ABSTRACT
In the previous chapters, I presented an analysis of the dominant discourse on female asylum applicants in asylum policy, administrative practice and court decisions. Although some developments in case law were noted, the picture is rather static and no systematic attention has been paid to the ways in which people resist dominant discourse. In this chapter, the focus will therefore be on the ways in which applicants, lawyers and academics criticise decision-making practice and how governments have reacted to this. The thrust of my argument will be that refugee law discourse is so dominant that the counter-strategies of lawyers and academics tend to reproduce the fundaments identified in the previous chapters: namely the opposition of the West to the Rest and the opposition of "normal" versus "women's" cases.
