Decision making conditioned by radical uncertainty: Credibility assessment at the Australian refugee review tribunal
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- International Journal of Refugee Law, 2013, 25 (3), pp. 502 - 534
- Issue Date:
Files in This Item:
|Trish Luker, Decision-making and Radical Uncertainty - FINAL .pdf||Accepted Manuscript||228.27 kB|
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
The increasing global magnitude and exigency of refugee status determination is resulting in recent attention to the parameters of credibility as part of evidentiary assessment in refugee law. In Australia, as in other countries, it is well recognised that applications for review of primary level decisions on refugee status commonly fail on the basis of credibility evidence. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the assessment of credibility is likely to be a source of error in decision making. This article reports on the results of a small-scale study into decision making and credibility assessment at the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal involving interviews with decision makers. Drawing on feminist theories of epistemic responsibility, it argues for a revised standard of proof, suggesting a rebuttable presumption of credibility, or truthfulness, on the part of the applicant seeking asylum. Such an approach may go some way towards addressing the potential for epistemic injustice and is consistent with a position of epistemological responsibility demanded by an ethical obligation to the refugee. © The Author (2013).
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: