A Law and Economics Analysis of Rulings Issued by the Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation

Abstract

Asylum and migration are salient issues within Belgian society and its political and media landscapes. Recently, the Flemish public broadcaster (VRT), in collaboration with researchers of the University of Antwerp, presented the results of a public opinion survey about political themes titled “De Stemming”. The findings revealed that, nearly 100 days prior to the June 2024-elections, migration — including asylum— emerged as the most important political topic. Notably, this issue also dominated the 2019 elections. The topic has consistently remained among the top five most important topics over the past five years (VRT, 2024a, 2024b). Although asylum decision-making has profound societal, political, and economic implications, empirical knowledge regarding Belgian asylum adjudication remains notably limited. Nevertheless, the quote at the top of this page highlights why asylum (appeal) decision-making constitutes a particularly intriguing field for empirical analysis by law and economic scholars. Given that credibility - an inherently subjective concept - plays a vital role in asylum adjudication, decision-makers enjoy a considerable leeway for judicial discretion, which provides scope for extralegal factors to impact asylum decisions. The analysis of Belgian data expands and enriches the existing body of empirical evidence on asylum appeal decision-making. The existing literature predominantly focuses on asylum and immigration decision-making in Northern American countries (U.S. and Canada), and on the first-instance adjudication made by specialized entities. Focusing on the decision-making of the Belgian asylum appealAsylum and migration are salient issues within Belgian society and its political and media landscapes. Recently, the Flemish public broadcaster (VRT), in collaboration with researchers of the University of Antwerp, presented the results of a public opinion survey about political themes titled “De Stemming”. The findings revealed that, nearly 100 days prior to the June 2024-elections, migration — including asylum— emerged as the most important political topic. Notably, this issue also dominated the 2019 elections. The topic has consistently remained among the top five most important topics over the past five years (VRT, 2024a, 2024b). Although asylum decision-making has profound societal, political, and economic implications, empirical knowledge regarding Belgian asylum adjudication remains notably limited. Nevertheless, the quote at the top of this page highlights why asylum (appeal) decision-making constitutes a particularly intriguing field for empirical analysis by law and economic scholars. Given that credibility - an inherently subjective concept - plays a vital role in asylum adjudication, decision-makers enjoy a considerable leeway for judicial discretion, which provides scope for extralegal factors to impact asylum decisions. The analysis of Belgian data expands and enriches the existing body of empirical evidence on asylum appeal decision-making. The existing literature predominantly focuses on asylum and immigration decision-making in Northern American countries (U.S. and Canada), and on the first-instance adjudication made by specialized entities. Focusing on the decision-making of the Belgian asylum appeal court may yield valuable additional insights beyond the prevailing focus in the literature, given the differing institutional setting of the Belgian asylum court, where a single judge—not a panel— presides over the vast majority of asylum appeal cases and where judges are not part of a politicized judicial selection system. Accordingly, our findings offer insights how results concerning biases and disparities detected in other jurisdictions, with different institutional settings or legal cultures, can be confirmed.