Comparative Models of Refugee Status Determination: Evaluating Procedural Fragmentation And Rights Protection

Abstract

Objective

Refugee Status Determination (RSD) systems represent the practical interface between state sovereignty and international protection obligations. Although the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines refugee status, it does not prescribe uniform procedural mechanisms for determining eligibility. States therefore retain significant autonomy in structuring asylum procedures. This procedural diversity, however, produces varying degrees of fragmentation in institutional design, appellate oversight, evidentiary standards, and access to legal assistance. Such fragmentation may profoundly affect the protection of asylum seekers’ rights, particularly the guarantee against refoulement. This article evaluates comparative models of RSD through the lens of procedural fragmentation and its implications for fairness, accountability, and compliance with international law. Using Nigeria and Germany as contrasting case studies, it analyses an executive-centered administrative model alongside a judicially integrated, multi-tiered review system. The article argues that where procedural autonomy operates without structured safeguards (especially independent appellate review and effective remedies), substantive protection risks erosion. Conversely, institutionalized judicial oversight enhances procedural legitimacy and strengthens compliance with international and constitutional norms. The article concludes by identifying minimum procedural guarantees capable of reconciling sovereign discretion with effective refugee protection.