Encounters in courtroom. Italian judges as front-line workers in asylum proceedings

Journal title MONDI MIGRANTI
Author/s Alice Lacchei
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2023/2 Language English
Pages 22 P. 193-214 File size 209 KB
DOI 10.3280/MM2023-002010
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In Italy the judiciary plays a relevant role in asylum adjudication. Indeed, judges are crucial decision makers, deciding on the merit of a huge number of asylum claims rejected at first instance. For this reason, it is extremely timely to understand how asylum adjudication is put into practice by judges. Thus, the article studies asylum adjudication in courts through the lens of the Street-Level Bureaucracy, focusing on the encounter between judges and asylum seekers. In particular, the research seeks to understand the uses, causes and consequences of discretion in asylum appeals, focusing on coping mechanisms judges develop during their job. With this aim, the research conducts observation of hearings, interviews and shadowing in five Italian civil courts, showing how coping mechanisms are determined by organisational and individual factors and they influence in different ways the quality, equity and efficiency of asylum proceedings.

Keywords: asylum appeals; judges; street-level bureaucracy; coping mechanisms; Italy.

  1. Baviskar S. (2019). Who Creams? Explaining the Classroom Cream-Skimming Behavior of School Teachers from a Street-Level Bureaucracy Perspective. International Public Management Journal, 22, 3: 524-559; DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2018.147891
  2. Biland É. and Steinmetz H. (2017). Are judges street-level bureaucrats? Evidence from French and Canadian family courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 42, 2: 298-324;
  3. Brodkin E.Z. (2012). Reflections on Street‐Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Administration Review, 6: 940-949;
  4. Cowan D. and Hitchings E. (2007). Pretty boring stuff': District judges and housing possession proceedings. Social & Legal Studies, 16, 3: 363-382; DOI: 10.1177/096466390707976
  5. Czarniawska B. (2007). Shadowing: and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
  6. Creswell J.W. and Creswell J.D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications.
  7. Dallara C. and Lacchei A. (2021). Street-level Bureaucrats and Coping Mechanisms. The Unexpected Role of Italian Judges in Asylum Policy Implementation. South European Society and Politics, 26, 1: 83-108; DOI: 10.1080/13608746.2021.195616
  8. Dubois V. (2010). The bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices. London: Routledge.
  9. European Union Asylum Agency (2014). EASO Practical guide: Personal interview; -- https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/EASO-Practical-Guide-Personal-Interview-EN.pdf (ultimo accesso 06/01/2023).
  10. Gill N. and Good A. (2019). Asylum determination in Europe: Ethnographic perspectives. Berlin: Springer Nature.
  11. Gibb R. and Good A. (2014) Interpretation, translation and intercultural communication in refugee status determination procedures in the UK and France. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14, 3: 385-399; DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2014.918314
  12. Gill N., Hoellerer N., Allsopp J., Burridge A., Fisher D., Griffiths M. and Vianelli L. (2022). Rethinking commonality in refugee status determination in Europe: Legal geographies of asylum appeals. Political Geography, 98: 102686;
  13. Giovannetti M. (2021). I perimetri incerti della tutela: la protezione internazionale nei procedimenti amministrativi e giudiziari. Questione Giustizia; -- https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/i-perimetri-incerti-della-tutela-la-protezione-internazionale-nei-procedimenti-amministrativi-e-giudiziari (ultimo accesso 28/09/2022).
  14. Guarnieri C. and Pederzoli P. (2020). The Judicial System. The Administration and Politics of Justice. Cheltenham: Elgar.
  15. Halliday S., Burns N., Hutton N., McNeill F. and Tata C. (2009). Street-level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: a study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Law and Policies, 31, 4: 405-428;
  16. Hambly J. and Gill N. (2020). Law and Speed: Asylum Appeals and the Techniques and Consequences of Legal Quickening. Journal of law and society, 47, 1: 3-28;
  17. Hamlin R. (2014). Let me be a refugee: Administrative justice and the politics of asylum in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  18. Harrits G.S. (2019). Street-level bureaucracy research and professionalism. In: Hupe P., ed., Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Hupe P. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. dms–der moderne staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6, 2: 23-24.
  20. Italian High Judicial Council (2018). Monitoraggio sezioni specializzate in materia di immigrazione. modalità organizzative; -- https://www.csm.it/documents/21768/121438/Protezione+internazionale+-+Organizazzione+degli+uffici+e+Monito raggio/50ea1e3a-23d4-6684-4915-df4e5283c63a (ultimo accesso 28/09/2022).
  21. Jilke S. and Tummers L. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28, 2: 226-238;
  22. Kobelinsky C. (2014). A matter of value. Exploring what underlies adjudication in the French Court of Asylum. Migration Letters, 11, 1: 101-108;
  23. Lipsky M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  24. Maynard-Moody S.W. and Musheno M.C. (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press.
  25. Miaz J., Odasso L. and Sabrie R. (2021). Le droit de la migration et ses intermédiaires : usages sociopolitiques du droit et production des politiques Migratoires. Présentation du dossier. Droit et société, 1, 107: 7-15;
  26. Noll G. (2005). Proof, evidentiary assessment and credibility in asylum procedures. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 24, 4.
  27. Scarduzio J.A. and Malvini Redden S. (2015). The positive outcomes of negative emotional displays: A multi-level analysis of emotion in bureaucratic work. Electronic Journal of Communication, 25, 3/4: 1-17.
  28. Sorgoni B. (2019). What do we talk about when we talk about credibility? Refugee appeals in Italy. In: Gill N. and Good A., eds., op. cit.: 221-240; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94749-5
  29. Tata C. (2007). Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process. Social and Legal Studies, 16, 3: 425-447; DOI: 10.1177/096466390707976
  30. Tomkinson S. and Miaz J. (2019). Au coeur des politiques d’asile: perspectives ethnographiques. Politique et Sociétés, 38, 1: 3-18;
  31. Tummers L. and Bekkers V. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16, 4: 527-547; DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2013.84197
  32. Tummers L.L., Bekkers V., Vink E. and Musheno M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 4: 1099-1126;
  33. Verzelloni L. (2019). Seguendo come un'ombra il diritto: riflessioni sull'impiego dello Shadowing nella sociologia del diritto. La Sociologia del Diritto, 1: 23-51; DOI: 10.3280/SD2019-00100
  34. Verzelloni, L. (2010). Dietro la cattedra del giudice. Pratiche, prassi e occasioni di apprendimento. Bologna: Pendragon.
  35. Vianelli L., Gill N. and Hoellerer N. (2022). Waiting as probation: selecting self-disciplining asylum seekers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48, 5: 1013-1032; DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2021.192694

  • Civil Society Actors and the 2020 Italian Amnesty: Bordering to Deborder? Paola Bonizzoni, Minke Hajer, in Journal of Intercultural Studies /2023 pp.44
    DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2022.2134317

Alice Lacchei, Encounters in courtroom. Italian judges as front-line workers in asylum proceedings in "MONDI MIGRANTI" 2/2023, pp 193-214, DOI: 10.3280/MM2023-002010