Click on the star to add/remove this to your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality .

Accepted Paper:

Legal Pluralism in Asylum Adjudication in Europe: An exploration of legal procedures from an anthropological perspective  

Authors:

Nicole Hoellerer (University of Exeter)
Nick Gill (University of Exeter)

Paper short abstract:

The paper explores legal pluralism and local court cultures in asylum adjudication by drawing on more than 500 legal ethnographies at asylum appeal courts as well as interviews in the UK, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy and Greece.

Paper long abstract:

ASYFAIR is a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodology study that has conducted more than 500 legal ethnographies and interviews at asylum courts in EU countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy and Greece, to explore the varying processes of asylum adjudication across Europe. Rather than focusing on substantive consistency -e.g. outcomes of asylum appeals - ASYFAIR's paper unpacks the concept of legal procedure from an anthropological perspective. In so doing it goes beyond legal doctrine to explore the legal pluralism and local court cultures in asylum court proceedings, which can be problematic for asylum appellants (Gill and Good, 2018).

Drawing on our legal ethnographies, the paper explores both tangible and obvious differences, as well as intangible and uncodified differences (e.g. 'atmosphere') of asylum court appeals, juxtaposing the local (individual EU member states) with the regional (the EU), and asks to what extent it is possible to talk about consistent asylum appeal procedures in the context of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). In 2013 CEAS was launched to standardise the procedures of asylum determination, including the right to appeal an asylum decision at court. The procedures directive aims for standardisation in the way asylum claims are dealt with in Europe. Although consistency and fairness are routinely utilised by legal scholars to evaluate legal systems, our paper questions the feasibility (and desirability) of this objective by exposing the depth and variety of inconsistencies in everyday adjudication in practice.

Panel P156
Law and Culture in Court