At a time when many around the world are fleeing their homes, seeking refugee protection has become a game of chance. Partly to blame is the law that governs how refugee status decision-makers resolve their doubts. This long-neglected branch of refugee law has been growing in the dark, with little guidance from the Refugee Convention and little attention from scholars. By looking closely at the Canadian jurisprudence, Hilary Evans Cameron provides the first full account of what this law is trying to accomplish in a refugee hearing. She demonstrates how a hole in the law's normative foundations is contributing to the dysfunction of one of the world's most respected refugee determination systems, and may well be undermining refugee protection across the globe. The author uses her findings to propose a new legal model of refugee status decision-making.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Formatted Contents Note
Cover; Half-title page; Title page; Copyright page; Dedication; Contents; Acknowledgements; Introduction; Part I; 1 The Wrong Mistake; The Traditional Economic Approach; A Psychologically Founded Theory; A Comparative Study; The Wrong Mistake in the Criminal Law; The Wrong Mistake in the Civil Law; Conclusion; Part II; 2 Setting the Scene; At the Refugee Board; At the Federal Court; The Case Study: Method and Findings; 3 The Wrong Mistake: Sending a Refugee Home; Wrongly Disbelieving the Claimant; The Claimant's Testimony; The Claimant's Conduct; Troubles Getting Evidence. Overlooking Objective DangerDenying Claims on Procedural Grounds; Conclusion; 4 Resolving Doubt in the Claimant's Favour; The Burden of Proof; Standards of Proof; The 'Well-foundedness' Threshold: How Much Risk Is Risk Enough?; The State Protection Threshold: How Much Protection Is Enough Protection?; Presumption of Truthfulness; In Civil and Administrative Law Generally; Within Refugee Law; Conclusion; 5 The Wrong Mistake: Accepting an Unfounded Claim; Refugee Claimants Are Ordinary Litigants; Acting Rationally and Responsibly within the Hearing Process. Acting Rationally and Responsibly outside of the Hearing ProcessThe Member is an Ordinary Decision-maker; Judging Demeanour; Judging Plausibility; Conclusion; 6 Resolving Doubt at the Claimant's Expense; The Burden of Proof; Standards of Proof; The 'Well-foundedness' Threshold: How Much Risk Is Risk Enough?; The State Protection Threshold: How Much Protection Is Enough Protection?; Presumptions; The Presumption of State Protection; The Presumption of Truthfulness; Conclusion; 7 In the Hearing Room; Conflicting Standards of Proof; Permissible Inferences: Rational Action and Memory; Conclusion. Part III8 A Way Forward; The Wrong Mistake in International Refugee Law; The Principle of Non-refoulement; Refugee Status Determination Is Declaratory; The Duty to Resolve Doubt in the Claimant's Favour; The Karanakaran Approach; Traditional Common Law Legal Theory: Truth-Seeking and Inductive Inference; Karanakaran: Risk Assessment and Inference to the Best Explanation; Abductive Reasoning; Refugee Status Determination as an Abductive Risk Assessment; Explanation in a Refugee Hearing: Theory and Counter-theory; Josephson on 'the Best Explanation'; Conclusion; Index.