Abstract
This article addresses the question of how ‘Country of Origin Information’ (COI) reports—that is, research developed and used to support decision-making in the asylum process—can be published in an ethical manner. The article focuses on the risk that published COI reports could be misused and thereby harm the subjects of the reports and/or those involved in their development. It supports a situational approach to assessing data ethics when publishing COI reports, whereby COI service providers must weigh up the benefits and harms of publication based, inter alia, on the foreseeability and probability of harm due to potential misuse of the research, the public good nature of the research, and the need to balance the rights and duties of the various actors in the asylum process, including asylum seekers themselves. Although this article focuses on the specific question of ‘how to publish COI reports in an ethical manner’, it also intends to promote further research on data ethics in the asylum process, particularly in relation to refugees, where more foundational issues should be considered.
Highlights
‘Country of Origin Information’ (COI) is an umbrella term describing the diverse body of information used to support decision-making in the asylum process
It supports a situational approach to assessing data ethics when publishing COI reports, whereby COI service providers must weigh up the benefits and harms of publication based, inter alia, on the foreseeability and probability of harm due to potential misuse of the research, the public good nature of the research, and the need to balance the rights and duties of the various actors in the asylum process, including asylum seekers themselves
This article has highlighted some of the key ethical issues that should be considered when publishing COI reports relating to asylum claims
Summary
‘Country of Origin Information’ (COI) is an umbrella term describing the diverse body of information used to support decision-making in the asylum process. COI reports can be thematic, country-specific, or case-specific (produced on request for specific claimants) They are developed by a variety of organizations, but primarily by non-profit organizations (for example, the charity Asylos); national government agencies (for example, the UK Home Office); and regional and international governmental agencies (for example, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)) (hereinafter, ‘COI service providers’).. There is a lack of consistently applied standards for developing COI, especially with respect to the accuracy, relevance and reliability of information, and transparency of sources, as well as for the relative evidentiary value to be given to different COI sources by decision-makers in asylum proceedings.8 Amongst other things, this lack of consistency enables claimants and national border agencies to ‘cherry pick’ different COI to suit their case, with claimants seeking to substantiate the risk of persecution or. Apply to the processing of personal data, would cease to apply (in case of anonymisation) or apply only to a limited extent (in case of pseudonymisation).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
