Accepted author manuscript, 282 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review
Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review
}
TY - CHAP
T1 - A 'credible' response to persons fleeing armed conflict
AU - Sweeney, James Anthony
PY - 2016/4
Y1 - 2016/4
N2 - This contribution addresses two key issues in relation to the plight of those who are fleeing armed conflict: firstly and more briefly, the UK’s reluctance to participate in the UN’s resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees; and secondly the role of ‘credibility’ within the process of determining eligibility for international protection. The relationship between credibility and the 'benefit of the doubt' principle is explored, particularly in the light of the UK Upper Tribunal's determination in KS (benefit of the doubt) [2014] UKUT 552 (IAC). It is argued that a narrow understanding of credibility overlaps with one dimension of the benefit of the doubt, and sees it as confined to the admissibility of the applicant’s unsupported statements; statements which, by giving applicants the benefit of the doubt, should be allowed to enter into the balance towards satisfying the low standard of proof as long as they are ‘credible’ in the sense of not being demonstrably false.
AB - This contribution addresses two key issues in relation to the plight of those who are fleeing armed conflict: firstly and more briefly, the UK’s reluctance to participate in the UN’s resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees; and secondly the role of ‘credibility’ within the process of determining eligibility for international protection. The relationship between credibility and the 'benefit of the doubt' principle is explored, particularly in the light of the UK Upper Tribunal's determination in KS (benefit of the doubt) [2014] UKUT 552 (IAC). It is argued that a narrow understanding of credibility overlaps with one dimension of the benefit of the doubt, and sees it as confined to the admissibility of the applicant’s unsupported statements; statements which, by giving applicants the benefit of the doubt, should be allowed to enter into the balance towards satisfying the low standard of proof as long as they are ‘credible’ in the sense of not being demonstrably false.
KW - Refugees
KW - International Protection
KW - Armed Conflict
KW - Credibility
KW - The Benefit of the Doubt (TBOD) Principle
KW - Syria
M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)
SN - 9782804488994
SP - 81
EP - 103
BT - The Protection of Persons Fleeing Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence
A2 - Happold, Matthew
A2 - Pichou, Maria
PB - Larcier
CY - Brussels
ER -