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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

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, Vol. 34, No. 2, 01.06.2022, p. 241-267.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{e9669238914346b48c8a3fd972e66445,
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",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Law",
author = "Valentin Feneberg and Nick Gill and Hoellerer, {Nicole I.J.} and Laura Scheinert",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press.",
year = "2022",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ijrl/eeac036",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "241--267",
journal = "International Journal of Refugee Law",
issn = "0953-8186",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

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 -

DOI