Deconstructing Doctrinal Struggles through Legal Discourse Analysis: The Example of ‹Discretion› Reasoning in Refugee Law

In the field of refugee law, ‹discretion› reasoning – that is, the assumption that asylum seekers can be returned to their countries of origin on the basis that they can avoid persecution by behaving ‹discreetly› and thus escaping the attention of the persecutors – is a legal problem where legal analysis seems to get stuck. Once there appears to be a doctrinal solution to settle the problem, it reappears in a different form. This Forumsbeitrag introduces ‹legal discourse analysis› as an approach to tackle such perennial legal problems. Inspired by critical legal and queer scholars, and drawing on elements of deconstruction and discourse analysis, legal discourse analysis does not try to find the solution to the puzzle. Instead, it has the distinct aim of tracing how doctrine is constructed, or how ‹right› answers are created. On that basis, it draws out the underlying tensions that enable these answers. The Forumsbeitrag first retraces the steps developed to address ‹discretion› reasoning in refugee law, and then extrapolates and generalises ‹legal discourse analysis› as an approach to explore its usability for other perennial doctrinal problems, both within refugee and migration law, and beyond.