Research and publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Collection consists of research, scholarship and publications by faculty and graduate students affiliated with the School of Public Policy and Administration.
Browse
Browsing Research and publications by Author "Soennecken, Dagmar"
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Extending Hospitality? History, Courts and the Executive(Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 2013) Soennecken, DagmarWhile many consider court involvement in immigration matters a given, in liberal nation-states, there is actually a substantial degree of variation. This chapter revisits two “critical junctures” in the early immigration histories of Canada and Germany to show that institutions and policy legacies are not just historical backdrop, but actually shaped the strategies of political actors, subsequent institutional configurations, and policy options for long periods of time, thereby revealing unintended consequences, as well as alternative paths that the involvement of the courts (and other actors) could have taken.Item Open Access Germany and the Janus Face of Immigration Federalism: Devolution vs. Centralization(Springer, 2014-03) Soennecken, DagmarWhat challenges and opportunities has federalism held for countries like Germany, one of Europe’s most ‘reluctant’ states of immigration? Although the formal, constitutional division of powers between the German central government (Bund) and the federal states (Länder) has certainly shaped Germany’s response to immigration and integration, federalism is only one aspect of a broader, ‘semisovereign’ model of governance that has dominated German state-society relations for decades (Katzenstein 1987). This model sees a range of decentralized state actors, among them constantly negotiating with a set of highly centralized societal (or “parapublic”) organizations, such as churches, labour and employer associations, leading to at best incremental policy change over the years. While some observers argue that this model will endure and likely also impair Germany’s ability to successfully navigate future immigration and integration challenges (Green and Paterson 2005), others argue that German political actors have been quite successful all along in shifting “venues” to suit their policy preferences, be that “up” (to the intergovernmental/EU level), “down” (to the local level) or “out” (to non-state actors) (Guiraudon and Lahav 2000). The chapter will argue that Germany’s particular version of immigration federalism has facilitated both incrementalism and venue shifting.Item Open Access The Growing Influence of the Courts over the Fate of Refugees(Review of European and Russian Affairs, 2008) Soennecken, DagmarA number of migration scholars suggest that domestic courts have become the key protective institution for refugees. How can we explain this claim? One prominent explanation identifies group litigation as the key source of the increasing influence of the courts. How well does this explanation travel empirically? The article evaluates this explanation by examining the puzzling behaviour of German refugee NGOs. They have not entered the legal arena directly (either as parties or as interveners), nor have they concentrated on developing extensive litigation campaigns. Still, they are remarkably ‘judicialized’: their frequent engagement with the law in other respects has heightened their legal consciousness. Why have German refugee NGOs made such different choices than their North American counterparts and what do these choices tell us about the expanding influence of the courts over the fate of refugees in Germany and North America? To make sense of the different choices that these organizations have made, we need to understand the role that institutional norms and procedures, in particular policy legacies, have played in directing the behaviour and identity of these groups. For a number of reasons, German refugee NGOs historically have been discouraged from directly accessing the courts in favour of indirect participation. Since Canadian and American refugee organizations follow a pattern closer to the expectations of the (largely North American) literature on the subject, we need to be more careful in thinking through our presuppositions when constructing a theory of the worldwide expansion of judicial power.Item Open Access The Managerialization of Refugee Determinations in Canada(Droit et Société, 2013) Soennecken, DagmarAlthough refugees are protected by a myriad of legal norms, this article shows that the domestic process of determining who is awarded this status has become more and more managerialized, even in a country like Canada, which has generally been considered a leader among refugee-receiving countries. This privileging of efficiency-based standards has gradually sidelined an earlier push to judicialize refugee determination procedures to the extent that access to the courts for refugees more generally is now considered problematic and ultimately suspect. The article uses historic institutional tools to highlight the critical role that the external, political environment has played in gradually managerializing refugee determination procedures.Item Open Access Mobilizing European law(Journal of European Public Policy, 2018) Conant, Lisa; Hofman, Andreas; Soennecken, Dagmar; Vanhala, LisaThe literature on European legal mobilization asks why individuals, groups and companies go to court and explores the impact of litigation on policy, institutions and the balance of power among actors. Surveying the literature we find that legal mobilization efforts vary across policy areas and jurisdictions. This article introduces a three-level theoretical framework that organizes research on the causes of these variations: macro-level systemic factors that originate in Europe; meso-level factors that vary nationally; and micro-level factors that characterize the actors engaged in (or disengaged from) litigation. We argue that until we understand more about how and why different parties mobilize law, it is difficult to respond to normative questions about whether European legal mobilization is a positive or negative development for democracy and rights.Item Open Access The Paradox of Docket Control: Empowering Judges, Frustrating Refugees(Law & Policy, 2016-10) Soennecken, DagmarThis 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.Item Open Access Patrolling the boundaries of belonging? Courts, law and citizenship(Elgar, 2019) Conant, Lisa; Hofmann, Andreas; Soennecken, Dagmar; Vanhala, LisaThis chapter explores how courts and law have contributed to the evolution of citizenship. Theoretically, it draws on Christian Joppke’s distinctions between citizenship as status, rights, and identity as a means to analyse different facets of belonging within political communities. Substantively, it emphasizes the United States (US) and European Union (EU) as historical projects where law and courts were particularly important in constructing national and supranational citizenship, respectively. It also examines tensions evident in postnational memberships, such as the de facto partial citizenship of unauthorized immigrants and exclusion of many refugees from any citizenship.Item Open Access Shifting Back and Up: The European Turn in Canadian Refugee Policy(Comparative Migration Studies, 2014) Soennecken, DagmarDuring the last decade, Canada’s immigration and citizenship policies have been radically transformed. Hardly any aspect has been left untouched. That humanitarian migration has also been restricted and transformed has generally been linked to the worldwide “securitization” of migration. This paper argues that the timing and character of a number of key changes also represent a European turn of Canada’s refugee policy, which has seen Canada change from a policy innovator and humanitarian leader to a student, follower and adaptor of a key set of restrictionist asylum policies practiced in Europe.Item Open Access Taking the Harper Government’s Refugee Policy to Court(University of Toronto, 2018) Soennecken, Dagmar; Anderson, Christopher G.There is no question that significant changes occurred in Canadian refugee policy under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper during its near ten years in power. Indeed, observers note that virtually no aspect was left untouched. The effects of many of these alterations are still unfolding, and while the subsequent Liberal government of Justin Trudeau committed itself to reversing or altering some of them, many will likely be preserved. In this chapter, we focus on changes that occurred to Canada’s inland refugee policy with two larger goals in mind. First, we de-mystify the role of the courts in shaping refugee policy in Canada. Second, we contribute to a growing body of work that reflects on the contentious relationship between the Harper government and the courts. In particular, the chapter examines the mobilization that occurred through and beyond the courts in response to the government’s 2012 cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) for refugees. Our research shows that while the role of the courts in overseeing Canadian refugee policy is generally quite limited, significant mobilization on behalf of refugees inside and outside the courts occurred in response to the Harper government’s particularly rights-restrictive approach. Overall, we argue that in order to understand the relationship between the courts and public policy, it is necessary to appreciate the broader policy and political contours within which court rulings emerge, and the specific contexts that prompt court involvement in the first instance.