安全测试的推定:原产国信息在国家指定安全原产国中的使用

IF 1.4 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY
F. Vogelaar
{"title":"安全测试的推定:原产国信息在国家指定安全原产国中的使用","authors":"F. Vogelaar","doi":"10.1093/rsq/hdaa030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The article examines the process of evidentiary assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI) by policy-makers. It particularly focuses on the evidentiary assessment of COI by the UK and the Netherlands in their decisions to designate Albania and Kosovo as Safe Countries of Origin (SCO). The article assesses the COI standards laid down in the European Asylum Support Office’s (EASO) Country of Origin Information Report Methodology, and whether, and how, these standards are applied by the UK and the Netherlands. The analysis shows that the UK and the Netherlands have in practice not given proper meaning to the standards in the EASO methodology. As a result, the Dutch and UK SCO policies on Albania and Kosovo lack a common and systematic approach to COI. The policies fail to show how information was assessed and why substantial weight was attached to information in the determination that there is in general no persecution in Albania and Kosovo. The analysis of the Dutch and UK SCO policies leads to the important conclusion that there is much room for the improvement of evidentiary assessment of COI at the level of the decision-maker and policy-maker, especially, with regard to the transparent presentation of the evidentiary assessment. The European Union should consider the adoption of the COI quality standards in binding EU legislation that would provide the proper basis for a common and systematic approach to COI that can truly improve convergence in asylum decision-making.","PeriodicalId":39907,"journal":{"name":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rsq/hdaa030","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Presumption of Safety Tested: The Use of Country of Origin Information in the National Designation of Safe Countries of Origin\",\"authors\":\"F. Vogelaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rsq/hdaa030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The article examines the process of evidentiary assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI) by policy-makers. It particularly focuses on the evidentiary assessment of COI by the UK and the Netherlands in their decisions to designate Albania and Kosovo as Safe Countries of Origin (SCO). The article assesses the COI standards laid down in the European Asylum Support Office’s (EASO) Country of Origin Information Report Methodology, and whether, and how, these standards are applied by the UK and the Netherlands. The analysis shows that the UK and the Netherlands have in practice not given proper meaning to the standards in the EASO methodology. As a result, the Dutch and UK SCO policies on Albania and Kosovo lack a common and systematic approach to COI. The policies fail to show how information was assessed and why substantial weight was attached to information in the determination that there is in general no persecution in Albania and Kosovo. The analysis of the Dutch and UK SCO policies leads to the important conclusion that there is much room for the improvement of evidentiary assessment of COI at the level of the decision-maker and policy-maker, especially, with regard to the transparent presentation of the evidentiary assessment. The European Union should consider the adoption of the COI quality standards in binding EU legislation that would provide the proper basis for a common and systematic approach to COI that can truly improve convergence in asylum decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rsq/hdaa030\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdaa030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdaa030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了政策制定者对原产国信息(COI)的证据评估过程。它特别关注英国和荷兰在决定将阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃指定为安全原产国(SCO)时对COI的证据评估。本文评估了欧洲庇护支持办公室(EASO)原产国信息报告方法中制定的COI标准,以及英国和荷兰是否以及如何应用这些标准。分析表明,英国和荷兰在实践中没有给予EASO方法中的标准适当的含义。因此,荷兰和英国在上合组织对阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃的政策缺乏共同和系统的COI方法。这些政策没有说明如何评估资料,也没有说明为什么在确定阿尔巴尼亚和科索沃一般不存在迫害时,资料受到很大的重视。对荷兰和英国上合组织政策的分析得出了一个重要结论,即在决策者和政策制定者层面上,证据评估的证据评估还有很大的改进空间,特别是在证据评估的透明度方面。欧洲联盟应考虑在具有约束力的欧盟立法中采用COI质量标准,这将为COI的共同和系统方法提供适当的基础,从而真正改善庇护决策的趋同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Presumption of Safety Tested: The Use of Country of Origin Information in the National Designation of Safe Countries of Origin
The article examines the process of evidentiary assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI) by policy-makers. It particularly focuses on the evidentiary assessment of COI by the UK and the Netherlands in their decisions to designate Albania and Kosovo as Safe Countries of Origin (SCO). The article assesses the COI standards laid down in the European Asylum Support Office’s (EASO) Country of Origin Information Report Methodology, and whether, and how, these standards are applied by the UK and the Netherlands. The analysis shows that the UK and the Netherlands have in practice not given proper meaning to the standards in the EASO methodology. As a result, the Dutch and UK SCO policies on Albania and Kosovo lack a common and systematic approach to COI. The policies fail to show how information was assessed and why substantial weight was attached to information in the determination that there is in general no persecution in Albania and Kosovo. The analysis of the Dutch and UK SCO policies leads to the important conclusion that there is much room for the improvement of evidentiary assessment of COI at the level of the decision-maker and policy-maker, especially, with regard to the transparent presentation of the evidentiary assessment. The European Union should consider the adoption of the COI quality standards in binding EU legislation that would provide the proper basis for a common and systematic approach to COI that can truly improve convergence in asylum 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
Refugee Survey Quarterly
Refugee Survey Quarterly Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Refugee Survey Quarterly is published four times a year and serves as an authoritative source on current refugee and international protection issues. Each issue contains a selection of articles and documents on a specific theme, as well as book reviews on refugee-related literature. With this distinctive thematic approach, the journal crosses in each issue the entire range of refugee research on a particular key challenge to forced migration. The journal seeks to act as a link between scholars and practitioners by highlighting the evolving nature of refugee protection as reflected in the practice of UNHCR and other major actors in the field.
×
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