Introduction

The raison d'être of the project which lies behind this collection rests on a relatively simple thesis: that states, interpreting and applying the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees through their legislation, courts and tribunals, ought to have some regard to relevant case law from the jurisdictions of other states party to the Convention. Described in this way, the thesis leaves many questions hanging, among them, what is ­‘relevant’ case law, and to what purpose and how exactly is it to be put to use.

The preceding chapters have all shown how great are the obstacles in the way of developing a coherent, harmonized, case-based approach to the Refugee Convention, notwithstanding the common history of refugee protection, recent institutional and regional initiatives, and a range of technological developments. Indeed, the opportunities for the transnational dissemination and use of comparative jurisprudence could hardly be more favourable, and increasing numbers of refugee decisions are readily available on the Web, either sponsored by the national refugee determination authority, or through the medium of third-party legal information institutes with a multi-jurisdictional content. Nevertheless, as we have seen, barriers remain. Language is still an issue and a problem that impedes access. Knowledge or sufficient knowledge of others' legal systems, hierarchy of authority, and ways of thinking, reasoning and writing are often understandably lacking, and to this may be added a measure of uncertainty regarding quite why foreign case law may be useful – not because it is binding, of course, but perhaps because it is illustrative, or confirms an actual or emerging practice among states regarding accepted interpretation, or because it is persuasively reasoned.