Martti Koskenniemi, Professor Emeritus of International Law, believes that many deported to Rwanda will try to return soon. Denmark is also planning to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda in Central Africa.
Britain’s decision to start flying asylum seekers to Rwanda in central Africa has raised a lot of questions.
According to an agreement reached in mid-April, Britain will pay Rwanda around € 143 million for hosting and hosting some of Britain’s asylum seekers.
The agreement can be applied to asylum seekers who arrived in the UK this year. It is known that transportation has not yet begun.
Professor Emeritus of International Law Martti Koskenniemen it is quite clear that the British project is illegal.
– Britain and Rwanda can agree on anything, but if asylum seekers are forced to be transferred to another country, it will simply violate the UN Refugee Convention, Koskenniemi says in a telephone interview.
The UN Refugee Convention obliges asylum seekers not to be sent to countries where their rights cannot be guaranteed. Rwanda is such a country. The forced transfer of any asylum seeker in this way violates the agreement, Koskenniemi emphasizes.
Australia was the first country to outsource the processing of asylum applications and the retention of asylum seekers. In eight years, Australia relocated thousands of people to the island of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. According to the UN, in doing so, Australia violated the Refugee Convention.
Rwanda is at the tail end of human rights statistics
Koskenniemi states that the UN Refugee Convention also prohibits the sending of asylum seekers to countries where they may be persecuted.
– We have some information about the human rights situation in Rwanda and it has not been very recent. For example, asylum seekers from the Congo have been shot at the border.
In human rights comparisons, Rwanda is at the tail end.
According to Koskenniemi, it is still legally secondary to which country Britain will transfer asylum seekers. Whether the conditions are good or bad, the refugee agreement is binding on the signatory countries.
It is unclear under what conditions asylum seekers deported from Britain would live in Rwanda. According to preliminary plans, they would initially be accommodated in hostels that would be converted into asylum centers, for example.
“Project may still crash”
– The question is to what extent Britain’s own legal system respects international agreements, in this case the 1951 Refugee Convention.
It is also a question of how seriously Britain takes the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ interpretations.
However, Koskenniemi believes that in Britain the court finds the asylum seekers’ transfer project illegal.
– Britain is a state governed by the rule of law and the courts there are independent. I am confident that this will ultimately be found to be against the law.
– However, this does not necessarily lead to the government reversing the decision. The government can say that what we do from those courts.
Martti Koskenniemi, Professor Emeritus of International Law, still considers it possible that the project will still collapse. This is not necessarily the case for legal reasons, but for purely practical reasons.
– This could be an extremely expensive solution for Britain. The Australian experience is that relocating asylum seekers proved to be far too costly financially.
Britain will initially pay Rwanda € 143 million in the cost of receiving asylum seekers, but in the future Britain has also committed to pay to maintain its operations.
The British Home Office has denied any doubts that the transfer of asylum seekers would be economically viable.
Mostly paperless young men would be sent to Rwanda
Prime minister Boris Johnson has spoken that a one-way ticket to Rwanda could be given to tens of thousands of people in the coming years.
The British government is encouraging those displaced in Rwanda to stay in the country for at least five years. However, Koskenniemi believes that many would try to go to Britain again.
– It is likely that the person transferred to Rwanda will set off again and be found on the Channel again in a few months.
In Britain, politicians have been approved by the Home Secretary Priti Patelin and praised by Prime Minister Johnson.
According to Johnson, the intention is to curb illegal entry and smuggling. Authorities say Rwandan would be turned to mostly paperless young men arriving in small boats across the English Channel.
Koskenniemi estimates that the migration project for asylum seekers is based on xenophobia.
– There is anti-alienation in British society. Brexit was one example of this. There are many reports of British racism today and in the past. It is such a simple and unpleasant thing.
Denmark is also planning to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
Britain is therefore not the first country to try to outsource its asylum process.
For years, Australia has relocated boat and ship asylum seekers to the island of Manus in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
Between 2012 and 2019, more than 4,000 people were transferred to notorious detention centers on the islands. More than ten people are known to have died as a result of poor conditions in the centers.
As a result of the criticism, Australia abandoned the Manus Center last year.
Israel has returned asylum seekers and migrants to Rwanda and Uganda. Israel has not publicly named the target countries, although they are known.
Those who are not granted asylum in Israel may return to their country of origin or be given $ 3,500 and a one-way ticket to a third country.
If necessary, those who have received a negative asylum decision will be imprisoned in Israel.
Denmark, like the United Kingdom, has been preparing legislation on the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda. However, there is no agreement between the countries yet.
Denmark was the first country to accede to the UN Refugee Convention in 1951. In recent years, immigration laws in Denmark have been tightened. Denmark is now aiming for no asylum seekers to enter the country.
However, Denmark has welcomed Ukrainian refugees. The country plans to accommodate and issue work permits to up to 100,000 Ukrainians.
Martti Koskenniemi, Professor Emeritus of International Law, does not believe that the transfer of asylum seekers to other countries will become more common. That would require an amendment to the UN Refugee Convention, which would be impossible.
– Governments are happy to set aside problems and focus on foreigners, refugees and migrants. Such a policy is always politically useful in some countries at some times, but not in all countries at all times.