Rosset, Damian

2023, Brodersen, Kei Hannah, Capus, Nadja, Rosset, Damian

The tension between formality and informality is intrinsic to the implementation of criminal law. Criminal procedures in fact always happen on a continuum between formality and informality, where the different actors involved (police ofcers and other street-level bureaucrats, prosecutors, judges, experts, defense lawyers, etc.) continuously perform and negotiate (in)formality. This special issue explores these ’politics of (in)formality“ in different criminal law settings and from different disciplinary perspectives. The different empirical contributions explore the continuum between formality and informality as well as practices of informalization in two different levels of the criminal justice system: police investigations and court proceedings.

2020-6, Mariotti, Aurélie, Rosset, Damian

2019, Rosset, Damian

À la fois type spécifique de savoir et registre particulier de pratiques, l’information sur les pays d’origine (COI/Country of Origin Information) est considérée comme un outil fondamental de la détermination du statut de réfugié. Cet article se penche sur l’institutionnalisation de la documentation sur les pays d’origine au sein de l’Ofpra entre 1988 et 2008 et montre comment cette histoire renvoie à celles de l’institution, de la communauté COI et de l’européanisation des procédures d’asile., Both a specific type of knowledge and a particular field of practices, Country of Origin Information (COI) is considered a fundamental tool in refugee status determination. This article examines the institutionalization of documentation on countries of origin in the French asylum administration between 1988 and 2008 and shows how this history reflects that of the institution, of the COI community and of the Europeanization of asylum procedures.

2019, Rosset, Damian, Achermann, Christin

This article recounts the failure to gain access to the Swiss asylum agency's ‘country of origin information’ (COI) unit and how it negatively impacted access to similar research sites in Europe. As producers of indispensable expert knowledge, these units play an important instrumental and symbolic role in asylum procedures and policies. Interpreted as a situated case of knowledge control, rather than a general resistance to research within the institution, the denial of access reveals how the intended research challenged gatekeepers’ idealised construction of COI – both as a type of knowledge and as a field of practice. The negotiation about access gradually shifted to other topics, such as the researcher's competence, the field's situation and the nature of legitimate knowledge – all related to politics of expertise and the COI units’ legitimising functions in the wider migration apparatus. The negotiation became a competition over cognitive authority and the monopoly of legitimate knowledge production about the field. By black‐boxing country information, the gatekeepers fostered the illegibility of bureaucratic processes and the legibility of the state as discourse. Analysing the 30‐month negotiation process also reveals the difficulties to seize the contours of the state when encountering transnational bureaucratic fields.

2021, Miaz, Jonathan, Rosset, Damian

2020, Rosset, Damian

2019, Kalir, Barak, Achermann, Christin, Rosset, Damian

2020-6, Rosset, Damian

2020, van der Kist, Jasper, Rosset, Damian

State institutions engage in the production of knowledge and representations about the countries of origin of asylum seekers. Building on science and technology studies (STS), critical migration studies and critical citizenship studies, this article analyzes the alignment of government Country of Origin Information (COI) with the public. We examine the different processes through which public legitimacy of asylum knowledge is fostered in three bureaucratic settings. The case studies highlight the variable legitimacy-constructing technologies and practices of publication (Norway), evaluation (United Kingdom) and consultation (European Union) vis-à-vis asylum-relevant information. We demonstrate how this shifting style in the knowledge-based governance of asylum does not consistently enhance legitimacy and stabilization of asylum-relevant information, and can provoke new forms of contestation in this environment of high-stakes policymaking. Finally, we highlight the lack of political subjectivity of asylum seekers to intervene in the production and possibly contest the legitimacy of this information about themselves and their country of origin.

2019, Rosset, Damian

La stricte séparation entre la production d’informations sur les pays d’origine (COI pour country of origin information) et l’évaluation des demandes d’asile est une norme fondamentale de la pratique professionnelle des producteurs de COI. En se penchant sur l’unité COI norvégienne, cet article examine la manière dont cette séparation est matérialisée à travers une véritable infrastructure de distanciation mise en place autour des sites de production des COI. Ce dispositif se manifeste non seulement dans les discours et les pratiques, mais aussi dans les structures organisationnelles, les lieux et les normes légales qui participent à l’écologie de la situation d’expertise particulière que constituent les COI. Il participe à la construction de la légitimité des institutions, mais aussi des acteurs impliqués dans la production du savoir.