Legal Geographies of Immigration Bail: Space, Time & Remote Hearings

移民保释的法律地理：空间、时间

• 批准号: 2073529
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2073529
• 关键词: Legal; Geographies; Immigration; Bail; Space

There are significant spatial variations in how immigration law is applied both across Europe and within European countries. At the European level, fundamental differences exist between states both in the formal procedures used to determine refugee claims and the way that laws are implemented in practice (Gill & Good 2018). In countries such as Britain, immigration courts differ markedly according to the rate of success of appellants, the availability of legal representation, and the cultures within courts (Gill et al 2018; Burridge & Gill 2017). These differences mean that refugee determination is at least partly a matter of luck rather than justice, with potentially dire consequences for the unlucky ones.National and European laws conceal these differences because they conceive of, and promulgate, abstract understandings of legal jurisdictions as internally coherent and spatially homogeneous. For example, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)- the main piece of legislation at the European level that governs refugee claim determination - holds that there is no legally relevant difference between having your claim for asylum determined in Greece, Bulgaria, Sweden or France, despite the differences in success rates, legal procedures and socio-economic circumstances between these countries (Gill & Good 2018).Legal geography is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field, which produces 'work of practical policy relevance as well as speaking truth to power' (Bartel et al 2013:349). To date, however, a systematic legal geographical analysis of immigration law has not been carried out. This research project seeks to fill this gap, asking:1. How is space imagined in UK and EU immigration law?2. To what extent, and how, does immigration law and practice vary across space in the UK and in the EU?3. What are the causes and consequences for appellants of these variations: in particular in relation to access to justice?Methodology entails ethnography and interviews. Two case studies will be adopted to explore the relationship between immigration law and space: British and Bulgarian asylum determination systems. The British Courts and Tribunals Service is undergoing a globally unprecedented modernisation. A central element of this modernisation is the introduction of digital technology in supporting legal processes. Yet despite this increasing use of video-link technology in the UK justice system, Gibbs (2017:4) highlights a 'dearth of research' into its impact. Ethnographic observations of physical and virtual hearings, alongside interviews with legal practitioners and appellants throughout the UK, will uncover the consequences of this profound mutation in the lawscape of British tribunals for asylum law.At the European level, the CEAS was heavily modified in 2015 at the height of the so-called 'refugee crisis'. One source of innovations concerns the so-called 'Dublin' agreement, which allows for the legal deportation of asylum claimants to Europe's fringes, on the basis that legal procedures are comparable anywhere across Europe. While most fringe countries do not allow the public access to asylum appeals, Bulgaria stands out in allowing the public to observe its appeal system. An ethnography of the Bulgarian asylum appeal system in comparison to the British system will allow the candidate to explore the extent to which the quality of legal procedure is independent of its location across Europe.To facilitate the Bulgarian fieldwork the Jo will spend a period of time - we expect four months - in Bulgaria regularly observing asylum appeals from the public area of the court. She will require overseas expenses to complete this section of the research, as well as training in Bulgarian.

在欧洲和欧洲国家中，如何应用移民法的方式存在很大的空间差异。在欧洲一级，各州之间存在基本差异，这两者都在确定难民主张的正式程序中以及实践中实施法律的方式（Gill＆Good 2018）。在英国等国家，移民法院根据上诉人的成功率，法律代表的可用性以及法院内的文化明显差异（Gill等人，2018年； Burridge＆Gill 2017）。这些差异意味着难民的裁决至少部分是运气的问题，而不是正义，对不幸的人带来了可怕的后果。国家和欧洲法律掩盖了这些差异，因为它们认为和颁布了对内部法律管辖权的抽象理解，并在空间上均匀。例如，普通欧洲庇护制度（CEAS） - 欧洲一级的主要立法，负责难民索赔决定 - 认为在希腊，保加利亚，瑞典或法国确定庇护所要求的庇护之间没有法律上的差异，尽管这些国家之间的成功率，法律程序和社会经济环境的差异（Gill＆Good 2018）。法律地理是一个快速发展的跨学科领域，该领域产生了“实用政策相关性以及对权力的说法”的工作' （Bartel等人2013：349）。但是，迄今为止，尚未对移民法进行系统的法律地理分析。该研究项目旨在填补这一空白，询问：1。英国和欧盟移民法中如何想象太空？2。移民法和实践在多大程度上以及如何在英国和欧盟的空间中有所不同？3。这些变体的上诉人的原因和后果是什么：特别是与司法有关？方法论需要民族志和访谈。将采用两项案例研究来探索移民法与空间之间的关系：英国和保加利亚庇护确定系统。英国法院和法庭服务部正在接受全球前所未有的现代化。这种现代化的一个核心要素是在支持法律流程方面引入了数字技术。尽管在英国司法系统中越来越多地使用视频链接技术，但吉布斯（Gibbs）（2017：4）还是强调了其影响力的“缺乏研究”。民族志观察对身体和虚拟听证会的观察，以及对整个英国的法律从业者和上诉人的访谈，将揭示英国法庭法律对庇护法律法律景观中这种深刻突变的后果。所谓的“难民危机”的高度。创新的一种来源是涉及所谓的“都柏林”协议，该协议允许在欧洲任何地方的法律程序相提并论的基础上，将庇护索赔人的法律驱逐出境。尽管大多数边缘国家不允许公众获得庇护上诉，但保加利亚在允许公众观察其上诉制度方面脱颖而出。与英国制度相比，保加利亚庇护上诉制度的民族志将使候选人能够探索法律程序质量在多大程度上与整个欧洲的位置无关。 - 我们预计四个月 - 在保加利亚定期观察法院公共区域的庇护上诉。她将需要海外支出来完成这一研究，以及在保加利亚人的培训。