DefinePK

Abstract

This study provides a comparative analysis of judicial rulings across different jurisdictions and examines their implications for asylum governance. It explores how courts in various legal systems influence asylum policies, focusing on the interaction between judicial decisions and government responses. The purpose of the research is to understand the extent to which judicial oversight shapes asylum governance, the conditions under which governments comply or resist court rulings, and the broader impact on policy and administrative practices. Using a qualitative research methodology, the study analyzes case law, government statements, and policy documents to trace patterns of compliance, resistance, and framing strategies employed by states following key judicial decisions. The findings suggest that while judicial rulings significantly affect asylum governance by reinforcing procedural safeguards and human rights protections, their impact is mediated by political discretion and the framing of compliance as either a technical necessity or a political challenge. Governments often comply with court decisions but may simultaneously seek to limit their broader implications through legal and rhetorical strategies. The study concludes that judicial oversight plays a crucial role in shaping asylum governance, but its effectiveness depends on the political will and institutional context. It recommends greater transparency and consistency in implementing judicial rulings and calls for further research into the dynamic interplay between law, politics, and asylum policy to strengthen protections for asylum seekers.