected the protection of human rights. In its judgment on K v Bundesasylamt, the CJEU examined the humanitarian clause of the Regulation and reached the conclusion that, in cases of dependency, the principle of protection of the family unit 'normally' requires states to keep or gather together the members of a family. In other words, one of the sections of the article that established the humanitarian clause, and that could have appeared discretionary for states, became one of the criteria for the assignment of responsibility. In the new Regulation 604/2013 (Dublin III), the sovereignty clause and the humanitarian clause are included in an article dedicated to the 'discretionary clauses'. This paper argues that the interpretation of the scope of discretion in the Dublin system is to a large extent dependent on the interpretations of these clauses by the ECtHR and the CJEU. To date, the judgments by these two courts lead to the conclusion that the protection of the principle of non-refoulement interpreted in the light of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and the principle of protection of the family unit, define this discretion to the extent that these clauses become the mechanisms ensuring that these rights are respected in the European system known as Dublin III for assigning responsibility for examining an asylum application.."
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 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
The Discretion of States in the Dublin III System for Determining Responsibility for Examining Applications for Asylum: What Remains of the Sovereignty and Humanitarian Clauses After the Interpretations of the ECtHR and the CJEU?
In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its judgment on the case of MSS v Belgium and Greece, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment on NS and ME, established an interpretation of the so-called sovereignty clause of Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin II) by which its activation became mandatory in certain cases of serious risk of human rights violations. As a result, a regulation that in principle contained a power for states became the guarantee that the system respected the protection of human rights. In its judgment on K v Bundesasylamt, the CJEU examined the humanitarian clause of the Regulation and reached the conclusion that, in cases of dependency, the principle of protection of the family unit 'normally' requires states to keep or gather together the members of a family. In other words, one of the sections of the article that established the humanitarian clause, and that could have appeared discretionary for states, became one of the criteria for the assignment of responsibility. In the new Regulation 604/2013 (Dublin III), the sovereignty clause and the humanitarian clause are included in an article dedicated to the 'discretionary clauses'. This paper argues that the interpretation of the scope of discretion in the Dublin system is to a large extent dependent on the interpretations of these clauses by the ECtHR and the CJEU. To date, the judgments by these two courts lead to the conclusion that the protection of the principle of non-refoulement interpreted in the light of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and the principle of protection of the family unit, define this discretion to the extent that these clauses become the mechanisms ensuring that these rights are respected in the European system known as Dublin III for assigning responsibility for examining an asylum application.