Migration, Recognition, and Critical Theory
Abstract: Using examples drawn from gender-based asylum cases, this chapter examines how far recognition theory (RT) and discourse theory (DT) can guide social criticism of the judicial processing of women’s applications for protection under the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and subsequent protocols and guidelines put forward by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I argue that these theories can guide social criticism only when combined with other ethical approaches. In addition to humanitarian and human rights law, these theories must rely upon ideas drawn from distributive, compensatory, and epistemic justice. Drawing from recent literature on epistemic injustice, this chapter shows how DT and RT illuminate the failure of asylum courts to respect the credibility of women’s testimony and understand their trauma. I argue that the institutional privileges accorded to asylum boards and the interpretative frameworks available within immigration law impose a burden of proof on women asylum applicants that they cannot meet. I maintain that this burden of proof is unjust because it violates the implicit discursive procedures of argumentative fairness and, in addition, disrespects women as privileged witnesses to their own criminal victimization. I conclude that this injustice need not reflect an irremediable tension between competing epistemic and hermeneutical standpoints.
Ingram, David. What and Ethics of Discourse and Recognition Can Contribute to a Critical Theory of Refugee Claim Adjudication: Reclaiming Epistemic Justice for Gender-Based Asylum Cases. Migration, Recognition, and Critical Theory, , : 19-46, 2021. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Philosophy: Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72732-1
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
© 2021, Springer
Available for download on Saturday, July 08, 2023
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International and Intercultural Communication Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Migration Studies Commons, Philosophy Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, Social Justice Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, Sociology of Culture Commons, Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons