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
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Standard
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. / Feneberg, Valentin; Gill, Nick; Hoellerer, Nicole I.J. et al.
in: International Journal of Refugee Law, Jahrgang 34, Nr. 2, 01.06.2022, S. 241-267.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - It's Not What You Know, It's How You Use It
T2 - The Application of Country of Origin Information in Judicial Refugee Status Determination Decisions - A Case Study of Germany
AU - Feneberg, Valentin
AU - Gill, Nick
AU - Hoellerer, Nicole I.J.
AU - Scheinert, Laura
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press.
PY - 2022/6/1
Y1 - 2022/6/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Law
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141094416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ijrl/eeac036
DO - 10.1093/ijrl/eeac036
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:85141094416
VL - 34
SP - 241
EP - 267
JO - International Journal of Refugee Law
JF - International Journal of Refugee Law
SN - 0953-8186
IS - 2
ER -