Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy.

This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)521-530
Number of pages10
JournalSocial Policy and Society
Volume20
Issue number3
Early online date18 Mar 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The research for this article has been funded by a Veni grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press.

Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • CARIN-criteria
  • Deservingness
  • judicial discourse
  • legal reasoning
  • migrants

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this