Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State

Sarah Craig, David J Gramling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the 'listening state'. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the 'zone of uncertainty' between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an 'epistemic anxiety' only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a 'right to untranslatability', taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-98
Number of pages22
JournalTilburg Law Review
Volume22
Issue number1-2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

applicant
language
evidence
multilingualism
ambivalence
legal system
testimony
credibility
refugee
jurisdiction
uncertainty
anxiety
responsibility
interpretation
experience

Keywords

  • asylum law
  • international law
  • interpreting
  • listening
  • Refugee Status Determination
  • refugees
  • translation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State. / Craig, Sarah; Gramling, David J.

In: Tilburg Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1-2, 2017, p. 77-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9a850600cbc7463a85f9fd34eb442c65,
title = "Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State",
abstract = "This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the 'listening state'. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the 'zone of uncertainty' between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an 'epistemic anxiety' only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a 'right to untranslatability', taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.",
keywords = "asylum law, international law, interpreting, listening, Refugee Status Determination, refugees, translation",
author = "Sarah Craig and Gramling, {David J}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1163/22112596-02201005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "77--98",
journal = "Tilburg Law Review",
issn = "2211-0046",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State

AU - Craig, Sarah

AU - Gramling, David J

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the 'listening state'. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the 'zone of uncertainty' between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an 'epistemic anxiety' only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a 'right to untranslatability', taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.

AB - This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the 'listening state'. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the 'zone of uncertainty' between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an 'epistemic anxiety' only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a 'right to untranslatability', taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.

KW - asylum law

KW - international law

KW - interpreting

KW - listening

KW - Refugee Status Determination

KW - refugees

KW - translation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031670766&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031670766&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/22112596-02201005

DO - 10.1163/22112596-02201005

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85031670766

VL - 22

SP - 77

EP - 98

JO - Tilburg Law Review

JF - Tilburg Law Review

SN - 2211-0046

IS - 1-2

ER -