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.

欧洲各地以及欧洲国家内部移民法的适用方式存在显着的空间差异。在欧洲层面，各国之间在确定难民申请的正式程序以及法律在实践中的实施方式方面都存在根本差异（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而存在显着差异（Gill et al 2018；Burridge & Gill 2017）。这些差异意味着难民的确定至少在一定程度上是运气问题，而不是正义问题，对不幸的人来说可能会带来可怕的后果。国家和欧洲法律掩盖了这些差异，因为它们将法律管辖权的抽象理解构想并颁布为内部一致和空间同质的。例如，欧洲共同庇护制度（CEAS）——欧洲层面管理难民申请确定的主要立法——认为在希腊、保加利亚、瑞典或法国确定庇护申请之间不存在法律上的相关差异，尽管这些国家之间的成功率、法律程序和社会经济环境存在差异（Gill & Good 2018）。 法律地理学是一门快速发展的跨学科 该领域产生了“与实际政策相关的作品以及对权力说真话的作品”（Bartel et al 2013：349）。然而，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，要求：1。英国和欧盟移民法中的空间是如何想象的？2.英国和欧盟的移民法和实践在多大程度上以及如何存在差异？3。这些变化对上诉人来说的原因和后果是什么：特别是在诉诸司法方面？方法论需要民族志和访谈。将通过两个案例研究来探讨移民法与空间之间的关系：英国和保加利亚的庇护确定系统。英国法院和法庭服务正在经历全球前所未有的现代化。这种现代化的核心要素是引入数字技术来支持法律程序。然而，尽管英国司法系统越来越多地使用视频链接技术，吉布斯（2017：4）强调对其影响“缺乏研究”。对现场和虚拟听证会的人种学观察，以及对英国各地法律从业者和上诉人的采访，将揭示英国庇护法法庭法律格局发生深刻变化的后果。 在欧洲层面，CEAS 在 2015 年所谓“难民危机”最严重的时期进行了重大修改。创新的来源之一是所谓的“都柏林”协议，该协议允许将庇护申请人合法驱逐到欧洲边缘地区，其基础是欧洲任何地方的法律程序都具有可比性。虽然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遵守其上诉制度方面脱颖而出。对保加利亚庇护上诉制度与英国制度进行比较的人种学将使候选人能够探索法律程序的质量在多大程度上独立于其在欧洲各地的位置。为了促进保加利亚的实地工作，乔将花一段时间——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。她将需要海外费用来完成这部分的研究，以及保加利亚语的培训。