Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Lena Rose
(University of Konstanz)
Judith Beyer (University of Konstanz)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Sessions:
- Friday 29 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
Asylum procedures in Europe are sites of hope for applicants, of potential social transformation for scholars and activists, but also of a political project of uncommoning by European (nation-) states. We explore these themes through plausibility and credibility assessments in asylum procedures.
Long Abstract:
Asylum procedures in Europe are sites of hope for applicants, of potential social transformation for scholars and activists, but also of a political project of uncommoning by European (nation-) states, coordinated by the new EU Asylum Agency. In the UK the new "Borders Bill" fuels an already emotional debate around immigration and asylum. In this panel, we reflect on the conference theme through ethnographic examples from European asylum procedures with particular focus on plausibility and credibility assessments.
To determine whether an asylum applicant qualifies for international protection, decision-makers need to be convinced that asylum applicants' narratives and documentary evidence are plausible and credible. Assessments may relate to an applicants' demeanour, narrative, supporting evidence, and the (perceived) validity of their documents. Depending on the specific asylum ground(s), applicants' biographies, motivations, medical histories, documents and narratives are checked in relation to what is known about the applicants' countries of origin, religious or social groups, or illnesses. In order to assist with these assessments, a variety of expertise might be drawn upon, from medical reports, religious leaders, romantic partners, to regional experts, including anthropologists.
Considering the diverse roles of asylum applicants, decision-makers, judges, lawyers, translators, scholars, policy-makers and expert activists, we ask: What kind of evidence do parties consider instructive? Who or what validates expertise? How and to what ends are ethnographic materials and anthropological arguments considered and by whom? In answering these questions, we seek contributions attuned to the roles of culture and power as they play out in asylum procedures.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 29 July, 2022, -Paper short abstract:
I explore current ways of conceptualizing customary law by Czech asylum authorities and suggest their possible distinct legal-anthropological reconceptualization in order to increase the comprehensibility of escape stories.
Paper long abstract:
In the asylum evidence, Czech asylum authorities and courts encounter cultural and legal differences of the countries of origin. Especially within the assessment of evidentiary documents such as transcripts of asylum interviews and COI they are often reluctant to interpret facts which do not fit conventional legal background. The actors of persecution and serious harm as well as the protectors against them in the country of origin are diverse and sometimes very uncommon. In case when traditional legal authorities such as elders and inter-tribal councils (from Afghanistan, Yemen and Jordan) are these actors, a distinct legal-anthropological expertise is needed but not available. However, usual reductive interpretations of the traditional authorities as cultural entities often decrease the plausibility of escape stories. In this paper, I therefore examine current ways of conceptualizing customary law by Czech asylum courts and suggest their possible distinct legal-anthropological reconceptualization.
Paper short abstract:
The interpreting is part of control maintained not only on the state borders but also on the frontiers of language, by controlling the modes in which actors were expected to speak. Production of plausibility is demonstrated by ethnographic data from Slovak asylum courts.
Paper long abstract:
In my paper, I argue that the interpreting is part of control maintained not only on the state borders but also on the frontiers of language, by controlling the modes in which actors were expected to speak. During the years 2016–2019 I conducted ethnographic research at the Regional Court in Bratislava, Slovakia. I focused at: (1) how the participants create communicative spaces before and during the trials; (2) how participants define and interpret culture-specific concepts and legal jargon in a multilingual legal setting; and (3) how selected linguistic mechanisms function in the context of verifying the credibility of those seeking asylum.
Asylum applicants, the representatives of the state, lawyers and interpreters negotiate the forms of communication during asylum process. Communicative space is what makes credibility conceivable. The question is how the participants conceptualise their own work, habits, norms and routine, in their modes of speaking, and how what is spoken becomes written and the written becomes the fact. If there is no space, people cannot move, not just between countries but also within an argument.
Communicative space refers to circumstances which make the speakers’ statement acceptable even before the argument is reasoned - the context in which the whole utterance becomes in/valid. It refers to expectations of what could be said, and also what could finally get into the report. The lack of communicative space for the explanation of concepts which are products of institutions in a multilingual legal setting might result in ineffective proximations.
Paper short abstract:
This paper focuses on the lawyers' work in the process of asylum application in France. It aims at exploring how lawyers contribute to the construction of the credibility as mediators, by translating the narrative into a legal argument and translating of the culture of the applicant to the judges.
Paper long abstract:
This paper aims at questioning the role played by the defense regarding the construction of credibility. It is based on the ethnographic case of the work of French lawyers, during the appeal phase at the National Court of Asylum. Though they are not decision-makers in the institutional meaning of being responsible for granting the refugee status, lawyers are nevertheless making decisions to “make their client win”. Here I would like to put the emphasis on one aspect of their work: their role as mediators between applicants and judges, in a general process of translation, first, the translating of a personal narrative into a legal argument, and second, the translating of the culture of the “other” to the judges. In two identified phases of their work, the file-work and the court hearing, they are continuously interpreting both seekers’ and judges’ intentions. When lawyers work with their clients on their narrative, they constantly refer to the judges’ potential reactions. Relying on their experience of the hearings, they project themselves into the eyes of the judges, to decide what should be said or not, but also to make their clients feel the judges’ mindset as an issue: they know that if the seekers do not understand the issues, they will not be able to answer the most relevantly. In their address at the hearing, lawyers try to translate the cultural background of their clients into the judges’ language. This paper will explore how concretely lawyers contribute to ensure the credibility of their clients.
Paper short abstract:
In asylum processes based on conversion to Christianity and fear of religious persecution, decision-makers employed by the secular state have to assess the credibility of the religious conversion. This paper outlines the tension between church and state in determining what makes a 'true' convert.
Paper long abstract:
Among recent migrations to Europe, asylum claims on the basis of fear of religious persecution following a conversion to Protestant Christianity are frequent, especially among Iranian and Afghan asylum seekers. Decision-makers employed by the secular state have to assess the genuineness of the religious conversion, and risks of practising Christianity in the country of origin of the applicant. The overwhelmingly negative decisions for converted asylum seekers in Germany have led to a conflict between churches who support converts and administrative courts. While churches lament the lack of consideration of pastors’ letters and statements as evidence for converts’ credibility, German courts maintain that judges have the right to assess the credibility of an appellant’s conversion (2 BvR 1838/15) and possibly override a pastor’s assessment of an appellant’s Christian faith. This paper draws on case law, ethnographic observations at church workshops and 30 asylum appeal hearings based on conversion at German courts, as well as interviews with all actors involved, to outline the tensions between church and state in the assessment of what makes a ‘true’ convert worthy of protection.