Hungary, as part of the EU countries, signed the Geneva Convention in 1951 regarding international refugee law. In addition, as an EU country, they are also bound for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), providing the same standards for EU countries in organizing refugees. However, the 2015 refugee crisis—rooted in the conflict in the Middle East, mainly Syria—has caused the country to receive a heap of refugees entering their border, to the point of creating a xenophobic sentiment within the country and even revising their national policy regarding refugees. Geographically, Hungary shares its border with Serbia, a Balkan country that became the main route for refugees to enter the EU Schengen Area. The dramatic rise of refugees entering Hungary has caused the government—led by Viktor Orbán—to ‘push back’ refugees under the assumption of threats to national security and identity. In addition, the Hungarian government began to build a 175 km long fence along its border with Serbia to resist the number of refugees. The action taken by Hungary in organizing the refugees does not align with their commitment towards international refugee law, specifically the principle of “non-refoulement,” leading to the purpose of this paper, which is to analyze to what extent the Hungarian government violates the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ of international refugee law. The theory of Realism will be applied in this paper examining the issue of Hungary’s non-compliance. 

The term “non-refoulement” firstly emerged after the establishment of the Refugee Convention in 1951 regarding the Status of Refugees. Referring to Molnar (2016) and Moran (2020), by specifying Article 33, non-refoulement refers to the refugees rights to not be sent back to their countries if it might bring them to death, torture, or inhuman treatment. According to UNHCR (1997), today the term “non-refoulement” has become one of the backbone principles in international asylum law and international refugee law and a determinant for refugees to not receive any persecution until they enter another country. Farra (2025) stated that on a regional level, the European Union also adopted the concept of non-refoulement in their EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it is legally binding under the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Anadza et al. (2023) and Dissanayake (2019) claimed the European Refugee Crisis began to arise drastically after Germany expressed its ‘friendly’ policy regarding refugees originally from Syria as a response to their domestic conflict, rocketing the global transnational migration to 200% with over 5.6 million refugees fleeing the country. However, due to the geographical aspect of Hungary and the Dublin Regulation—which decided that the first EU country the refugee first stepped foot on should be responsible to provide their asylum—Hungary had no choice but to become the front line of the EU and handle the massive line of refugees at their border. The alarming amount of refugees coming to Hungary resulted in the establishment of a 175-km-long fence along its border with Serbia to resist the amount of refugees entering their country. The ‘pushback’ law allowed authorities to push anyone within the radius of the 8 km border out of Hungary—creating a rift in solidarity between the EU and Hungary. Verseck (2021) mentioned that a stricter procedure to enter the country was regulated in the transit zones and detention centers along the border, consisting of container camps with razor wire and armed guards supervising the refugees. Hungary utilized the concept of sovereignty to legitimize their action in pushing back refugees. This idea later on became official as the “Sovereignty Protection Law” in 2023, which aims to highlight national sovereignty and reject any foreign intervention towards their domestic issues. According to the European Commission (2015), the tension between Hungary and the EU came to arise after Hungary rejected the EU’s proposal to relocate 120,000 refugees from their country to other EU countries in order to alleviate Hungary’s load in accommodating refugees. Furthermore, in August 2015, Hungary one-sidedly applied the regulation of Decree No. 191/2015 to Serbia, considering it as a safe third country for refugees to seek asylum in, although many assume Serbia is unqualified to provide a proper asylum.

According to Juhász et al. (2015), Hungary was also reported to mistreat refugees with a discriminative and inhumane treatment towards the asylum sseekers. In addition, the central government framing refugees as a threat was on purpose in order to maintain their national sovereignty and iidentity. According to Politico in November 2015, Orbán explicitly sstated,“If you allow thousands or millions of unidentified persons into your house, the risk of terrorism will significantly iincrease. Orbán has been claimed to utilize the refugee crisis to ccapitalize onhis political strategy to gain more domestic ssupport. Althoughthe authorities responsible for asylum sseekers,such as the Office of Immigration and NNationality,did not create any xenophobic or anti-immigration sstatements,OOrbán’sand other government officials’ statements have led the government towards more xenophobic and conservative aactions. Hungary’sprioritization of national security and sovereignty aligns with the argument of Rrealism,assuming states are self-centered and seek furvival as their core interest.

Classical realists such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes argued how states compete to gain more power and increase their military capabilities. According to realism, national security is a priority instead of morality, and this is reflected in Hungary’s policy of closing their borders, pushback law, and securitization of refugees. Realism, as one of the prominent theories in international relations, claimed how states are naturally insecure—rooted in human nature—and thusconstantly improve their capabilities. Wróbel (2018) recognized Orbán’s statement represented its fear towards the presence of refugees ruining their “Christian state” value.

Hungary’s actions towards the refugee crisis in 2015 have been perceived to not be in accordance with their commitment to the Geneva Convention of 1951. Their pushback law and fence border are evidence of violations of the “non-refoulement” principle and EU refugee law. Through the lens of Realism, Hungary’s action in prioritizing national security determines Machiavelli’s—classical realist thinker—argument that treaties with other countries must be neglected if the state’s security is at risk. Hungary’s case highlights the possibility of a dilemma in the global migration issue, for a state to either defend sovereignty or solidarity.