Credibility as a fuzzy concept in refugee law: a systematic literature review

Assessment of a claimant’s credibility is decisive for the outcome in most asylum cases. Yet, there are no binding international rules on how such procedures should be undertaken, nor is there consensus on how the concept should be understood. This has resulted in a sprawling scholarly literature, reflecting equally diverging practical implementations across jurisdictions. This article seeks out greater conceptual clarity through a systematic literature review of 117 academic journal articles covering a broad span of academic disciplines. In doing so, we approach credibility as a “fuzzy concept,” characterised by vague definitional boundaries, and highly context dependent. On this basis, we first develop a guiding taxonomy to unpack this fuzziness. Second, our analysis reveals a fundamental conceptual fragmentation between those who focus on credibility as a feature of the claimant’s testimony and those who approach credibility as a more personal trait. We show how this rift can be seen to form along three dominating clusters, each pointing to reliance on different indicators. Finally, we draw together insights from across disciplines showing how continued reliance on specific indicators is not only scientifically and legally flawed, but also casts doubt on whether national asylum systems are capable of producing fair and coherent outcomes.