Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination. / Byrne, William Hamilton; Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas.

I: Nordic Journal of International Law, 2023.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Byrne, WH & Gammeltoft-Hansen, T 2023, 'Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination', Nordic Journal of International Law. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/y5paf

APA

Byrne, W. H., & Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (Accepteret/In press). Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination. Nordic Journal of International Law. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/y5paf

Vancouver

Byrne WH, Gammeltoft-Hansen T. Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination. Nordic Journal of International Law. 2023. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/y5paf

Author

Byrne, William Hamilton ; Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas. / Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination. I: Nordic Journal of International Law. 2023.

Bibtex

@article{af0df2366458411bb0f308d6afac4abc,
title = "Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination",
abstract = "Digital evidence is now rapidly emerging in refugee status determination ({\textquoteleft}RSD{\textquoteright}) – the procedure for determining whether a person meets the criteria for protection as a {\textquoteleft}refugee{\textquoteright} under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Its growing popularity among migration authorities may be seen as a response to the relative dearth of “hard” evidence in refugee status determination (RSD) and the repeated critiques of human decision-making in asylum as prone to arbitrariness, subjectivity and bias. RSD transpires under particularly difficult conditions of epistemic uncertainty, where the applicant{\textquoteright}s testimony is central, and the risks of misjudgment are profound for both for the applicant who may be sent to harm and the state whom may thereby in violation of international law. However, the efficiency of decision making is not the only way of thinking about the problem. Reimagining evidence practices through digital means may not only help refugees to support their claims but also counter existing epistemic asymmetries whereby the state has also the resources and the refugee has none in RSD.",
author = "Byrne, {William Hamilton} and Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.31235/osf.io/y5paf",
language = "English",
journal = "Nordic Journal of International Law",
issn = "0902-7351",
publisher = "Brill - Nijhoff",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Digital Evidence in Refugee Status Determination

AU - Byrne, William Hamilton

AU - Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Digital evidence is now rapidly emerging in refugee status determination (‘RSD’) – the procedure for determining whether a person meets the criteria for protection as a ‘refugee’ under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Its growing popularity among migration authorities may be seen as a response to the relative dearth of “hard” evidence in refugee status determination (RSD) and the repeated critiques of human decision-making in asylum as prone to arbitrariness, subjectivity and bias. RSD transpires under particularly difficult conditions of epistemic uncertainty, where the applicant’s testimony is central, and the risks of misjudgment are profound for both for the applicant who may be sent to harm and the state whom may thereby in violation of international law. However, the efficiency of decision making is not the only way of thinking about the problem. Reimagining evidence practices through digital means may not only help refugees to support their claims but also counter existing epistemic asymmetries whereby the state has also the resources and the refugee has none in RSD.

AB - Digital evidence is now rapidly emerging in refugee status determination (‘RSD’) – the procedure for determining whether a person meets the criteria for protection as a ‘refugee’ under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Its growing popularity among migration authorities may be seen as a response to the relative dearth of “hard” evidence in refugee status determination (RSD) and the repeated critiques of human decision-making in asylum as prone to arbitrariness, subjectivity and bias. RSD transpires under particularly difficult conditions of epistemic uncertainty, where the applicant’s testimony is central, and the risks of misjudgment are profound for both for the applicant who may be sent to harm and the state whom may thereby in violation of international law. However, the efficiency of decision making is not the only way of thinking about the problem. Reimagining evidence practices through digital means may not only help refugees to support their claims but also counter existing epistemic asymmetries whereby the state has also the resources and the refugee has none in RSD.

U2 - 10.31235/osf.io/y5paf

DO - 10.31235/osf.io/y5paf

M3 - Journal article

JO - Nordic Journal of International Law

JF - Nordic Journal of International Law

SN - 0902-7351

ER -

ID: 377813321