ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is twofold: first, it seeks to provide a better understanding of lawyers’ ethics in practice in the field of publicly funded asylum law. It does so by examining Dutch asylum legal aid lawyers’ moral reasoning in respect of the ethically challenging issue of ‘the hopeless case’, employing a version of Christine Parker’s four approaches to moral reasoning in legal practice: adversarial advocacy, responsible lawyering, moral activism and relational lawyering. Second, it aims to demonstrate the applicability of Parker’s taxonomy, developed in a common law country (Australia), to a civil law country (The Netherlands). This paper shows, in line with what Parker argued, that lawyers may apply a combination of approaches – different ethical considerations carry different in weight in different circumstances. It provides illustrations of situations in which approaches coexist and compete and the circumstances in which one prevails over the other in the area under review.

摘要

本文的目的有两个：首先，它旨在提供对公共资助庇护法领域实践中律师道德的更好理解。它通过审查荷兰庇护法律援助律师在“无望案件”这一道德挑战问题上的道德推理来做到这一点，采用了克里斯汀·帕克在法律实践中道德推理的四种方法的一个版本：对抗性辩护、负责任的律师、道德行动主义和关系律师。其次，它旨在证明在普通法国家（澳大利亚）开发的帕克分类法对于大陆法国家（荷兰）的适用性。本文表明，与帕克的观点一致，律师可以采用多种方法的组合——不同的道德考虑在不同的情况下具有不同的权重。