Why courts are the life buoys of migrant rights: anti-immigrant pressure, variation in judicial independence, and asylum recognition rates

References

• Abalı, O. S. (2009). German public opinion on immigration and integration. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-GermanPublicOpinion.pdf
   Google Scholar
• AIDA. (2020). Asylum authorities. An overview of internal structures and available resources. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/aida_asylum_authorities_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alonso, S., & Claro da Fonseca, S. (2012). Immigration, left and right. Party Politics, 18(6), 865–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810393265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelidis, D. (2016). Erotimata gia tin apofasi gia paradekto aitima asyloy. https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/dikaiomata/69592_erotimata-gia-tin-apofasi-gia-paradekto-aitima-asyloy
   Google Scholar
• Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayrischer Rundfunk. (2020). “Wir schaffen das” und die Folgen für das BAMF. https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/wir-schaffen-das-und-die-folgen-fuers-bamf,S9F0rrD
   Google Scholar
• Blauberger, M., & Kelemen, R. D. (2017). Can courts rescue national democracy? Judicial safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1229357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breeze, R. (2018). “Enemies of the people”: populist performances in The Daily Mail reporting of the article 50 case. Discourse, Context & Media, 25, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burbank, S. B., Friedman, B., & Goldberg, D. (1995). Reconsidering judicial independence. In S. B. Burbank & B. Friedman (Eds.), Judicial independence at the crossroads (pp. 3–42). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. R. (2020). The role of lawyers, judges, country experts and officials in British asylum and immigration law. International Journal of Law in Context, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552320000038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp Keith, L., & Holmes, J. S. (2009). A rare examination of typically unobservable factors in US asylum decisions. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fep008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp Keith, L., Holmes, J. S., & Miller, B. P. (2013). Explaining the divergence in asylum grant rates among immigration judges: An attitudinal and cognitive approach. Law & Policy, 35(4), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, T. S. (2011). The limits of judicial independence. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M. S., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S. E., Staton, J., … Ziblatt, D. (2020a). V-Dem dataset v10” varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds20
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M. S., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S. E., Staton, J., … Ziblatt, D. (2020b). V-Dem codebook v10 varieties of democracy (V-Dem). https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/28/14/28140582-43d6-4940-948f-a2df84a31893/v-dem_codebook_v10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Crock, M. (2009). Judging refugees: The clash of power and institutions in the development of Australian refugee law. Sidney Law Review, 61(9), 51–73.
   Google Scholar
• DEMIG. (2015). DEMIC POLICY. version 1.3, Online Edition. Oxford: International Migration Institute. University of Oxford, https://www.migrationdeterminants.eu
   Google Scholar
• ECRE. (2019, April 5). Germany: Data on decision-making reveals BAMF short-comings. https://www.ecre.org/germany-data-on-decision-making-reveals-bamf-shortcomings/
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, R. D. (2004). Judicial activism and the threat to democracy. UNBLJ, 53, 199.
   Google Scholar
• Engelmann, C. (2014). Convergence against the odds: The development of safe country of origin policies in EU member states (1990–2013). European Journal of Migration and Law, 16(2), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12342056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012a). Eurobarometer 57.2OVR (Apr-Jun 2002). European Opinion Research Group (EORG), Brussels. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3641 Data file Version 1.0.1. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10951
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012b). Eurobarometer 62.0 (Oct-Nov 2004). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4229 Data file Version 1.1.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10962
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012c). Eurobarometer 66.2 (Oct-Nov 2006). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4527 Data file Version 1.0.1. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10981
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012d). Eurobarometer 70.1 (Oct-Nov 2008). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4819 Data file Version 3.0.2. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10989
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2013). Eurobarometer 74.2 (2010). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5449 Data file Version 2.2.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11626
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015). Eurobarometer 78.1 (2012). TNS opinion, Brussels [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5685 Data file Version 2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12061
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018). Eurobarometer 82.3 (2014). TNS opinion, Brussels [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5932 Data file Version 3.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13021
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019). Eurobarometer 90.3 (2018). Kantar Public [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7489 Data file Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13254
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020). Eurobarometer 86.2 (2016). TNS opinion, Brussels [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6788 Data file Version 1.5.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13467
   Google Scholar
• European Social Survey. (2016). Cumulative File. ESS 1-8. Data file edition 1.0. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC
   Google Scholar
• European Social Survey. (2018). Round 9 data. Data file edition 2.0. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2020a). First instance decisions on asylum applications by type of decision – annual data (tps00192). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/table?lang=en
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2020b). Final decisions on asylum applications – annual data (tps00193). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00193/default/table?lang=en
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, O. M. (1993). The limits of judicial independence. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 25(1), 57–76.
   Google Scholar
• Freedom House. (2020). Freedom in the world.
   Google Scholar
• Gibney, M., Cornett, L., Wood, R., Haschke, P., Arnon, D., & Pisanò, A. (2019). The political terror scale 1976-2018. http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/
   Google Scholar
• Hamlin, R. (2012). International law and administrative insulation: A comparison of refugee status determination regimes in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(4), 933–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamlin, R. (2014). Let me be a refugee: Administrative justice and the politics of asylum in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatton, T. J. (2017). Public opinion on immigration in Europe: Preference versus salience. Centre of Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper 12084.
   Google Scholar
• Helbling, M., Bjerre, L., Römer, F., & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: The IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollifield, J. (1992). Immigrants, markets and states: The political economy of post-war Europe. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holzer, T., & Schneider, G. (2002). Asylpolitik auf Abwegen: Nationalstaatliche und europäische Reaktionen auf die Globalisierung der Flüchtlingsströme. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Holzer, T., Schneider, G., & Widmer, T. (2000). Discriminating decentralization: Federalism and the handling of asylum applications in Switzerland, 1988-1996. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(2), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002700044002005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, W. (2009). The public thermostat, political responsiveness and error-correction: Border control and asylum in Britain, 1994-2007. British Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340900074X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson, L. (2018). Exploring the “Liberal Paradox” from the inside: Evidence from the Swedish Migration Courts. International Migration Review, 52(4), 1162–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318767928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joppke, C. (2001). The legal-domestic sources of immigrants rights: The United States, Germany and the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 34(4), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawar, L. (2015). Contesting immigration policy in court: Legal activism and its radiating effects in the United States and France. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of ‘judicial activism’. California Law Review, 92(5), 1441–1477. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollman, K., Hicken, A., Caramani, D., Backer, D., & Lublin, D. (2020). Constituency-Level Elections Archive (CLEA), https://www.electiondataarchive.org/data-and-documentation.php
   Google Scholar
• Koopmans, R. (1996). Explaining the rise of racist and extreme right violence in Western Europe: grievances or opportunities? European Journal of Political Research, 30(2), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1996.tb00674.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (1999). ‘Ethnic and civic conceptions of nationhood and the differential success of the extreme right in Germany and Italy’. In M. G. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 225–251). University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kornhauser, L. A. (2002). ‘Is judicial independence a useful concept?’. In S. B. Burbank, & B. Friedman (Eds.), Judicial independence at the crossroads. An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 45–55). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kovács, K., & Scheppele, K. L. (2018). The fragility of an independent judiciary: Lessons from Hungary and Poland—and the European Union. Communist and Postcommunist Studies, 51(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2018.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacey, N. (2019). Populism and the Rule of Law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042919
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, M., Gurr, T. R., & Harff, B. (2019). State failure problem set. University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Minkenberg, M. (1998). Context and consequence: The impact of the new radical right on the political process in France and Germany. German Politics and Society, 16(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3167/104503098782487095
   Google Scholar
• Neumayer, E. (2005). Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe: Their determinants, variation, and lack of convergence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002704271057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrov, J. (2021). (De-)judicialization of politics in the era of populism: Lessons from central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(7), 1181–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1931138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson, T., Högbladh, S., & Öberg, M. (2020). Organized violence, 1989–2018 and peace agreements. Journal of Peace Research, 56(4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319856046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendergast, D. (2019). The judicial role in protecting democracy from populism. German Law Journal, 20(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.15
   Google Scholar
• Przybylski, W. (2018). Explaining Eastern Europe: Can Poland’s backsliding be stopped? Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A. I., & Schrag, P. G. (2011). Refugee roulette: Disparities in asylum adjudication and proposal for reform. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ríos-Figueroa, J., & Staton, J. (2014). An evaluation of cross-national measures of judicial independence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 30(1), 104–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ews029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenblum, M. R., & Salehyan, I. (2004). Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement. Journal of Peace Research, 41(6), 677–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304047432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rottman, A. J., Fariss, C. J., & Poe, S. C. (2009). The path to asylum in the US and the determinants for who gets in and why. International Migration Review, 43(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.01145.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehyan, I., & Rosenblum, M. R. (2008). International relations, domestic politics, and asylum admissions in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907306468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scartascini, C., Cruz, C., & Keefer, P. (2018). The Database on Political Institutions 2017 (DPI 2017). https://doi.org/10.18235/0001027
   Google Scholar
• Scheppele, K. L. (2002). ‘Declarations of independence: Judicial reactions to political pressure’. In S. B. Burbank & B. Friedman (Eds.), Judicial independence at the crossroads. An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 227–270). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, G., Segadlo, N., & Leue, M. (2020). Forty-eight shades of Germany: Positive and negative discrimination in federal asylum decision making. German Politics, 29(4), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2019.1707810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, K., & Waite, L. (2019). New and enduring narratives of vulnerability: Rethinking stories about the figure of the refugee. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(13), 2289–2307. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1496816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spirig, J. (2021). When issue salience affects adjudication: Evidence from Swiss asylum appeal decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spriggs, J. F. (1996). The Supreme Court and federal administrative agencies: A resource-based theory and analysis of judicial impact. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1122–1151. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitelbaum, M. S. (1984). Immigration, refugees, and foreign policy. International Organization, 38(3), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielemann, E., & Hobolth, M. (2016). Trading numbers vs. Rights? Accounting for liberal and restrictive dynamics in the evolution of asylum and refugee policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(4), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1102042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielemann, E., & Zaun, N. (2018). Escaping populism – safeguarding minority rights: Non-majoritarian dynamics in European policy-making. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(4), 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thränhardt, D., & Miles, R. (1995). Introduction: European integration, migration and processes of inclusion and exclusion. In R. Miles & D. Thränhardt (Eds.), Migration and integration: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion (pp. xv–xxvii). Pinter Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Toshkov, D. (2014). The dynamic relationship between asylum applications and recognition rates in Europe (1987–2010). European Union Politics, 15(2), 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116513511710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanberg, G. (2000). Establishing judicial independence in West Germany: The impact of opinion leadership and the separation of powers. Comparative Politics, 32(3), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.2307/422370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanberg, G. (2015). Constitutional courts in comparative perspective: A theoretical assessment. Annual Review of Political Science, 18(1), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150
   Google Scholar
• Winn, M. (2021). The far-right and asylum outcomes: Assessing the impact of far-right politics on asylum decisions in Europe. European Union Politics, 22(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520977005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wliezen, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics for preferences of spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2020). World development indicators.
   Google Scholar