Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:38:42.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANSNATIONAL JUDICIAL DIALOGUE, HARMONIZATION AND THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2009

Hélène Lambert
Hélène Lambert
Affiliation:
Reader in Law, University of Westminster (London). helene.lambert7@googlemail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased policy harmonization on refugee matters in the European Union (EU), namely the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), has created the imperative for a transnational judicial comparative dialogue between national courts. This article is based on a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of a transnational European legal dialogue, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum. It does so by examining two countries, France and Britain, as representative of the difference in legal tradition and culture within the EU in terms of the civil–common law divide. Both case studies are structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions. The empirical findings reveal a surprising lack of transnational use of national jurisprudence on asylum between judges. Nonetheless, a slight but noticeable increase in the use of transnational asylum jurisprudence in the British and French courts must be noted. Two broad accounts—one rational, the other cultural—are applied in each of the case studies to explain this empirical finding. This article concludes on the broader implications of these findings for the establishment of a CEAS by 2012.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 519 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 189 UNTS 150, entered into force on 22 April 1954.

2 Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’ (1994) 29 University of Richmond Law Review 99Google Scholar; ‘Judicial Globalization’ (2000) 40 VJIL 1103; ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 Harv ILJ 191–219; McCrudden, C, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights’ (2000) OJLS 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Bingham, TH, ‘“There is a World Elsewhere”: Changing Perspectives of English Law’ (1992) 41 ICLQ 513, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 On the dialogue between European courts and national courts, see Koopmans, T ‘Comparative Law and the Courts’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 3, 545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lenaerts, K ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’ (2003) 52 (4) ICLQ 873–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pescatore, VP ‘Le recours dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes à des normes déduites de la comparaison des droits des Etats membres’ (1980), Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Communautaire 337Google Scholar; T Franck and G Fox ‘Transnational Judicial Synergy’ in Franck and Fox (eds) International Law Decisions in National Courts (Transnational Publishers, New York, 1996). On the dialogue between European courts, see F Lichère, L Potvin-Solis and A Raynouard (eds) Le Dialogue entre les Juges Européens et Nationaux: Incantation ou Réalité? (Bruylant, Brussels, 2004); Rozakis, CL ‘The European Judge as Comparatist’ (2005) 80 Tulane Law Review 257.Google Scholar

5 McCrudden (n 2) 499; G Canivet, M Andenas and D Fairgrieve (eds) Comparative Law Before the Courts (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 2004); Legrand, P ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 (1) ICLQ 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sefton-Green, R ‘Compare and Contrast: Monstre a Deux Tetes’ (2002) 1 Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Markesinis, BS ‘Judge, Jurist and the Study and Use of Foreign Law’ (1993) LQR 622Google Scholar; and ‘A Matter of Style’ (1994) LQR 607; Markesinis, BS and Fedtke, J ‘The Judge as Comparatist’ (2005) 80 Tulane Law Review 11Google Scholar, and by the same authors, and very much based on that article, Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law: A New Source of Inspiration? (University of Texas at Austin & UCL Press, 2006).

6 With one exception in the form of a report written by G Gyulai ‘Country Information in Asylum Procedures—Quality as a Legal Requirement in the EU’ (Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2007).

7 Hathaway, JC ‘A Forum for the Transnational Development of Refugee Law: The IARLJ's Advanced Refugee Law Workshop’ (2003) (15) 3 Intl J Refugee L 418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Guiraudon, V ‘European Court and Foreigners' Rights: A Comparative Study of Norms Diffusion’ (2000) 34 Intl Migration Rev 4 1088–1125, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 A-M Slaughter (n 2) 121 and 127. On the use of comparative law in the UK since the HRA, see McGoldrick, D ‘The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 in Theory and Practice’ (2001) 50 (4) ICLQ 901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 AM North and J Chia, ‘Towards Convergence in the Interpretation of the Refugee Convention: A Proposal for the Establishment of an International judicial Commission for Refugees’ in J McAdam (ed) Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2008) 225–261.

11 JC Hathaway The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005) 1–2, see also 116. Referring in particular to A-M Slaughter (n 2) 99, and to the University of Michigan's Refugee Caselaw Site and the establishment of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges in 1995. See also, D E Anker ‘Refugee Law, Gender, and the Human Rights Paradigm’ (2002) 15 Harv Human Rts J 133, 136.

12 Storey, H ‘The Advanced Refugee Law Workshop Experience: An IARLJ Perspective’ (2003) 15 (3) Intl J Refugee L 423.Google Scholar

13 Author's discussions with Dr Hugo Storey (Senior Judge at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, and member of the IARLJ).

14 AL George, ‘Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison’ in PG Lauren (ed) Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy (Free Press, New York, 1979) 43–68.

15 For an analysis of a wider range of cases, see GS Goodwin-Gill and H Lambert (eds) The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).

16 The distinction between ‘empirical’, ‘jurisprudential’ and ‘normative’ questions is borrowed from C McCrudden (n 2) 499.

17 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status [2005] OJ L326 13/12/2005 13–34; Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted [2004] OJ L304, 30/09/2004 12–23; Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Asylum Application Lodged in one of the Member States by a Third-Country National [2003] OJ L050 06/02/2003 1–10; Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers [2003] OJ L031, 06/02/2003 18–25; Council Regulation (EC) 407/2002 of 28 February 2002 Laying Down Certain Rules to Implement Regulation (EC) 2725/2000 Concerning the Establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of the Dublin Convention [2000] OJ L062 05/03/2002 1–5; and Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on Minimum Standards for Giving Temporary Protection in the Event of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons and on Measures Promoting a Balance of Efforts between Member States in Receiving such Persons and Bearing the Consequences thereof [2001] OJ L212, 07/08/2001 12–23. The Commission is planning to amend these pieces of legislation in 2009, see S Peers, ‘Statewatch analysis—the EU's JHA Agenda for 2009’, available at http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/eu-sw-analysis-2009-jha-agenda.pdf

18 Brussels, 06/06/2007, COM (2007) 301, final. See also, the Hague Programme ‘Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union’ Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 4–5 November 2004.

19 Note that the original, formal deadline was 2010 but this has been postponed to 2012. European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted at the Council of European Union Meeting in Brussels, 16 Oct 2008, D/08/14.

20 Author's interview with Zeta Georgiadou and Doede Ackers (policy officers, European Commission, Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security, Directorate Immigration, Asylum and Borders) Brussels, 27 June 2007.

21 Communication of 17 February 2006, COM (2006) 67, 3. See also L Potvin-Solis (n 4) 30.

22 Storey, H ‘EU Refugee Qualification Directive: A Brave New World?’ (2008) 20 (1) International Journal of Refugee Law 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Available at: http://www.iarlj.nl

24 Case C-465/07.

25 Case C-175-179/08 (pending).

26 Case C-19/08.

27 COM (2006) 346 final.

28 Official Journal 8.3.2008, C-64/1-2.

29 C Chenevière ‘L'article 68 CE—Rapide survol d'un renvoi préjudiciel mal compris’ (2004) 40 Cahiers de droit européen 5/6 567–590; and K Lenaerts ‘The Unity of European Law and the Overload of the ECJ—The System of Preliminary Rulings Revisited’ in I Pernice, J Kokott and C.Saunders (eds) The Future of the European Judicial System in a Comparative Perspective, European Constitutional Law Network-Series Vol 6 (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 2006) 211–239, 216.

30 Lenaerts however points toward the ECJ's developing tendency to ‘provide more ‘concrete’, as opposed to ‘abstract’, rulings warranting complex analysis of the facts, national legislation and other aspects of the main action'; Lenaerts (n 4) 217.

31 Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, para.27. See generally Lenaerts, (n 4) 99–134.

32 Avocat généraux have often referred to foreign jurisprudence and academic writings (eg US) for inspiration in competition cases. See Jacobs, F ‘Judicial Dialogue and the Cross-Fertilisation of Legal Systems: the European Court of Justice’ (2003) 38 Texas International Law Journal, 553.Google Scholar The Commission too has on occasion provided comparative materials upon request by the ECJ, see Case 43/75 Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena.

33 Koopmans, T ‘The Birth of European Law at the Crossroads of Legal Traditions’ (1991) 39 American Journal of Comparative Law 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Case C-465/07, opinion delivered on 9 September 2008.

35 D Chalmers and A Tomkins European Union Public Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) 278.

36 The terms ‘case law’ and ‘jurisprudence’ are used interchangeably throughout this article.

37 This ‘shared responsibility’ between the national courts and the ECJ is clearly recognized by the ECJ itself in the area of human rights, eg Case C-117/01 KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency (Judgment) [7 January 2004] and Case C-101/01 Lindqvist (Judgment) [6 November 2003].

38 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum in the European Union: A Study of the Implementation of the Qualification Directive, November 2007.

39 Press Release, ‘Setting up of European Asylum Support Office proposed by the Commission’ IP/09/275, Brussels, 18 February 2009. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/275&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 28 February 2009).

40 Press Release ‘The EU moves toward the creation of a Support Office in the field of asylum management’, IP/08/607, Brussels, 18 April 2008. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/607&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 22 April 2008). See also COM (2008) 360 final, Commission's ‘Policy Plan on Asylum’.

41 The search for ‘persuasive authority’ has been described as an attempt ‘to learn something from a judge in a different country dealing with a similar problem’; Comments in the Harvard Law Review (2005) 103, 167, 149. Also, J Bell French Legal Cultures (Butterworths, London, 2001) 8.

42 Note that the Refugee Appeals Board (Commission de recours des réfugiés) became the National Asylum Court (Cour nationale du droit d'asile) following amendment of the CESEDA (Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile) on 20 November 2007. See new article L.733-1 f of the CESEDA.

43 Until 2001–2002, the annual collection of decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board (created by the Legal Information Department) was based on all the decisions of the Board (ie 6,000–12,000 per year). Since 2003, the Board (and now the new Court) has made over 40,000 decisions per year, of which around 2,000 decisions are selected each year for the collection.

44 CRR (Commission de recours des réfugiés), SR (sections réunies), 23 February 2001, application no. 351244, Keklicekpinari.

45 Eleven such cases were found: CRR, SR, 7 November 2001, applications 361050 and 373077, Sissoko; CRR, SR, 7 December 2001, appl 368138, Soumah; CRR, SR, 9 January 2003, appl 362645, Altun; CRR, SR, 28 February 2003, appls 404302 and 404411, Mlles Wang; CRR, SR, 17 October 2003, appl 423904, Mlle M; CRR, SR, 25 June 2004, appl 403498, Mme Koffi Amani; CRR, SR, 15 October 2004, appl 444000, Nazia; CRR, SR, 4 March 2005, appl 489014, Mlle Tas; CRR, SR, 29 July 2005, appl 519803, Mlle Tabe.

46 See, Conclusions by Martine Denis-Linton in Mme Agyepong (Conseil d'Etat, 2 December 1994, application 112842) and Conclusions by Jean-Denis Combrexelle in Ourbih (Conseil d'Etat, 23 June 1997, application 171858).

47 Article 31(3)(b), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.

48 eg Lord Bingham's opinion in Sepet v SSHD [2003] 1 WLR 856 (HL) and in Januzi and Hamid v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5 (HL) and Lord Steyn's opinion in Islam v SSHD and R v IAT and another, ex parte Shah [1999] 2 AC 629 (HL) (25 March 1999).

49 eg R (Razgar) v SSHD [2004] UKHL 27 (HL), R (Limbuela) v SSHD, R (Tesema) v same, R(Adam) v same [2005] (HL) (3 November 2005) Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya [2006] 26 (HL) and A et al Abu Rideh and Ajouaou v SSHD [2004] CA 71 (HL).

50 In particular the work of Professors G S Goodwin-Gill and J C Hathaway, eg SSHD v K (FC) and Fornah (FC) v SSHD [2006] 46 (HL); Horvath v SSHD [2000] INLR 15 (HL); and Islam v SSHD [1999] 2 WLR 1015 and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shah [1999] 2 AC 629 (HL).

51 Seven such instances were found, three at the House of Lords, one at the Court of Appeal and three at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. See Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Thangarasa & Yogathas, [2002] 36 HL; R ex p Zeqiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] (HL); R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Adan, and R v SSHD, ex p Aitseguer [2001] 2 WLR 143 (HL); and EB (Ethiopia) [2007] EWCA Civ 809; RD (Algeria) [2007] UKAIT 00066; ST v SSHD, [2005] UKIAT 00006; Fadil Dyli v SSHD, [2000] UKIAT 00001. No instances were found at the Scottish Court of Session.

52 See, for instance, Sepet and Bulbul v SSHD [2003] 1 WLR 856 (HL) Re B (FC), R v Special Adjudicator ex parte Hoxha [2005] (HL)Islam v SSHD [1999] 2 WLR 1015 and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Shah [1999] 2 AC 629 (HL), and R v SSHD, ex p Adan [1999] INLR 362 (HL).

53 A-M Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004) 75.

54 Lacey, W ‘Judicial Discretion and Human Rights: Expanding the Role of International Law in the Domestic Sphere’ (2004), Melbourne Journal of International Law 108–132, 113.Google Scholar

55 ibid 108–132, 114.

56 Cherie Booth, remarks at a one-day conference at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law: ‘European Influences on Public Law: 5 years of the HRA 1998 in English Law and Recent Developments in France’ October 2005. See also, J Bell Judiciaries within Europe— A Comparative Review (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 9–10.

57 eg Lord Hope in Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 AC 489, discussing Canadian jurisprudence on the meaning of ‘persecution’ and sufficient ‘protection’ in article 1 A(2) of the Refugee Convention.

58 Other ‘rational’ explanations have been put forward to account for the lack of traffic between foreign judges, such as institutional capacity and habit.

59 This rational account is based on regime theory which seeks to explain co-operation between actors in world politics. See A Hansenclever, P Mayer and V Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997) 23–82; A Stein, ‘Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World’, in SD Krasner (ed), International Regimes (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1983), 115–140; and Snidal, D, ‘Coordination Versus Prisoners' Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes’ (1985) 79 American Political Science Review 923–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 In addition to language barrier, lack of knowledge of foreign legal systems may be a further inhibiting factor in the use of foreign jurisprudence in that system.

61 Articles R 723-2 and R 723-3 of the CESEDA.

62 2.7 dossiers per day at the OFPRA; around 2 dossiers per day per rapporteur at the Refugee Appeal Board. J Valluy, ‘La fiction juridique de l'asile’ (December 2004) Plein Droit 63.

63 The average time for ruling on an asylum appeal was approximately 10.3 months at the Board in 2006. See the Activity Report 2006 of the Refugee Appeals Board, available at: http://www.commission-refugies.fr/presentation_4/actualites_5/rapport_activite_2006_2142.html, especially 21–22.

64 Available at http://www.bailii.org/

65 Available at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

66 This finding is echoed in Gabor Gyulai's report on ‘Country Information in Asylum Procedures—Quality as a Legal Requirement in the EU’ (n 7) 12, with regard to country information.

67 Act of 25 July 1952, amended by the Act of 10 December 2003. See also article L.731-1 CESEDA and Decree of 14 August 2004.

68 Since 2004, each section (formation) of the National Asylum Court is composed of three judges (including the président de formation): one from the civil law branch, one from the administrative law branch, and one representing the UNHCR.

69 All the présidents des formations are appointed from the administrative or financial branch of the judiciary (that is, the Council of State, the Appeal Administrative Tribunal or the Administrative Tribunals, or the National (and Regional) Audit Office(s), respectively); they therefore have a general law background.

70 Rapporteurs are granted primary responsibility for preparing cases (that is, follow the enquiry and prepare a draft decision for the National Asylum Court to be examined at the time of decision). Strictly speaking not all of them are lawyers but they must at least have done a training course in refugee law.

71 For more details on the background of members of the Council of State, read article L 133–1 f of the code of administrative justice, and J Bell, Judiciaries within Europe (n 57) 44–107.

72 ibid 319.

73 Thanks to Hugo Storey for pointing this out.

74 BS Markesinis and J Fedtke, ‘The Judge as Comparatist’ (n 5) 11–167; BS Markesinis and J Fedtke; Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law (n 5); BS Markesinis ‘A Matter of Style’ (n 5) 607–628; BS Markesinis, ‘Judge, Jurist and the Study and Use of Foreign Law’ (n 5) 622–635; J Bell (n 41) Bell (n 57); Harlow, C, ‘Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 214–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M Andenas and D Fairgrieve, ‘Introduction: Finding a Common Language for Open Legal Systems’ in Comparative Law Before the Courts (n 5) xxvii; O Dutheillet de Lamothe, ‘Constitutional Court Judges’ Roundtable' (2005) 550 International Journal of Constitutional Law; F Lichère, Le dialogue entre les juges européens et nationaux: incantation or réalité.

75 Markesinis, ‘Judge, Jurist and the Study and Use of Foreign Law’ (n 5) 607.

76 Bell (n 41) 17 and Markesinis, ‘A Matter of Style’ (n 5) 607, respectively.

77 Legrand (n 5) 60–61. Markesinis and Fedtke, Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law (n 5) 173–218.

78 Bell (n 57) 74. One exception might be Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine et autres, Conseil d'Etat Assemblée, 8 February 2007, appl 287110, an environmental law case in which the Council of State adopted an unusually long considérant de principe; see M-P Granger, ‘France is “Already” Back in Europe: The Europeanization of French Courts and the Influence of France in the EU’ (2008) 14 European Public Law 335, 367.

79 J Valluy ‘La fiction juridique de l'asile’ (December 2004) Plein Droit 63 (translation by the author).

80 R Errera ‘The Use of Comparative Law Before the French Administrative Law Courts’, in Canivet et al (eds) (n 5) 161; and G Canivet, ‘The Use of Comparative Law Before the French Private Law Courts’ in Canivet et al (n 5) 189.

81 See also, Errera ibid 153–163.

82 BS Markesinis (n 5) 608.

83 ibid 610.

84 These may be of three kinds: to help shape their own law, to help towards a better understanding of the problem to be solved, or ‘as a mere ‘padding’ for a judgment already reached on other grounds' BS Markesinis and J Fedtke, ‘The Judge as a Comparatist’ (n 5) 25–26. See also, C McCrudden, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights?’ (n 5) 499, 523: who noted that the purpose of using foreign law may be manifold: it may be to fill a gap in the law, to interpret domestic law provisions, or to be used as a ‘security blanket’ —to be seen to be doing a good job.

85 Markesinis, ‘Judge, Jurist and the Study and Use of Foreign Law’ (n 5) 610.

86 For other elements of strong British influence, see Granger (n 79) 344 and 346.

87 R [on the application of Razgar] v SSHD [2004] 3 WLR 58 (HL) (article 8 ECHR—mental health); A (FC) and others (FC) v SSHD and X (FC) v SSHD, [2004] 56 (HL) (detention of suspected terrorists).

88 eg compare the House of Lords decision in R on the application of Dianne Pretty v Director of Public Prosecutions and SSHD [18 October 2001] (HL) with the reasoning in the European Court of Human Rights' judgment (Pretty v United Kingdom) (Judgment) [29 April 2002] appl 2346/02; the former is more fluid and full.

89 The French judge has also been active in creating law in the area of asylum on quite a wide scale through the concept of general principles of law. See F Tiberghien, ‘La jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat sur la Convention de Genève du 28 juillet 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés’ in La Convention de Genève du 28 juillet 1951 realtive au statut des réfugiés 50 ans après: Bilan et perspectives V Chetail (ed) (Bruylant, Brussels, 2001) 289, 317–320; and L Jeannin, M Meneghini, C Pauti, and R Poupet, Le Droit d'Asile en Europe—Etude comparée (Paris, L'Harmattan, 1999) 144–145.

90 Author's interview with François Bernard (President of the National Asylum Court) Paris, 20 June 2006.

91 ibid.

92 Author's interview with Vera Zederman (National Asylum Court) Paris, 20 June 2006.

93 House of Lords, judgment of 18 October 2006 [2006] UKHL 46.

94 [1999] Imm AR 521. See further M Symes and P Jorro, Asylum Law & Practice (Butterworths, Lexis Nexis UK, 2003) 7–12.

95 Lord Lloyd Berwick's opinion in R v SSHD, ex parte Adan, [1999] INLR 362 (HL). See also, Lord Millet in Islam v SSHD [1999] 2 WLR 1015 (HL) and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex p Shah [1999] 2 AC (HL) paras 19–20; and Sepet v SSHD [2003] UKHL 15 (HL) (Lord Bingham).

96 See also L Jeannin et al (n 90).

97 Bell (n 57) 81, 86.

98 See generally, G Breton-Le Goff ‘Mondialisation et démocratie: évaluation de la participation normative des OING à la gouvernance’, Université de Québec à Montréal sur les fondements philosophiques de la justice et de la société démocratique, October 2001.

99 Other well-known associations or support groups include CIMADE (Comité Inter-Mouvements Auprès des Evacués), ANAFE (Association nationale d'assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers) and Forum réfugiés.

100 The Council of State has ruled in more than 40 cases where the GISTI was a claimant, alone or with other associations, eg Conseil d'Etat, 12 June 2006, appl 282275. I thank Janine Silga for this point.

101 Javad Nasseri v The Secretary of State of the Home Department, [2007] EWHC 1548 (Admin), [2009] 2 WLR 523.

102 Tribunal Administratif de Paris, 9 August 2007, Mohammad Afzali, No. 0712180/9/1.

103 A Ouareff, ‘La France doit cesser le transfert de demandeurs d'asile sous Dublin vers la Grèce’, expert note n. 6/2008, April 2008. Available at: http://www.forumrefugies.org/FR06-dublin%20transfert_da_vers_grece.pdf (28. 04.2008).

104 See also the more practitioner-orientated Tolley's Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law Journal.

105 The works of Professors GS Goodwin-Gill and JC Hathaway have been particularly influential in several House of Lords' judgments, as well as abroad.

106 [1998] Imm AR 338; [1998] INLR 325.

107 [1996] Imm AR 443.

108 House of Lords, judgment of 14 June 2006, paras 22 and 63.

109 To read more widely on the relationship between judges and academics, see Bell (n 57) 326–329.

110 eg Fornah and K(FC) v SSHD and UNHCR (Intervener), (House of Lords, judgment of 18 October 2006) [and Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the Nigerian Federal High Court reviewing refugee status granted to Charles Taylor (23 September 2004 available through REFWORLD)].

111 RLC also contributes to the public debate on asylum policy and procedures at the national and European level. It is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, and a registered charity. The quality of its work is subject to the regulations of the Legal Services Commission and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. More specifically, it is funded by a contract with the Legal Services Commission on the basis of a merit test (that is, a case must be found to have more than 50 per cent of chances of success for the RLC to be allowed to represent the applicant).

112 R (Bagdanavicius) v SSHD [2005] 2 WLR 1309 (HL), [2005] 1 All ER 263 (HL).

113 Eg Javad Nasseri v SSHD [2008] 2 WLR 523; see now the judgment of the House of Lords [2009] UKHL 23 [2007] EWHC 1548 (Admin).

114 Author's interview with Nick Oakeshott (Head of Legal Services, Refugee Legal Centre, London, 19 July 2007).

115 Bell (n 41) 20.

116 Canivet, Andenas and Fairgrieve (n 5), Markesinis and Fedtke ‘The Judge as Comparatist (n 5) and Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law (n 5).

117 Andenas and Fairgrieve, ‘Introduction’ in Canivet et al (n 5) xxxv–xxxviii.

118 R Errera (n 81)153.

119 Markesinis and Fedtke Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law (n 5) 138.

120 S Kentridge ‘Comparative law in Constitutional Adjudication’ in Markesinis and Fedtke, ibid 329.