Acceso usuarios
Katharina Reiling, Lukas Mitsch
This article deals with the realm of generating knowledge needed within the judicial procedure of refugee status determinations. In reviewing asylum cases, judges are in need of country of origin information. This information is regularly difficult to find due to the relevant events’ extraterritoriality as well as the constant changes in political circumstances. If the generation of knowledge remains uncoordinated between different judges, a risk of inconsistencies arises regarding the consequences drawn from differing countries of origin information and consequently of a lack of legal certainty and legal equality. In the UK, these issues have been addressed by establishing the so-called country guidance procedure. By global comparison, it constitutes the most elaborate procedure of judicial knowledge generation in the field of asylum. The country guidance determinations resulting from such procedures are leading cases which set so-called factual precedents and thereby contribute to more coherent decision making. The article compares this system of generating knowledge with the one in German judicial proceedings. It shows that German judges have difficulties in the generation of knowledge since comprehensive structures and instruments for cognitive tasks are missing. As a result, the legal comparison indicates which elements a judicial generation of knowledge should include, also in reference to the German constitutional law.
