Journal Article High Commissioner’s Opening Statement to the 73rd Session of the UNHCR Executive Committee Get access Filippo Grandi Filippo Grandi United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 35, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 128–136, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead014 Published: 09 October 2023
{"title":"High Commissioner’s Opening Statement to the 73rd Session of the UNHCR Executive Committee","authors":"Filippo Grandi","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead014","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article High Commissioner’s Opening Statement to the 73rd Session of the UNHCR Executive Committee Get access Filippo Grandi Filippo Grandi United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 35, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 128–136, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead014 Published: 09 October 2023","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Case Law Summaries","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Drawing on a detailed history of the ‘ceased circumstances’ cessation clause that was invoked for Eritrean refugees in 2002, this article highlights why the starting point for any analysis of the application of article 1C(5) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees must focus as much on politics as on law. This is not only because of the impossibility of insulating States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from the political pressures that surround any determination of ‘ceased circumstances’ in a particular country, but also because the very standards on which such a determination rests are inherently relational, circumstantial, and political. Despite guidelines on the application of the clause promoting an ‘objective and verifiable’ approach, they rest on assessments of a ‘functioning’ government and ‘effective’ protection, of acceptable standards of human rights, and of the ‘best interests’ of refugees, all of which are geographically and historically contingent. The article thus argues that focusing on the legal standards that ostensibly underpin any invocation of article 1C(5) may perpetuate the fallacy that these standards can ever be objectively determined and, in focusing attention on how to better clarify these thresholds and conditions, this approach may, in certain instances, divert attention from confronting the political pressures that govern the application of the clause.
{"title":"Applying the ‘Ceased Circumstances’ Cessation Clause: More Politics than Law?","authors":"Georgia Cole","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drawing on a detailed history of the ‘ceased circumstances’ cessation clause that was invoked for Eritrean refugees in 2002, this article highlights why the starting point for any analysis of the application of article 1C(5) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees must focus as much on politics as on law. This is not only because of the impossibility of insulating States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from the political pressures that surround any determination of ‘ceased circumstances’ in a particular country, but also because the very standards on which such a determination rests are inherently relational, circumstantial, and political. Despite guidelines on the application of the clause promoting an ‘objective and verifiable’ approach, they rest on assessments of a ‘functioning’ government and ‘effective’ protection, of acceptable standards of human rights, and of the ‘best interests’ of refugees, all of which are geographically and historically contingent. The article thus argues that focusing on the legal standards that ostensibly underpin any invocation of article 1C(5) may perpetuate the fallacy that these standards can ever be objectively determined and, in focusing attention on how to better clarify these thresholds and conditions, this approach may, in certain instances, divert attention from confronting the political pressures that govern the application of the clause.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135529142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Refugee in International Law","authors":"Hugo Storey","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135533698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal Article Turning Points in International Protection: Onwards and Upwards, or U-Turns and Roundabouts? Get access Jane McAdam Jane McAdam j.mcadam@unsw.edu.au Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 35, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead005 Published: 09 October 2023
期刊文章国际保护的转折点:向前和向上，还是u型转弯和迂回?获取访问Jane McAdam Jane McAdam j.mcadam@unsw.edu.au搜索作者的其他作品:牛津学术谷歌学者国际难民法杂志，第35卷，第1期，2023年3月，第1 - 9页，https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead005出版:2023年10月9日
{"title":"Turning Points in International Protection: Onwards and Upwards, or U-Turns and Roundabouts?","authors":"Jane McAdam","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead005","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Turning Points in International Protection: Onwards and Upwards, or U-Turns and Roundabouts? Get access Jane McAdam Jane McAdam j.mcadam@unsw.edu.au Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 35, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead005 Published: 09 October 2023","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The rapid spread of COVID-19 in Europe has led to the further deterioration of the crisis concerning the application of the provisions of European Union (EU) asylum law in most Member States. Accordingly, this article aims to shed light on the impact that the health emergency is having on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This requires a twofold legal analysis. First, the article discusses whether health emergencies, like that caused by COVID-19, should affect the scope of States’ obligations stemming from the CEAS, such as the principle of non-refoulement and access to asylum procedures. In this connection, it reviews, in light of international law obligations and the EU border control regime, the policy responses and legislative measures adopted by EU Member States during the first few weeks of the pandemic that resulted in the closure of borders to asylum seekers. Secondly, the article investigates whether the CEAS legal toolbox contains adequate provisions that can be applied in emergency situations. Thus it analyses the impact of the health emergency on reception conditions for asylum seekers. Based on the findings of this twofold analysis, it is concluded that certain rights, such as the right to seek asylum, cannot be suspended – not even during a situation of health emergency – and that it is all the more urgent to redesign a CEAS that takes account of the challenges posed by future situations of health emergency.
{"title":"Health Emergency and Asylum Law in the European Union","authors":"S. Nicolosi","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac043","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The rapid spread of COVID-19 in Europe has led to the further deterioration of the crisis concerning the application of the provisions of European Union (EU) asylum law in most Member States. Accordingly, this article aims to shed light on the impact that the health emergency is having on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This requires a twofold legal analysis. First, the article discusses whether health emergencies, like that caused by COVID-19, should affect the scope of States’ obligations stemming from the CEAS, such as the principle of non-refoulement and access to asylum procedures. In this connection, it reviews, in light of international law obligations and the EU border control regime, the policy responses and legislative measures adopted by EU Member States during the first few weeks of the pandemic that resulted in the closure of borders to asylum seekers. Secondly, the article investigates whether the CEAS legal toolbox contains adequate provisions that can be applied in emergency situations. Thus it analyses the impact of the health emergency on reception conditions for asylum seekers. Based on the findings of this twofold analysis, it is concluded that certain rights, such as the right to seek asylum, cannot be suspended – not even during a situation of health emergency – and that it is all the more urgent to redesign a CEAS that takes account of the challenges posed by future situations of health emergency.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46203039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Guidelines on International Protection No 7: The Application of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to Victims of Trafficking and Persons at Risk of Being Trafficked recognize that, although not all trafficked persons fall within the scope of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, some could satisfy all elements of the refugee definition. Such a possibility is not least implicit in the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, as well as in the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In order to obtain asylum, trafficked persons and their legal representatives tend to rely on the trafficked person being recognized as a member of a particular social group (PSG), and on establishing a well-founded fear of persecution on such a ground. While women trafficked for sexual exploitation have been recognized as members of a PSG in several jurisdictions, although not always in a consistent manner, the recognition of trafficked men as members of a PSG has proven to be more challenging. It is argued that the difficulties faced by adult men are attributable to the gender stereotyping operationalized by asylum decision-making bodies, which have consistently failed to recognize the gender dimension of trafficking with respect to men and boys, focusing almost entirely on women and girls as gendered subjects. In addition, the difficulties are also attributable to the nature of the exploitation to which most trafficked men are subjected, as forced labour and forced criminality are considered ‘lesser’ harms than sexual exploitation, and because violations of socio-economic rights as a ground for asylum are not yet fully recognized. This contribution explores the theoretical underpinnings of these two elements and their impact on the assessment of asylum claims brought by trafficked adult men, using the United Kingdom as a case study.
{"title":"Trafficked Adult Males as \u2028(Un)Gendered Protection Seekers: Between Presumption of Invulnerability and Exclusion from Membership of a Particular Social Group","authors":"Noemi Magugliani","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Guidelines on International Protection No 7: The Application of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to Victims of Trafficking and Persons at Risk of Being Trafficked recognize that, although not all trafficked persons fall within the scope of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, some could satisfy all elements of the refugee definition. Such a possibility is not least implicit in the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, as well as in the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In order to obtain asylum, trafficked persons and their legal representatives tend to rely on the trafficked person being recognized as a member of a particular social group (PSG), and on establishing a well-founded fear of persecution on such a ground. While women trafficked for sexual exploitation have been recognized as members of a PSG in several jurisdictions, although not always in a consistent manner, the recognition of trafficked men as members of a PSG has proven to be more challenging. It is argued that the difficulties faced by adult men are attributable to the gender stereotyping operationalized by asylum decision-making bodies, which have consistently failed to recognize the gender dimension of trafficking with respect to men and boys, focusing almost entirely on women and girls as gendered subjects. In addition, the difficulties are also attributable to the nature of the exploitation to which most trafficked men are subjected, as forced labour and forced criminality are considered ‘lesser’ harms than sexual exploitation, and because violations of socio-economic rights as a ground for asylum are not yet fully recognized. This contribution explores the theoretical underpinnings of these two elements and their impact on the assessment of asylum claims brought by trafficked adult men, using the United Kingdom as a case study.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43832890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Media and political debates on refugees and migration are dominated by a discourse of ‘fake’ and ‘bogus’ asylum claims. This article explores how this discourse affects in acute ways those people claiming asylum on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). In particular, the article shows how such a discourse of ‘fakeness’ goes far beyond the well-documented and often inadequate credibility assessments carried out by asylum authorities. By framing the analysis within the context of the scholarship on epistemic injustice, and by drawing on a large body of primary and secondary data, this article reveals how the discourse of ‘fake’ SOGI claims permeates the conduct not only of asylum adjudicators, but also of all other actors in the asylum system, including non-governmental organizations, support groups, legal representatives, and even asylum claimants and refugees themselves. Following from this theoretically informed exploration of primary data, the article concludes with the impossibility of determining the ‘truth’ in SOGI asylum cases, while also offering some guidance on means that can be employed to alleviate the epistemic injustice produced by the asylum system against SOGI asylum claimants and refugees.
{"title":"Utterly Unbelievable: The Discourse of ‘Fake’ SOGI Asylum Claims as a Form of Epistemic Injustice","authors":"N. Ferreira","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Media and political debates on refugees and migration are dominated by a discourse of ‘fake’ and ‘bogus’ asylum claims. This article explores how this discourse affects in acute ways those people claiming asylum on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). In particular, the article shows how such a discourse of ‘fakeness’ goes far beyond the well-documented and often inadequate credibility assessments carried out by asylum authorities. By framing the analysis within the context of the scholarship on epistemic injustice, and by drawing on a large body of primary and secondary data, this article reveals how the discourse of ‘fake’ SOGI claims permeates the conduct not only of asylum adjudicators, but also of all other actors in the asylum system, including non-governmental organizations, support groups, legal representatives, and even asylum claimants and refugees themselves. Following from this theoretically informed exploration of primary data, the article concludes with the impossibility of determining the ‘truth’ in SOGI asylum cases, while also offering some guidance on means that can be employed to alleviate the epistemic injustice produced by the asylum system against SOGI asylum claimants and refugees.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49290361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The drive for innovation, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness has seen governments increasingly turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance their operations. The significant growth in the use of AI mechanisms in the areas of migration and border control makes the potential for its application to the process of refugee status determination (RSD), which is burdened by delay and heavy caseloads, a very real possibility. AI may have a role to play in supporting decision makers to assess the credibility of asylum seekers, as long as it is understood as a component of the humanitarian context. This article argues that AI will only benefit refugees if it does not replicate the problems of the current system. Credibility assessments, a central element of RSD, are flawed because the bipartite standard of a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ involves consideration of a claimant’s subjective fearfulness and the objective validation of that fear. Subjective fear imposes an additional burden on the refugee, and the ‘objective’ language of credibility indicators does not prevent the challenges decision makers face in assessing the credibility of other humans when external, but largely unseen, factors such as memory, trauma, and bias, are present. Viewing the use of AI in RSD as part of the digital transformation of the refugee regime forces us to consider how it may affect decision-making efficiencies, as well as its impact(s) on refugees. Assessments of harm and benefit cannot be disentangled from the challenges AI is being tasked to address. Through an analysis of algorithmic decision making, predictive analysis, biometrics, automated credibility assessments, and digital forensics, this article reveals the risks and opportunities involved in the application of AI in RSD. On the one hand, AI’s potential to produce greater standardization, to mine and parse large amounts of data, and to address bias, holds significant possibility for increased consistency, improved fact-finding, and corroboration. On the other hand, machines may end up replicating and manifesting the unconscious biases and assumptions of their human developers, and AI has a limited ability to read emotions and process impacts on memory. The prospective nature of a well-founded fear is counter-intuitive if algorithms learn based on training data that is historical, and an increased ability to corroborate facts may shift the burden of proof to the asylum seeker. Breaches of data protection regulations and human rights loom large. The potential application of AI to RSD reveals flaws in refugee credibility assessments that stem from the need to assess subjective fear. If the use of AI in RSD is to become an effective and ethical form of humanitarian tech, the ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ standard should be based on objective risk only.
{"title":"What Can Artificial Intelligence Do for Refugee Status Determination? A Proposal for Removing Subjective Fear","authors":"Niamh Kinchin, D. Mougouei","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac040","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The drive for innovation, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness has seen governments increasingly turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance their operations. The significant growth in the use of AI mechanisms in the areas of migration and border control makes the potential for its application to the process of refugee status determination (RSD), which is burdened by delay and heavy caseloads, a very real possibility. AI may have a role to play in supporting decision makers to assess the credibility of asylum seekers, as long as it is understood as a component of the humanitarian context. This article argues that AI will only benefit refugees if it does not replicate the problems of the current system. Credibility assessments, a central element of RSD, are flawed because the bipartite standard of a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ involves consideration of a claimant’s subjective fearfulness and the objective validation of that fear. Subjective fear imposes an additional burden on the refugee, and the ‘objective’ language of credibility indicators does not prevent the challenges decision makers face in assessing the credibility of other humans when external, but largely unseen, factors such as memory, trauma, and bias, are present.\u0000 Viewing the use of AI in RSD as part of the digital transformation of the refugee regime forces us to consider how it may affect decision-making efficiencies, as well as its impact(s) on refugees. Assessments of harm and benefit cannot be disentangled from the challenges AI is being tasked to address. Through an analysis of algorithmic decision making, predictive analysis, biometrics, automated credibility assessments, and digital forensics, this article reveals the risks and opportunities involved in the application of AI in RSD. On the one hand, AI’s potential to produce greater standardization, to mine and parse large amounts of data, and to address bias, holds significant possibility for increased consistency, improved fact-finding, and corroboration. On the other hand, machines may end up replicating and manifesting the unconscious biases and assumptions of their human developers, and AI has a limited ability to read emotions and process impacts on memory. The prospective nature of a well-founded fear is counter-intuitive if algorithms learn based on training data that is historical, and an increased ability to corroborate facts may shift the burden of proof to the asylum seeker. Breaches of data protection regulations and human rights loom large. The potential application of AI to RSD reveals flaws in refugee credibility assessments that stem from the need to assess subjective fear. If the use of AI in RSD is to become an effective and ethical form of humanitarian tech, the ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ standard should be based on objective risk only.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41383005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Valentin Feneberg, Nick Gill, Nicole Hoellerer, Laura Scheinert
Existing research has emphasized the different forms of expert knowledge available to refugee status determination (RSD) decision makers, as well as the differing conditions under which it is produced. However, little work has been done to address how decision makers interpret, represent, and use such evidence in their written decisions. This study investigates how country of origin information (COI) is used in judicial RSD decisions, taking decisions of Germany’s Higher Administrative Courts on Syrian draft evaders as a case study. The analysis shows that the courts draw different conclusions from the same evidence, utilizing interpretation, framing, and citation styles to amplify or dampen the persuasive force of COI in their reasoning. As such, legal reasoning dominates evidence, meaning that evidence is discursively highly malleable, frequently incidental to legal reasoning, and does not produce legal consensus. These findings raise concerns that decision makers use COI selectively to justify the positions they have adopted, rather than allowing their conclusions to be directed by COI. The article concludes by reflecting on what, if anything, should be done about these seemingly opaque and unaccountable textual and discursive forms of discretionary power.
{"title":"It’s Not What You Know, It’s How You Use It: The Application of Country of Origin Information in Judicial Refugee Status Determination Decisions – A Case Study of Germany","authors":"Valentin Feneberg, Nick Gill, Nicole Hoellerer, Laura Scheinert","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Existing research has emphasized the different forms of expert knowledge available to refugee status determination (RSD) decision makers, as well as the differing conditions under which it is produced. However, little work has been done to address how decision makers interpret, represent, and use such evidence in their written decisions. This study investigates how country of origin information (COI) is used in judicial RSD decisions, taking decisions of Germany’s Higher Administrative Courts on Syrian draft evaders as a case study. The analysis shows that the courts draw different conclusions from the same evidence, utilizing interpretation, framing, and citation styles to amplify or dampen the persuasive force of COI in their reasoning. As such, legal reasoning dominates evidence, meaning that evidence is discursively highly malleable, frequently incidental to legal reasoning, and does not produce legal consensus. These findings raise concerns that decision makers use COI selectively to justify the positions they have adopted, rather than allowing their conclusions to be directed by COI. The article concludes by reflecting on what, if anything, should be done about these seemingly opaque and unaccountable textual and discursive forms of discretionary power.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47903050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：