观点应该平等":亲密伴侣暴力索赔中的政治观点

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Adrienne Anderson
{"title":"观点应该平等\":亲密伴侣暴力索赔中的政治观点","authors":"Adrienne Anderson","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is longstanding acceptance that opposition to discrimination against women and/or non-conformity with prevailing gender norms may constitute a political opinion in refugee law. However, courts have not consistently taken an expansive view of political opinion in gender cases. In particular, notwithstanding the global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is little jurisprudential and, crucially, academic clarity in relation to the political implications of non-conformity with social mores in the context of IPV. Despite this inhospitable environment, lawyers continue to argue this ground in IPV claims, particularly at jurisprudential crisis points, as occurred recently in the aftermath of a 2018 decision in the United States, overruling previous precedent granting refugee status based on membership in a particular social group. This article provides an overarching examination of the academic discussion on the desirability and practicability of applying the political opinion ground and the case law considering this ground to date. Using the jurisprudence of appeal tribunals in five common law jurisdictions, the article reveals commonalities in both successful and unsuccessful claims in this context. Notably, it identifies that ‘nexus’ to an opinion is a previously underappreciated barrier to applying the political opinion ground in IPV claims. These observations provide a crucial foundation for further reasoned consideration of the political opinion ground in IPV claims which may arise given this ground’s ongoing invocation at first instance and in lower-level administrative decision making.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘There should be equality in opinions’: Political Opinion in Intimate Partner Violence Claims\",\"authors\":\"Adrienne Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijrl/eead031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is longstanding acceptance that opposition to discrimination against women and/or non-conformity with prevailing gender norms may constitute a political opinion in refugee law. However, courts have not consistently taken an expansive view of political opinion in gender cases. In particular, notwithstanding the global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is little jurisprudential and, crucially, academic clarity in relation to the political implications of non-conformity with social mores in the context of IPV. Despite this inhospitable environment, lawyers continue to argue this ground in IPV claims, particularly at jurisprudential crisis points, as occurred recently in the aftermath of a 2018 decision in the United States, overruling previous precedent granting refugee status based on membership in a particular social group. This article provides an overarching examination of the academic discussion on the desirability and practicability of applying the political opinion ground and the case law considering this ground to date. Using the jurisprudence of appeal tribunals in five common law jurisdictions, the article reveals commonalities in both successful and unsuccessful claims in this context. Notably, it identifies that ‘nexus’ to an opinion is a previously underappreciated barrier to applying the political opinion ground in IPV claims. These observations provide a crucial foundation for further reasoned consideration of the political opinion ground in IPV claims which may arise given this ground’s ongoing invocation at first instance and in lower-level administrative decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Refugee Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Refugee Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Refugee Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,反对歧视妇女和/或不遵守现行性别规范可构成难民法中的政治观点。然而,在性别案件中,法院并没有一贯地对政治观点采取扩张性的观点。特别是,尽管亲密伴侣间的暴力(IPV)在全球范围内普遍存在,但在IPV背景下,不符合社会道德规范的政治影响在法理上,尤其是在学术上却鲜有明确的论述。尽管环境如此不利,律师们仍继续在IPV索赔中争论这一理由,尤其是在法理危机点,如最近美国2018年的一项判决推翻了之前基于特定社会群体成员身份给予难民身份的先例。本文对学术界关于适用政治见解理由的可取性和实用性的讨论以及迄今为止考虑这一理由的判例法进行了总体考察。文章利用五个普通法司法管辖区上诉法庭的判例,揭示了在此背景下胜诉和败诉的共同点。值得注意的是,文章指出,与观点的 "关联 "是之前未被充分认识到的在 IPV 索赔中适用政治观点理由的障碍。这些观点为进一步合理考虑 IPV 索赔中的政治观点理由奠定了重要基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘There should be equality in opinions’: Political Opinion in Intimate Partner Violence Claims
There is longstanding acceptance that opposition to discrimination against women and/or non-conformity with prevailing gender norms may constitute a political opinion in refugee law. However, courts have not consistently taken an expansive view of political opinion in gender cases. In particular, notwithstanding the global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is little jurisprudential and, crucially, academic clarity in relation to the political implications of non-conformity with social mores in the context of IPV. Despite this inhospitable environment, lawyers continue to argue this ground in IPV claims, particularly at jurisprudential crisis points, as occurred recently in the aftermath of a 2018 decision in the United States, overruling previous precedent granting refugee status based on membership in a particular social group. This article provides an overarching examination of the academic discussion on the desirability and practicability of applying the political opinion ground and the case law considering this ground to date. Using the jurisprudence of appeal tribunals in five common law jurisdictions, the article reveals commonalities in both successful and unsuccessful claims in this context. Notably, it identifies that ‘nexus’ to an opinion is a previously underappreciated barrier to applying the political opinion ground in IPV claims. These observations provide a crucial foundation for further reasoned consideration of the political opinion ground in IPV claims which may arise given this ground’s ongoing invocation at first instance and in lower-level administrative decision making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal aims to stimulate research and thinking on the protection of refugees and other displaced persons in international law, taking account of the broadest range of State and international organization practice. In addition, it serves as an essential tool for all engaged in the protection of refugees and other displaced persons and finding solutions to their problems. It provides key information and commentary on today"s critical issues, including the causes of refugee and related movements, internal displacement, the particular situation of women and refugee children, the human rights and humanitarian dimensions of displacement and the displaced, restrictive policies, asylum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信