Asylum adjudication system: A new frontier of legal culture

Valeria Ferraris; Teresa Consoli

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1309

Authors

Valeria Ferraris Law Department University of Turin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7802-2416
Teresa Consoli University of Catania https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7530-017X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1309

Keywords:

asylum adjudication system, legal culture, knowledge, judicial system

Abstract

Over the last 15 years, Italy has faced an exceptional migratory surge which brought the Italian asylum system into the limelight. Previously, asylum applications were rare, and the control of irregular migration dominated the political and legal debate. The growing number of applications for international protection put the asylum system under pressure and it was reformed in 2017 and in 2018. This article aims to understand the asylum adjudication system in Italy through the lens of the concept of legal culture. In particular, the concept is used as an approach (Nelken 2004) that focuses on reconstructing and analysing the changes that have taken place in the area of the international protection in Italy and the institutionalization process affecting the asylum adjudication procedures. Migration as a phenomenon, and in particular the system of recognition of international protection, has a deep impact on legal rules and specifically on judges, who are obliged to face the limits of their knowledge and of a formalistic approach to law. The article reports the results of a research conducted in an Italian tribunal and will try to answer some key questions on how asylum cases have impacted on the legal system, making this topic one of the new frontiers of the legal culture.

Correction notice: This article was updated on 28 February 2024, per authors’ request, to include the following footnote, which had been missing from the original publication: The article is the result of a joint journey undertaken by the two authors, through various presentations at conferences and mutual reflections. Consequently, the final version of the article reflects a shared effort, making it impossible to attribute specific paragraphs solely to one author or the other. The contribution should be considered equal throughout the entire article.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views 432
Downloads:
12_6_Ferraris_Consoli_OSLS 151
XML_12_6_Ferraris_Consoli_OSLS 51

Author Biographies

Valeria Ferraris, Law Department University of Turin

Valeria Ferraris, Law Department University of Turin. Email address: valeria.ferraris@unito.it

Teresa Consoli, University of Catania

Teresa Consoli, Department of Social and Political Sciences University of Catania. Email address: teresa.consoli@unict.it

References

Albano, S., 2018. Protezione internazionale, il diritto di impugnazione e le sezioni specializzate, Questione Giustizia, [online], 16 May. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/protezione-internazionale-il-diritto-di-impugnazione-e-le-sezioni-specializzate_16-05-2018.php [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Benvenuti, M., 2019. Il dito e la luna. La protezione delle esigenze di carattere umanitario degli stranieri prima e dopo il decreto Salvini. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza [online], 1, 1–39. Available from: https://www.dirittoimmigrazionecittadinanza.it/archivio-saggi-commenti/saggi/fascicolo-n-1-2019-1/345-il-dito-e-la-luna-la-protezione-delle-esigenze-di-carattere-umanitario-degli-stranieri-prima-e-dopo-il-decreto-salvini/file [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Bohmer, C., and Shuman, A., 2008. Rejecting refugees: Political asylum in the 21st century. New York: Routledge.

Chand, D.E., Schreckhise, W.D., and Bowers, M., 2017. The dynamics of state and local contexts and immigration asylum hearing decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 182–196.

Coffey, G., 2003. The Credibility of Credibility Evidence at the Refugee Review Tribunal. International Journal of Refugee Law, 15(3), 377–417.

Consoli, T., Ferraris, V. (2018) Serve un Giudice a Berlino? Il sapere giurisdizionale e l’amministrazione. Quali decisioni in materia di protezione internazionale? In: C. Pennisi et al., eds., Amministrazione, Cultura giuridica e ricerca empirica. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli, 309–329.

Dahlvick, J., 2018. Inside Asylum Bureaucracy: Organizing Refugee Status Determination in Austria [online]. Cham: Springer Open. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63306-0 [Accessed 10 May 2022].

De Felice, D., 2020. Contro la tratta: Un’analisi contestuale in chiave socio-giuridica. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.

De Santis, A.D., 2018. L’eliminazione dell’udienza (e dell’audizione) nel procedimento per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale: Un esempio di sacrifico delle garanzie. Questione Giustizia [online], 2, 206–214. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/rivista/articolo/l-eliminazione-dell-udienza-edell-audizione-nelpro_547.php [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Figley, C.R., ed., 1995. Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Friedman, L.M., 1969. Legal culture and Social Development. Law and Society Review, 4(1), 29–44.

Friedman, L.M., 1975. The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Giovannetti, M., 2021. I parametri incerti della tutela: la protezione internazionale nei procedimenti amministrativi e giudiziari. Questione Giustizia [online], 3 May. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/i-perimetri-incerti-della-tutela-la-protezione-internazionale-nei-procedimenti-amministrativi-e-giudiziari [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Hamlin, R., 2014. Let me be a refugee: Administrative justice and the politics of asylum in the United States, Canada and Australia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kritzer, H., 2007. Towards a theorization of Craft. Social and Legal studies, 16(3), 321–340.

Luhmann, N., 1984. Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Luhmann, N., and De Giorgi, R., 1993. Teoria della società. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Magardie, S., 2003. “Is the applicant really gay?” Legal response to asylum claims based on persecution because of sexual orientation. Agenda: empowering women for gender equity, 55, 81–87.

Minniti, L., 2021. L’ufficio per il processo nelle Sezioni distrettuali specializzate di immigrazione e protezione internazionale: una straordinaria occasione di innovazione a supporto della tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli stranieri, Questione Giustizia [online], 3, 204–214. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/l-ufficio-per-il-processo-nelle-sezioni-distrettuali-specializzate-di-immigrazione [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Nelken, D., 2004. Using the concept of Legal Culture. Australian Journal of legal Philosophy [online], vol. 29, 1–26. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlLegPhil/2004/11.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Peers, S., et al., eds., 2015. EU Immigration and Asylum Law, volume 3: EU Asylum Law. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.

Pennisi, C., 2018. L’istituzionalizzazione dell’amministrare: il ruolo della cultura giuridica nell’analisi sociologica delle decisioni pubbliche. In: C. Pennisi et al., eds., Amministrazione, Cultura giuridica e ricerca empirica. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli, 3–18.

Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A.I, and Schrag, P.G., 2009. Refugee roulette. Disparities in asylum adjudication and proposals for reform. Stanford Law Review [online], vol. 60, 295–412. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2914&context=facpub [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Rehaag, S., 2012. Judicial review of refugee determinations: The luck of the draw? Queen’s Law Journal [online], 38, 1–58. Available from: https://journal.queenslaw.ca/sites/qljwww/files/Issues/Vol%2038%20i1/1.%20Rehaag.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Savio, G., 2017. Le nuove disposizioni urgenti per l’accelerazione dei procedimenti in materia di protezione internazionale, nonché per il contrasto dell’immigrazione illegale: una (contro)riforma annunciata. Diritto immigrazione e cittadinanza [online], 3, 1–29. Available from: https://www.dirittoimmigrazionecittadinanza.it/archivio-saggi-commenti/saggi/fascicolo-n-3-2017/131-le-nuove-disposizioni-urgenti-per-l-accelerazione-dei-procedimenti-in-materia-di-protezione-internazionale-nonche-per-il-contrasto-dell-immigrazione-illegale-una-contro-riforma-annunciata [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Schoenholtz, A.I. Schrag, P.G., and Ramji-Nogales, J., 2014. Lives in the Balance: Asylum Adjudication by the Department of Homeland Security. New York University Press.

Solum, L.B., 2004. Procedural justice. Southern California Law Review [online], 78(1), 181–321. Available from: https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/2004/11/04/procedural-justice-article-by-lawrence-b-solum/ [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Tata, C., 2007. Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies if the discretion decision process. Social and Legal studies, 16(3), 425–447.

Taylor, M., 2007. Refugee roulette in an administrative law context: The deja vu of decisional disparities in agency adjudication. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 475–501.

Thomas, R., 2011. Administrative Justice and Asylum Appeals: A Study of Tribunal Adjudication. Oxford: Hart.

Tyler, T.R., 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357.

Zorzella, N., 2018. La protezione umanitaria nel sistema giuridico italiano. Diritto immigrazione e cittadinanza [online], 1, 1–32. Available from: https://www.dirittoimmigrazionecittadinanza.it/archivio-saggi-commenti/saggi/fascicolo-n-1-2018-1/208-la-protezione-umanitaria-nel-sistema-giuridico-italiano [Accessed 10 May 2022].