29 February 2024
When Treaties are Forbidden
A few months ago the UK’s Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda to have their claims determined there was unlawful. The British government responded to this decision with a Treaty and Bill that seek to legislate the fiction, or indeed, the falsehood, of Rwanda’s safety. This move demonstrates the fragility of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Addressing the latter, this essay shifts focus from domestic challenges to international ones, exploring whether STCs could be contested as ‘forbidden treaties’. Continue reading >>
0 
27 February 2024
Abschreckung um jeden Preis?
Zurzeit berät das Oberhaus des britischen Parlaments (House of Lords) die sog. Safety of Rwanda Bill. Zusammen mit dem Illegal Immigration Act soll dieses Gesetz die Abschiebung von Flüchtlingen nach Ruanda ermöglichen, um dort deren Asylverfahren durchzuführen. Während entsprechende Pläne auch in Deutschland Anklang finden, zeigt das Gesetzesvorhaben in bedenkenswerter Deutlichkeit, welche rechtsstaatlichen Konsequenzen mit einem solchen Outsourcing von Asylverfahren verbunden sind. Denn um einen möglichst wirksamen Abschreckungseffekt auf andere Flüchtende zu erzielen, haben die britische Regierung und das Unterhaus des Parlaments (House of Commons) bereits dafür gestimmt, Tatsachen zu erfinden, Grundrechte außer Kraft zu setzen und internationales Recht zu brechen. Continue reading >>
0
20 November 2023
Supreme Judgecraft
In R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) the UK Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. Rwanda is not, at present, a safe third country. There are, the Supreme Court found, “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.” Should this occur “refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all.” We argue that the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning and evidential assessment are both impeccable, applying legal principles that are well-embedded in international and domestic law to very clear evidence. However, the UK government’s responses are deeply troubling, from the perspectives of refugee protection, international legality, and the rule of law in the UK. Continue reading >>
0
19 November 2023
Magical Thinking and Obsessive Desires
Two days before the UK Supreme Court declared the government’s Rwanda policy unlawful, PM Rishi Sunak rid himself of his Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. The sacking, the ruling, and the aftermath demonstrate both a key division in the Conservative Party and illustrate the choice it faces on the kind of politics it will promote after the next election: socially liberal technocratic nationalism (the Sunak option) or illiberal ‘culture war’ nationalism (the Braverman faction). The Supreme Court’s judgment raises the stakes in this conflict because its grounds for ruling the Rwanda Plan unlawful appear to provide ammunition for the radical illiberal wing of the Conservative Party. Continue reading >>
0
17 November 2023
Defeat in the Supreme Court
On 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) unanimously declared the government’s policy of removing some asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claims unlawful. Like the Court of Appeal, it found substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment because of insufficient guarantees against refoulement. This post explores the origin and significance of the UKSC judgment and the legal and policy implications of the UK government’s immediate response to it. Continue reading >>
0