Defining ‘the family’ in the courts. An analysis of Surinamese-Dutch family reunification cases

Scholars studying the politics of family migration have shown that ‘the family’ is not a given or apolitical concept. It is a site of governance at the heart of public and political debates, and its definition in migration policy has direct implications on the lives of both citizens and non-citizens. Who and what is seen as a family, and who may settle in the Netherlands, was also a key debate during and after Suriname’s independence in 1975. Previous work (forthcoming) has shown that Surinamese-Dutch activist organizations claimed the recognition of ‘Suriname-specific’ family forms as part of what they thought postcolonial citizenship for Surinamese in the Netherlands should look like. This article builds on that research and extends the analysis to the judicial arena. Following a constructivist sociolegal approach, it explores the role of the courts and lawyers in political struggles over family migration from Suriname to the Netherlands after 1975. How did these actors (re)define ‘the family’ in legal argumentation and decisions? To which extent did lawyers claim differential rights for Surinamese families and/or refer to the shared colonial history of Suriname and the Netherlands? How – if at all – did such arguments resonate in the Dutch courts? The analysis will be based on court rulings (local and at the Dutch Council of State), media reports on the rulings, and archive material from lawyers and other legal actors.