Is UK's 'Rwanda Plan' violating international law?

The UK government has recently passed controversial legislation to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, despite facing humanitarian concerns and condemnation.

Tasked with scrutinising proposed legislation, the House of Lords on Monday repeatedly sent back the plans with amendments to MPs in the lower chamber.

However, they eventually agreed to make no further changes, ensuring the bill's passage into law after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government would force Parliament to sit as late into Monday night as necessary to pass it.

Sunak had already promised to start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda within 10 to 12 weeks.

Despite mounting international pressure to reconsider the legislation due to concerns about its compliance with international law, Sunak said the government had booked commercial charter planes and trained staff to take migrants to Rwanda, a policy he hopes to benefit from in the upcoming elections due this year.

“No ifs, no buts. These flights are going to Rwanda,” Sunak told a news conference earlier on Monday.

However, there are significant concerns regarding the Rwanda Plan, which many critics argue breaches international law and undermines human dignity.

What is the ‘Rwanda Plan’ and how does it work?

In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement for people seeking asylum in the UK to be deported to Rwanda, known as the ‘Migration and Economic Partnership’ or ‘Rwanda Plan’.

The law will let the government send asylum seekers to Rwanda some 6,400 kilometers (4,000 miles) away, if they arrive in Britain without permission.

Under the scheme, once refugees have been sent to Rwanda, they will be processed under Rwandan law and unable to return to the UK.

Initially set up to take effect from January 1, 2022, the first deportation flight scheduled for June 2022 was blocked by European judges. The UK Supreme Court subsequently upheld a ruling that the scheme was unlawful because the migrants risked being sent back to their home countries or to other countries where they would be at risk of abuse.

In response, the Prime Minister agreed to a new treaty with Rwanda and introduced new legislation - the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - to overcome any legal obstacles and declare the country safe.

Although no deportations have occurred, Britain has already paid Rwanda more than £200 million ($304 million), and it could cost more than £600 million to resettle some 300 refugees.

Who does ‘Rwanda Plan’ apply to?

Rwanda Plan covers all asylum seekers who have entered the UK ‘illegally’, even though there is no way to apply for asylum from outside the country and no refugee visa to enter the country ‘legally’.

This is despite the fact that under the Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, asylum seekers have the right to apply for asylum in the UK and should not be penalised for arriving irregularly.

Home Office statistics also show that most people crossing the Channel are subsequently recognised as refugees.

This means that people arriving are already extremely vulnerable and should not be penalised for seeking asylum.

But for Sunak’s government, stopping the flow is a priority, despite critics saying the plan to deport people to Rwanda rather than handle asylum seekers at home is inhumane and carries possible international law breaches.

How might the deportation law violate international law?

The UK is a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the Refugee Convention, which recognises seeking asylum as a fundamental human right.

It establishes the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.

It also specifies that refugees should not be penalised for illegal entry or stay in most cases, recognising that seeking asylum may necessitate breaching immigration regulations for safety.

Article 31 of the Convention further outlines that refugees arriving directly from a threatening country, and entering a state without permission, should not be penalised.

Being a signatory to the Convention, the UK is therefore obligated not to penalise asylum seekers for their irregular entry into the country.

Additionally, on 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court also ruled that the Rwanda plan was illegal because deporting asylum seekers would breach UK and international human rights law.

In a unanimous decision, the court also ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country because of the risk that it would not properly adjudicate asylum claims and would return refugees to places where they would face persecution.

However, in response to the top court’s ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Meanwhile, Sunak’s Conservative government pushed for Rwanda to be declared a safe destination, making it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allowing the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that seek to block removals.

‘Legislation hinders rule of law in UK’: UN

Despite international concerns and criticism, the UK has passed legislation to send unwanted asylum seekers to the African country.

Later today, international humanitarian organisations swiftly condemned Britain’s plans after the approval.

“The new legislation marks a further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said in a statement.

“Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighbouring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations.”

Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, also stated, “By shifting responsibility for refugees, reducing the UK’s courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people, this new legislation seriously hinders the rule of law in the UK and sets a perilous precedent globally.”

“It is critical to the protection of the human rights and dignity of refugees and migrants seeking protection that all removals from the UK are carried out after assessing their specific individual circumstances in strict compliance with international human rights and refugee law.”