Vignette d'image

Miaz, Jonathan

Nom
Miaz, Jonathan
Affiliation principale
Fonction
Collaborateur.trice scientifique
Identifiants
https://libra.unine.ch/handle/123456789/30795
_
0000-0002-8709-2520

Résultat de la recherche

Filtres

22
22
2
2
Réinitialiser les filtres

Paramètres

Voici les éléments 1 - 2 sur 2
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Detention Decisions: Implementation Rationales of the Bureaucratic Use of Immigration Detention in Swiss Cantons
    (2021-12-3)
    Miaz, Jonathan 
    ;
    Achermann, Christin 
    This article analyzes the coexisting meanings, interpretations and functions underlying the varying uses of immigration detention in Swiss cantons. The authors argue that cantonal immigration bureaucracies decide on administrative detention according to different and intertwined implementation rationales, revealing varying functions and reasonings which shape its uses in practice. This highlights the significant variation in subnational policies and practices with regards to immigration detention within a single federal country, depending on these rationales and the cantonal contexts. The cantonal discretionary implementation of the same legal norms leads to various cantonal policies, resulting in different numbers and profiles of persons detained.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Bureaucracies Under Judicial Control? Relational Discretion in the Implementation of Immigration Detention in Swiss Cantons
    (2021-8-10)
    Miaz, Jonathan 
    ;
    Achermann, Christin 
    Based on interviews with bureaucrats and judges in several Swiss cantons, this article analyzes how bureaucrats decide to order immigration detention and how the judicial review shapes their decisions. The authors argue that discretionary decision-making regarding immigration detention is structured by the web of relationships in which decision-makers are embedded and affected by the practices of other street-level actors. The varying cantonal configurations result in heterogenous bureaucratic practices that affect the profiles and numbers of persons being detained. In particular, differences in judges’ interpretation of legal principles, as well as in their expectations, strongly affect bureaucratic decisions.