By Anthony Good
Even though asylum has generated remarkable degrees of public and political quandary over the last decade, there was astonishingly little box study at the subject. this can be a examine of the felony means of claiming asylum from an anthropological point of view, targeting the position of specialist proof from 'country specialists' corresponding to anthropologists. It describes how such proof is utilized in checks of asylum claims via the house place of work and through adjudicators and tribunals listening to asylum appeals. It compares makes use of of social clinical and scientific proof in felony decision-making and analyzes, anthropologically, the felony makes use of of key options from the 1951 Refugee conference, similar to 'race', 'religion', and 'social group'. The facts is drawn from box remark of greater than three hundred attraction hearings in London and Glasgow; from said case legislation and from interviews with immigration adjudicators, tribunal chairs, barristers and solicitors, in addition to professional witnesses.
Read or Download Anthropology and Expertise in the Asylum Courts (Glasshouse) PDF
Best anthropology books
The tip of human background is an occasion that has been foreseen or introduced by way of either messianics and dialecticians. yet who's the protagonist of that background that's coming—or has come—to a detailed? what's guy? How did he come at the scene? and the way has he maintained his privileged position because the grasp of, or first between, the animals?
Père de l’anthropologie française, auteur de réflexions pionnières sur l. a. faith, los angeles magie, l’imaginaire,les sociétés tribales, le don et le contre-don, Marcel Mauss a marqué de son empreinte l’ensemble dessciences sociales, et influencé des penseurs aussi différents que Claude Lévi-Strauss, Pierre Bourdieu,Michel Foucault ou Michel Maffesoli.
If far off peoples have diverse rules from our personal, is that this simply because they've got varied mentalities? Did our distant ancestors lack good judgment? The proposal of specified mentalities has been used commonly by way of historians to explain and clarify cultural variety. Professor Lloyd rejects this psychologising speak of mentalities and proposes an alternate technique, which takes as its start line the social contexts of communique.
- Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology
- A Companion to Translation Studies (2007) (Topics in Translation)
- Von Seelenrätseln. Anthropologie und Anthroposophie.
- Hound Pound Narrative: Sexual Offender Habilitation and the Anthropology of Therapeutic Intervention
Extra resources for Anthropology and Expertise in the Asylum Courts (Glasshouse)
Refusal Letters never speak outright of ‘torture’; the closest they ever get, even in extreme cases like this, is ‘ill-treatment’ (Asylum Aid 1999: 55). Legally, there is, in fact, a diﬀerence between the two: torture entails the deliberate inﬂicting of ‘severe physical or mental pain or suﬀering’ for a speciﬁc purpose, such as information-gathering or intimidation; whereas ill-treatment involves ‘intentional exposure to signiﬁcant mental or physical pain or suﬀering’. 1 Mr Y’s treatment was judged not to constitute persecution.
Consequently, according to the information available to IND at the time, the basis of her claim was that she had been detained for one month and interrogated. As she admitted having assisted the LTTE, such questioning was deemed justiﬁable in the context of widespread ethnic conﬂict in Sri Lanka, and not to amount to persecution. Among other things, my report had to account for her earlier reticence by explaining Tamil ideas and practices concerning kinship, sexuality, and purity. That refusal was therefore far less astounding than Mr Y’s ‘Reasons for Refusal Letter’ from IND, which reduced his story to ‘your claim that you had been arrested, detained and ill-treated ’ (my emphasis).
Tagged to deﬁnitions of social relationships’ (1990: 113), is clearly very similar to their relational orientation, while her ‘legal discourse’ resembles their rule orientation in being ‘a discourse of property, of rights . . of entitlement, of facts and truth’ (1990: 112). Her concern is almost entirely with how discourses are used by lay litigants rather than legal practitioners. Thus, her legal discourse ‘does not refer to particular laws or legal doctrines but to folk understandings of legal relations and procedures’ (1990: 112–13; italics added).