Beyond the verdictAssessing the efficacy of strategic litigation in advancing unaccompanied migrant children’s rights

Resumen

With traditional legal forms of doing justice proving to be incapable of putting a halt to widespread violations of unaccompanied migrant childrens rights in Spain, the need for alternative forms of legal advocacy techniques has grown louder. Practitioners and academics have found in integral legal methodologies compelling means to effectively exercise the rights conferred by the international community upon the individual. In mobilising the law, synchronously with paralegal lobbying mechanisms, arguments exist in support of strategic lawyering being capable of bringing about transformative bottom-up changes, and going beyond isolated ad hoc decisions. Moving past direct and tangible impacts, towards indirect and symbolic outcomes, however, demands a multidisciplinary approach that address the cause behind the case from the many fronts that facilitate the perpetuation of the status quo that is intended to be challenged. The comprehensive outlook that characterises this legal advocacy means has the potential to enhance efficiency, yet it may also lead to increased complexity due to the imperative of coordinating synergies between lawyering and non-legal stakeholders. In response to such greater intricacy, this research aims to identify, by virtue of the particularities of the R.Y.S. v. Spain case and the circumstances surrounding this, the factors that strategists must keep in close consideration throughout litigation. Upon factoring these elements, where an impact has been obtained, this analysis seeks to assess the aftermath in the many domains that underpin the persistence of the social problem to be confronted. Towards meeting these research objectives, this thesis strives to examine whether and to what extent Strategic Litigation is an effective legal advocacy technique to advance unaccompanied migrant childrens rights in Spain.