Volume 3, Issue 1, March 2020, Page: 20-31
Reject and Eject: Arresting the Vanishing Relevance of Non-refoulement Obligations in the United Kingdom
Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka, Almond Legals-Immigration, Asylum and Human Rights Lawyers & Researchers, London, UK
Received: Feb. 13, 2020;       Accepted: Mar. 11, 2020;       Published: May 12, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200301.14      View  93      Downloads  51
Abstract
This paper argues that expulsion decisions in the United Kingdom are sometimes at variance with the very important non-refoulement obligations in international law and raises fundamental issues of concern. However, recent legal developments in the Strasbourg jurisprudence and the Court of Justice of the European Union seem to halt this trend of the vanishing relevance of non-refoulement obligations-a Daniel has come to judgment. This paper, applying the documentary analysis methodology argues that except this nascent development is maintained and sustained, non-refoulement obligations may still remain ‘theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective’. The bottom line is that a State is not excused from its human rights obligations by transferring, returning or removing a migrant to another State even on the basis of agreement without actually determining whether there will be violations of the individual’s rights under international refugee law or international human rights law. It has therefore been shown that there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the establishment of non-refoulement as a norm of customary international law with wide acceptance by the international community of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as jus cogens.
Keywords
Immigration, Expulsion, Deportation, Non-refoulement, Medical Cases, International Law, Jus Cogens
To cite this article
Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka, Reject and Eject: Arresting the Vanishing Relevance of Non-refoulement Obligations in the United Kingdom, International Journal of Law and Society. Special Issue: Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020, pp. 20-31. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200301.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandani v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 471, para 67.
[2]
Seyla Benhabib, ‘Borders, Boundaries and Citizenship’ (2005) 38 (4) Political Science and Politics 673, 675.
[3]
Matthew Gibney and Randall Hansen, 'Deportation and the liberal state: the forcible return of asylum seekers and unlawful migrants in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom' New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper No. 77 accessed 14 August 2015.
[4]
Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law (OUP 2007) 9; see also Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement: Opinion in Erika Feller and Volker Türk and Frances Nicholson (eds) Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (CUP 2003) 148-153; See also HRC, CCPR General Comment No 24 (2 Nov 1994) CCPR/C/21/ Rev. 1/Add. 6 para 8, cf Art 7 ICCPR with Art 3 CAT above alongside Art 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 189 UNTS 150.
[5]
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT) Art 3 CAT.
[6]
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [1999] 2 WLR 827; [2000] 1 AC 147 [Lord Browne-Wilkinson].
[7]
Tamas Molnar, ‘The principle of non-refoulement under international law: Its inception and evolution in a nutshell’ (2016) 1 (1) Courvinus Journal of International Affairs 51, 51.
[8]
Feraud-Giraud et Ludwig von Bar, (Rapporteurs) Regles internationals sur l’admission et l’expulsion des strangers (Institut de Droit international Session de Geneve, 1892).
[9]
See the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 2545 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954).
[10]
See also the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), Article 3.
[11]
See Aoife Duffy, ‘Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law’ (2008) 20 International Journal of Refugee Law 374, 383 citing ‘Extraditions, Expulsions, Deportations’ in, Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights - Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11 (The International Helsinki Federation, 2003).
[12]
UNHCR, UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulementaccessed 08 February 2017, see also UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocolaccessed 08/02/2017.
[13]
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT), Art 53 provides ‘A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international.
[14]
Jean Allain, ‘The jus cogens Nature of non-refoulement’ (2002) 13 International Journal of Refugee Law 533, 535.
[15]
UNHCR, EXCOM Conclusion No 82 (XL) (1989).
[16]
Cathryn Costello and Michelle Foster, ‘Non Refoulement as Custom and Jus Cogens? Putting the Prohibition to the Test’ (2015) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 46, 307.
[17]
A Orakhelashvili, Peremptory norms in international law (OUP 2006) 56; see the UNHCR, EXCOM Conclusion No 25 (XXXIII) ‘General Conclusion on International Protection General Conclusion on International Protection’ (1982).
[18]
Alice Farmer, ‘Non-Refoulement and Jus Cogens: Limiting Anti-Terror Measures That Threaten Refugee Protection’ (2008) 23 (1) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 1, 8.
[19]
Organization of American States, Cartagena Declaration on Refugees OAS Ser L/V/II. 66 Doc 10 Rev 1 at III (5) (1984).
[20]
Organization for African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (adopted 10 September 1969, entered into force June 20 1974) 1001 UNTS 45.
[21]
Brazil Declaration and plan of action ‘A Framework for Cooperation and Regional Solidarity to Strengthen the International Protection of Refugees, Displaced and Stateless Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean’ (3 December 2014) accessed 09 February 2017.
[22]
See the analysis of this Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy case, by Mariagiulia Guiffre, ‘Watered-Down Rights on the High Seas: Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy’ (2012) 61 (3) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 728, 733
[23]
K Wouters, International legal standards for the protection from refoulement (Intersentia 2009) 30.
[24]
UNGA Res 51/75 (12 February 1997) cited by Castello and Foster.
[25]
E Lauterpacht and D Bethlehem, ‘The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement’ in Feller E, Volker T and Nicholson F (eds) Refugee protection in international law: UNHCR’s global consultations on international protection (CUP 2003) 93.
[26]
Julian M Lehman, ‘Rights at the Frontier: Border Control and Human Rights Protection of Irregular International Migrants’ (2011) 3 (2) Goettingen Journal of International Law 733, 750.
[27]
Gerald L. Neuman, ‘Extraterritorial Violations of Human Rights by the United States’ (1994) 9 (4) American University International Law Review 213, 25; see also Jean Allain, ‘The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement’, (2001) 13 (4) International Journal of Refugee Law 533, 534 citing Saadi v Italy (2009) 49 EHRR 30.
[28]
Saadi v Italy (2009) 49 EHRR 30.
[29]
A v Netherlands App no 4900/06 (ECtHR, 20 July 2010) 142.
[30]
N v Sweden App no 23505/09 (ECtHR, 20 July 2010) paras 51-54.
[31]
CAT, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 19 of the Convention: Comments by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture (8 June 2006) UN Doc CAT/C/GBR/CO/4/Add. 1 para 48.
[32]
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) Art 7.
[33]
A. R. J v Australia, Communication No 692/1996 UN Doc CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996 (11 August 1997) Annex, para 6.9; see also HRC, CCPR Considerations on Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee-United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (30 July 2008) UN Doc CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6 para12.
[34]
Ian MacDonald and Ronan Toal, MacDonald’s Immigration Law & Practice (1st Supp, 7th edn, LexisNexis 2009) 95; see Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 25, para 96.
[35]
Tyrer v UK (1978) 2 EHRR 1, para 35, see also Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 293, para 28-30; Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, para 100.
[36]
Katharina Rohl, ‘Fleeing violence and poverty: non-refoulement obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights’ (2005) UNHCR Working Paper no 111, 31 accessed 03 September 2014.
[37]
Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413, para 79.
[38]
Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
[39]
Nuala Mole, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe Publishing 2007) 30.
[40]
Stephan Breitenmoser and Gunter E Wilms, 'Human Rights v. Extradition: The Soering Case' (1989/90) 11 Mich. J. Int'L L 843, 885-886; Terje Enarsen, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and die Notion of an Implied Right to de facto Asylum', (1990) 2 International Journal of Refugee Law 361, 366; William A Schabas, ‘International Law and the Abolition of the Death Penalty’ (1998) 55 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 797, 803.
[41]
Hemme Battjes, ‘The Soering reshold: Why Only Fundamental Values Prohibit Refoulement in ECHR Case Law’ (2009) 11 (3) European Journal of Migration and Law 205; see also Nuala Mole, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe Publishing 2007) 30; see para 79 -81 of Chahal where the ECtHR made reference to para 88 of the Soering case.
[42]
Christine Van Den Wyngaert,'Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora's Box?' (1990) 39 ICLQ 757, 760-761; Richard B Lillich, The Soering Case' (1991) 85 AM. J. INT’L L 128, 145-149; Collin Warbrick, 'Coherence and the European Court of Human Rights' (1989/90) 11 Mich. J. Int'L L 1073, 1079.
[43]
G. S Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (OUP 2010) 392.
[44]
Michelle Foster, ‘Protection Elsewhere: The Legal Implications of Requiring Refugees to Seek Protection in Another State’ (2007) 28 (2) Michigan Journal of International Law 223, 224.
[45]
Michelle Foster, ‘Responsibility Sharing or Shifting? “Safe” Third Countries and International Law’ (2008) 25 (2) Refuge 64, 64.
[46]
Alberto Acherman and Mario Gattiker, ‘Safe Third Countries: European Developments’ (1995) 7 (1) International Journal of Refugee Law 19; see also K Hailbronner, ‘The Concept of “Safe Country” and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective’ (1993) 5 International Journal of Refugee Law 36.
[47]
M T Gil-Bazo, ‘The Safe Third Country Concept in International Agreements on Refugee Protection: Assessing State Practice’ (2015) 33 (1) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 42, 3, accessed 11 February 2017, citing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or stateless person [2013] OJ L 180/31 (Dublin III).
[48]
Rosemary Byrne and Andrew Shacknove, ‘The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law’ (1996) 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal 185, 192.
[49]
See First List of Safe Countries (Refugee Convention and Human Rights (1)) of the 2004 Act mentioned above, see also Gina Clayton, Immigration and Asylum Law, (5th ed OUP, 2012) 439.
[50]
UNHCR, EXCOM Conclusion No 58 (XL) ‘Problem of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner from a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection’ (1989).
[51]
UNHCR, EXCOM Conclusion No 15 (XXX) ‘Refugees Without An Asylum Country’ (1979) para h (iv).
[52]
TI v UK App No 43844/98 (ECtHR, 7 March 2000) para 456-457.
[53]
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1569 (2007) on Assessment of Transit and Processing Centres as a Response to Mixed Flows of Migrants and Asylum Seekers (01 October 2007) para 13.6.
[54]
See R (Yogathas) v SSHD [2003] AC 920.
[55]
Nasseri v SSHD [2008] EWCA 464.
[56]
Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5.
[57]
AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 579.
[58]
AMM (Somalia) v SSHD [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) [501].
[59]
Sufi and Elmi v UK App No 8319/07 and 11449/07 (ECtHR, 28 June 2011).
[60]
K. R. S v UK App No 32733/08 (ECtHR, 02 December 2008).
[61]
See for instance the Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) [2013] OJ L 180/96; Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) [2013] OJ L 180/60.
[62]
M. S. S v Belgium and Greece App No 30696/09 (ECtHR, 21 January 2011) paras 342, 358-359.
[63]
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy App No 27765/09 (ECtHR, 23 February 2012).
[64]
Helen Lambert, ‘Safe Third Country’ in the European Union: An Evolving Concept in International Law and Implications for the UK’ (2012) 26 (4) Journal of Immigration and Asylum Law 318; Helen Lambert, ‘Safe Third Country’ in the European Union: An Evolving Concept in International Law and Implications for the UK’ (2012) University of Westminster School of Law Research Paper 13/05 11 accessed 10 February 2017.
[65]
Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department & M. E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner [2011] ECR I-13905.
[66]
In D v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 423.
[67]
N v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 885.
[68]
cf Bensaid v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 10, paras 36-40, see also CA v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 1165.
[69]
Kathryn Greenman, ‘A Caste Built on Sand? Article 3 ECHR and the Source of Risk in Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Law’ (2015) 00 (00) International Journal of Refugee Law 1, 2.
[70]
Case C-562/13 Abdida [2014] (18 December 2014).
[71]
See the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2000] OJ C 364/1, Art 47; see also judgments in Case C-432/05 Unibet (London) Ltd and Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR 1-2271, para 37, and Case C-93/12 Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov [2013] ECR para 59.
[72]
Art 52 (3) of the EU Charter states: ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection’.
[73]
See discussions on this at EU Litigation accessed 29 March 2017, see also EDAL-European Database of Asylum Law, CJEU: Advocate General Opinion in Case C-562/13 Abdida accessed 29 March 2017.
[74]
Paposhvili v Belgium App no 41738/10 (ECtHR, 13 December 2016), see para 133, 222-226 of the judgment.
[75]
AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 64.
[76]
Cruz Varas v Sweden App no 15576/89 (ECtHR 20 March 1991) para 76.
[77]
Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium App no 13178/03 (ECtHR, 12 October 2006) paras 8-10.
[78]
Vilvarajah and Others v UK App no 13163/87 (ECtHR, 30 October 1991).
Browse journals by subject