Deterrence and Asylum: A comparative socio-legal perspective on the credibility assessment of separated children seeking international protection

Abstract

The number of separated children seeking asylum in Europe has increased substantially over recent years. While it is acknowledged that separated children seeking asylum pose additional unique challenges for refugee status determination processes, states are nonetheless bound by obligations under the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol to consider claims from these children, and to respect their specific rights under the Convention on the rights of the Child (CRC). In seeking asylum, children have the right to be free from discrimination, violence and neglect, to be treated with dignity and respect; to be cared for, and to have their views respected. Children also have the right to be informed in a child-friendly way of their rights and the procedures that affect them. Particularly, the best interests of the child must govern every decision taken with respect to a child, irrespective of their legal status.

However, despite the existence and advancement of these frameworks, challenges and realities related to the legal position of these children in asylum procedures persist. Against this background, deterrent measures have emerged as a response to those seeking asylum, including separated children, particularly in the global north. In particular, the events of 2015 in Europe started a crisis of protection for asylum seekers and refugees, triggering further curtailment of refugee rights, and exposing gaps within national systems.

In this respect, these deterrent measures, and their impact upon separated children are directly intertwined with and manifested within asylum decisions, and to that which is a central theme of this thesis, credibility assessment in refugee status determination (RSD), namely, the process where the truth of a child s claim is assessed. How the credibility of children seeking asylum is assessed has been underexplored. There is a lack of comprehensive legal and child rights centred research on the issue.

This thesis addresses these gaps by investigating, through a social-legal perspective, how the credibility of separated children seeking protection is currently being assessed. This is achieved through comparing asylum law and practice between two European states, namely: Ireland and the UK. Furthermore, based on a combination of the findings presented through this comparative analysis and through the socio-legal frameworks developed throughout, the thesis presents a testimonial justice and children s rights based model for reform. This model combines the use of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as a procedural guarantee with the advancement of testimonial justice as a way to reform and improve the ways in which the credibility of children is assessed in the process of refugee status determination.