EVIDENCE IN EUROPEAN ASYLUM PROCEDURESPDF电子书下载

Ⅰ. Introduction 1

1. To Begin With 1

1.1. To Grasp Realities 1

1.2. Frameworks 2

2. The Question at Hand 3

2.1. Evidence in European Asylum Procedures and Aims for the Study 3

2.2. Frames 6

2.3. Context 7

2.4. Definitions and Meanings 9

3. Means and Methods 10

3.1. Methodological Choices 10

3.2. Use of Comparative Method 12

3.3. Materials 16

Ⅱ. Substantive Framework for the Study 19

1. Refugee Status Determination 19

1.1. Definitions of Refugeehood 19

1.2. Asylum 21

1.3. Subsidiary Protection 24

2. Refugee Status Determination in National Procedures 25

3. The Common European Asylum System 27

3.1. Background to the Common European Asylum System 27

3.2. Relevant Legislation 28

3.2.1. General Framework 29

3.2.2. Secondary Legislation 33

4. Asylum in Context 34

Ⅲ. Asylum and Evidence 35

1. Evidentiary Framework for the Study 35

1.1. What Is Assessment of Evidence? 35

1.2. Questions of Interest and Debatable Solutions 36

1.3. Evidence in Administrative Context 37

2. Evidence in Asylum Procedure 42

2.1. The Role of Evidence in Asylum Procedure 42

2.2. Particular Evidentiary Features 43

2.2.1. High Stakes and Vested Interests 43

2.2.2. Position of Parties in Appellate Asylum Procedure 44

2.2.3. Prognostic Decision 45

2.2.4. Forms of Evidence 46

2.2.5. Confidential Evidence 49

3. Evidence in EU Asylum Law 50

3.1. General Principles of EU Law 50

3.2. The Qualification Directive and Evidence 54

3.3. The Asylum Procedures Directive and Evidence 60

Ⅳ. Evidence in the European Appellate Asylum Procedure 65

1. Aim and Method 65

2. Theme of Proof 67

3. Burden of Proof 69

3.1. Definition 69

3.2. Normative Frames for the Burden of Proof in European Asylum Procedures 71

3.3. Burden of Proof in an Appellate European Asylum Procedure 73

4. Evidentiary Robustness 76

4.1. Definition of Concepts 76

4.2. Development of Concepts in Appellate Administrative Procedures 78

4.3. Normative Frames for Evidentiary Robustness in European Asylum Procedures 82

4.4. Evidentiary Robustness in an Appellate European Asylum Procedure 84

5. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 87

5.1. Definition of Concept 87

5.2. Choice of Method 88

5.3. Normative Frames for the Choice of Method for Evidentiary Assessment 91

5.4. Method of Evidentiary Assessment in an Appellate European Asylum Procedure 92

5.5. Credibility Assessment as an Integral Part of Assessing Evidence 94

6. Standard of Proof 96

6.1. Definition 96

6.2. Establishing the Standard of Proof 98

6.3. Normative Frames for Standard of Proof in European Asylum Procedures 99

6.4. Standard of Proof in an Appellate European Asylum Procedure 101

7. Evidence As a Procedural Instrument in Asylum Procedure 105

Ⅴ. Use of Evidence in German Appellate Asylum Procedure 107

1. Aims, Method and Material 107

2. Frameworks of German Asylum Procedure 108

2.1. General Framework 108

2.1.1. World War II and German Asylum Procedure 109

2.1.2. Germany and Europe 111

2.2. Legal Framework for German Asylum Procedure 112

2.2.1. Definitions and Eligibility 112

2.2.2. General Procedural Framework 114

2.2.3. Particular Procedural Frameworks 115

2.3. Institutional Framework and Judicial Review 115

2.3.1. Institutional Framework 115

2.3.2. Judicial Review of Asylum Decisions 117

3. Salient Features of German Asylum Procedure 119

3.1. Responsibility for Establishing Facts 119

3.2. National Environment 120

3.3. Procedural Efficiency and the Motion to Take Evidence (Beweisantrag) 122

4. Evidence in German Appellate Asylum Procedure 123

4.1. Burden of Proof 124

4.2. Evidentiary Robustness 127

4.2.1. Quantitative Robustness 128

4.2.2. Qualitative Robustness 131

4.3. Standard of Proof 134

4.4. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 139

5. Conclusions 141

Ⅵ. Evidence in Finnish Appellate Asylum Procedure 143

1. Aims and Method 143

2. Frameworks of Finnish Asylum Procedure 144

2.1. Legislative Framework 144

2.1.1. General Administrative Framework 145

2.1.2. Special Legislation 146

2.2. Institutional Framework 147

2.3.1. Historical Development and Present Status 148

2.2.2. Current Structure of the Procedure 148

3. Salient Features of Finnish Asylum Procedure 151

3.1. Institutional Solutions 151

3.2. Low Levels of Applications 152

4. Evidence in Finnish Appellate Asylum Procedure 154

4.1. Burden of Proof 155

4.2. Evidentiary Robustness 159

4.3. Standard of Proof 166

4.4. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 168

5. Conclusions 171

Ⅶ. Evidence in English Appellate Asylum Procedure 173

1. Aims and Method 173

2. Frameworks for English Asylum Procedure 174

2.1. Defining Frameworks and History 174

2.2. Institutional Framework 177

2.3. The Nature of Tribunal Justice 179

2.4. Legislative Framework 180

3. Salient Features of English Asylum Procedure 181

3.1. Argumentative Justice 181

3.2. Adversarial Procedures 183

3.3. The Parties to the Procedure 184

3.3.1. The Home Office 185

3.3.2. The Appellant 185

3.4. Judicial Openness 186

4. Evidence in English Appellate Asylum Procedure 188

4.1. Burden of Proof 188

4.2. Evidentiary Robustness 190

4.2.1. Robustness and Adversarial Justice 190

4.2.2. Quantitative Robustness 195

4.2.3. Qualitative Robustness 196

4.3. Standard of Proof 198

4.4. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 200

5. Conclusions 204

Ⅷ. Comparison of Evidentiary Standards 205

1. Introduction 205

2. Burden of Proof 205

3. Evidentiary Robustness 210

4. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 217

4.1. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 217

4.2. Practical Assessment of Evidence 218

5. Standard of Proof 221

6. The Role of International Refugee Law in Forming National Evidentiary tandards 224

7. The Role of EU Law in Forming National Evidentiary Standards 228

8. The Role of National Traditions in Forming National Evidentiary Standards 235

9. Conclusions 241

Ⅸ Harmonisation of Procedures in the Common European Asylum System 243

1. Outsets 243

1.1. Aims and Competence 243

1.2. From Here 249

1.3. ... To There 251

1.3.1. Burden of Proof 251

1.3.2. Evidentiary Robustness 252

1.3.3. Methods of Evidentiary Assessment 254

1.3.4. Standard of Proof 255

2. Working Towards Commonality 256

2.1. The Limits of Legal Approximation 256

2.2. Means of Convergence 257

3. Conclusions 261

Ⅹ. Evidence in European Appellate Asylum Procedure 263

1. The Goal of Commonality 263

2. Evidence in the National Framework 264

3. Evidence in Common European Asylum Procedure 265

Annex Ⅰ 269

Bibliography 271

Index 289