The protection paradox: Why hasn't the arrival of new media transformed refugee status Determination?

Rosemary Byrne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The arrival of new media and communications technology has given rise to a protection paradox for refugees. In principle, it should enhance protection for asylum seekers by developing a more informed RSD process. Instead, it can be argued to have decreased protection for some, as the omnipresence of electronic information is accompanied by a demand in domestic asylum systems for increasingly detailed corroborative evidence to support the particulars of individual claims which many asylum seekers are ill equipped to provide, and that decision makers are disinclined, or insufficiently trained, to assess. In exploring the underlying dynamics of this paradox, this article examines the intersection between new media and the evidentiary regime for refugee protection that is gradually developing in lieu of a dramatic transformation of RSD. It argues that the democratization of human rights documentation and the arrival of new technologies and actors gives rise to novel forms of evidence and a different type of asylum seeker, introducing electronic evidence (e evidence) and the electronic dissident (e dissident) into RSD. The implications of e evidence and e dissidence for RSD include: an emerging duty to corroborate e documentation in protection cases; a need to consider the effect of the cyberactivity by decision makers (the 'googling judge') and asylum claimants outside of the RSD process, on disclosure and the admission of evidence within the assessment process; and, the knowledge to evaluate the risk of e dissidence and the changing features of sur place claims in the era of instant on-line dissent. The protection paradox could be diminished when the potential of new media to transform RSD is realized by realigning the approach to e evidence in the asylum process with the advanced practices developed across human rights sectors in the creation, filtering, assessment, and preservation of e evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)625-648
Number of pages24
JournalInternational Journal of Refugee Law
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

refugee
new media
asylum seeker
electronics
evidence
human rights
documentation
decision maker
democratization
dissident
transform
new technology
communication technology
communication
regime
demand

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Demography
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Law

Cite this

The protection paradox : Why hasn't the arrival of new media transformed refugee status Determination? / Byrne, Rosemary.

In: International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, 01.12.2015, p. 625-648.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{03eba51dcd214a799fcfbd84a6b2d706,
title = "The protection paradox: Why hasn't the arrival of new media transformed refugee status Determination?",
abstract = "The arrival of new media and communications technology has given rise to a protection paradox for refugees. In principle, it should enhance protection for asylum seekers by developing a more informed RSD process. Instead, it can be argued to have decreased protection for some, as the omnipresence of electronic information is accompanied by a demand in domestic asylum systems for increasingly detailed corroborative evidence to support the particulars of individual claims which many asylum seekers are ill equipped to provide, and that decision makers are disinclined, or insufficiently trained, to assess. In exploring the underlying dynamics of this paradox, this article examines the intersection between new media and the evidentiary regime for refugee protection that is gradually developing in lieu of a dramatic transformation of RSD. It argues that the democratization of human rights documentation and the arrival of new technologies and actors gives rise to novel forms of evidence and a different type of asylum seeker, introducing electronic evidence (e evidence) and the electronic dissident (e dissident) into RSD. The implications of e evidence and e dissidence for RSD include: an emerging duty to corroborate e documentation in protection cases; a need to consider the effect of the cyberactivity by decision makers (the 'googling judge') and asylum claimants outside of the RSD process, on disclosure and the admission of evidence within the assessment process; and, the knowledge to evaluate the risk of e dissidence and the changing features of sur place claims in the era of instant on-line dissent. The protection paradox could be diminished when the potential of new media to transform RSD is realized by realigning the approach to e evidence in the asylum process with the advanced practices developed across human rights sectors in the creation, filtering, assessment, and preservation of e evidence.",
author = "Rosemary Byrne",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ijrl/eev048",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "625--648",
journal = "International Journal of Refugee Law",
issn = "0953-8186",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The protection paradox

T2 - Why hasn't the arrival of new media transformed refugee status Determination?

AU - Byrne, Rosemary

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - The arrival of new media and communications technology has given rise to a protection paradox for refugees. In principle, it should enhance protection for asylum seekers by developing a more informed RSD process. Instead, it can be argued to have decreased protection for some, as the omnipresence of electronic information is accompanied by a demand in domestic asylum systems for increasingly detailed corroborative evidence to support the particulars of individual claims which many asylum seekers are ill equipped to provide, and that decision makers are disinclined, or insufficiently trained, to assess. In exploring the underlying dynamics of this paradox, this article examines the intersection between new media and the evidentiary regime for refugee protection that is gradually developing in lieu of a dramatic transformation of RSD. It argues that the democratization of human rights documentation and the arrival of new technologies and actors gives rise to novel forms of evidence and a different type of asylum seeker, introducing electronic evidence (e evidence) and the electronic dissident (e dissident) into RSD. The implications of e evidence and e dissidence for RSD include: an emerging duty to corroborate e documentation in protection cases; a need to consider the effect of the cyberactivity by decision makers (the 'googling judge') and asylum claimants outside of the RSD process, on disclosure and the admission of evidence within the assessment process; and, the knowledge to evaluate the risk of e dissidence and the changing features of sur place claims in the era of instant on-line dissent. The protection paradox could be diminished when the potential of new media to transform RSD is realized by realigning the approach to e evidence in the asylum process with the advanced practices developed across human rights sectors in the creation, filtering, assessment, and preservation of e evidence.

AB - The arrival of new media and communications technology has given rise to a protection paradox for refugees. In principle, it should enhance protection for asylum seekers by developing a more informed RSD process. Instead, it can be argued to have decreased protection for some, as the omnipresence of electronic information is accompanied by a demand in domestic asylum systems for increasingly detailed corroborative evidence to support the particulars of individual claims which many asylum seekers are ill equipped to provide, and that decision makers are disinclined, or insufficiently trained, to assess. In exploring the underlying dynamics of this paradox, this article examines the intersection between new media and the evidentiary regime for refugee protection that is gradually developing in lieu of a dramatic transformation of RSD. It argues that the democratization of human rights documentation and the arrival of new technologies and actors gives rise to novel forms of evidence and a different type of asylum seeker, introducing electronic evidence (e evidence) and the electronic dissident (e dissident) into RSD. The implications of e evidence and e dissidence for RSD include: an emerging duty to corroborate e documentation in protection cases; a need to consider the effect of the cyberactivity by decision makers (the 'googling judge') and asylum claimants outside of the RSD process, on disclosure and the admission of evidence within the assessment process; and, the knowledge to evaluate the risk of e dissidence and the changing features of sur place claims in the era of instant on-line dissent. The protection paradox could be diminished when the potential of new media to transform RSD is realized by realigning the approach to e evidence in the asylum process with the advanced practices developed across human rights sectors in the creation, filtering, assessment, and preservation of e evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950105263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84950105263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ijrl/eev048

DO - 10.1093/ijrl/eev048

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84950105263

VL - 27

SP - 625

EP - 648

JO - International Journal of Refugee Law

JF - International Journal of Refugee Law

SN - 0953-8186

IS - 4

ER -