The Paradox of Docket Control
Empowering Judges, Frustrating Refugees
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6090328 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Dagmar Soennecken (0000-0003-1634-9920, York University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 304-327 |
| Publication date | 2016-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/lapo.12062 |
| OpenAlex | W2546096680 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 27 |
This article focuses on the gradual expansion of docket control mechanisms in refugee (or asylum) law proceedings in Germany. It shows that granting judges more and more control over their asylum dockets was a central policy tool repeatedly employed by German politicians over the decades in the hope that it would stem the flow of refugees into the courts and ultimately make it easier (and faster) to deport failed claimants. Politicians were much more willing to limit access to asylum appeals than to appeals in general administrative law, illustrating how the pressure to come up with solutions for the flood of asylum applications overcame established norms for maintaining equal access to the courts for all claimants. Surprisingly, the Constitutional Court remained largely unaffected by these efforts except for a paradigm shift that occurred with the amendment of the constitutional asylum provision in 1993
Constitution · Constitutional court · Control (management · Economics · German · Judicial review · Political science · Refugee · European and International Law Studies · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law
Legal pluralism and the production of (un)certainty in lived migration orders
Who Files Suit? Legal Mobilization and Torture Violations in Europe
From Marx to Market
Mobilizing European law
Litigation as a Governance Strategy
Human Dignity on Trial
Legal Mobilization and Juridification
Justice in the Jungle
States Against Migrants
The Rights Revolution
Politics in Time
The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge
Challenge to the Nation-State
Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy
The Hollow Hope
Immigration and the Nation-State
The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany
Leave to Appeal and Leave to Commence Judicial Review in Canada's Refugee-Determination System
The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in Britain and Germany
Development of Asylum Policy in Germany
Burden-Sharing in the European Union
Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State
Kosovo’s Refugees in the European Union
The Costs of Legal Limbo for Refugees in Canada
The Constitutional Court of the German Federal Republic
Appellate Courts in the United States and England
Towards Juristocracy
The development of the EU asylum policy
European Integration and Migration Policy
A Refugee from Justice? Disparate Treatment in the Federal Court of Canada
Do Bills of Rights Matter? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
On the Legitimacy of National High Courts
Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,8 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2026 (11) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |