Building a Cross-National Comparison of RSD Regimes

There are two dominant and opposing theories in the migration studies literature, one that sees convergence between receiving state policies, and one that sees divergence between them. Together, they have left us with an inadequate sense of the circumstances under which some state policies might be converging while others diverge. A linkage between migration studies and the public law literatures on administrative decision-making and comparative judicial politics would be a fruitful way to advance our understanding of this puzzle. Further, the United States, Canada, and Australia are perfect...

There are two dominant and opposing theories in the migration studies literature, one that sees convergence between receiving state policies, and one that sees divergence between them. Together, they have left us with an inadequate sense of the circumstances under which some state policies might be converging while others diverge. A linkage between migration studies and the public law literatures on administrative decision-making and comparative judicial politics would be a fruitful way to advance our understanding of this puzzle. Further, the United States, Canada, and Australia are perfect cases for a cross-national comparison of refugee status determination regimes that can bring these literatures together. All three are historic ‘nations of immigrants’ and popular asylum-seeker destinations that conduct RSD on a large scale. They also share a common law system and a reputation for strong courts.