Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T01:38:53.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The absence of foreign law in Danish asylum decisions – quasi-judicial monologue with domestic policy focus?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Guy S. Goodwin-Gill
Affiliation:
All Souls College, Oxford
Hélène Lambert
Affiliation:
University of Westminster
Get access

Summary

Introduction

As it will appear from this chapter, decisions on asylum applications in Denmark are generally made without references to foreign law. The absence of such references is probably not merely an expression of the lack of influence of foreign law on Danish asylum practices, but can be seen as an indication of a more general tendency towards the exclusion of transnational law, whether foreign or international, as a source of asylum law. Thus, while the central international legal instruments concerning refugee protection – in particular the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights – are binding on Denmark and even formally incorporated into Danish law, the past few years have seen quite significant examples of asylum applications being turned down on the basis of interpretation and application of these treaties that could be, and indeed have been, considered questionable.

The analysis here is mainly based on publicly accessible decisions of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, a quasi-judicial body with specialized competence to review negative asylum decisions. Since the Board is in practice the only body reviewing asylum decisions in substance, judicial case law from the ordinary courts cannot add anything to the picture in this regard. The decisions of the Danish Immigration Service, examining asylum applications in the first instance, are not accessible, but there is no reason to believe that the first instance administrative practices would disclose deviation from the precedents of the Refugee Appeals Board.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Limits of Transnational Law
Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union
, pp. 170 - 185
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×