The European Court of Human Rights has blocked the deportation of refugees to Rwanda. A law reform is now underway that could bypass the decision. The Conservative Party has long had the goal of getting freer hands on immigrants.
In the UK, the government announced earlier this week a plan to reform human rights law. The government said the reform would strengthen freedom of expression and parliamentary power, but critics say it undermines citizens’ human rights.
This is a body of law called the Human Rights Act. The government promulgated the bill quickly after a flight carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (EIT).
If the reform is adopted, ministers would have the option of ignoring the provisions of the EIT. Thus, the decision to ban the flight to Rwanda could also be overturned.
Professor of International Law Martin Scheinin The European University Institute recalls that the EIT currently has legally binding powers to decide if the United Kingdom has violated a human rights treaty and to award damages.
– If the British want to disregard international law then that is another matter, but there is no justification for it. That’s what Russia does, Scheinin says in a telephone interview with .
Critics say human rights would be undermined
Martin Scheinin points out that the British move away from the European Convention on Human Rights is not new.
– When David Cameron as Prime Minister, he was active in launching a debate on the secession of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has been repeated in various forms.
According to him, the goal is in practice freer hands to remove foreigners from the country.
Reform of the law on human rights has long been a goal of the Conservative Party. The issue has been mentioned in the party’s election program as early as 2010, but in the past the Conservatives have not had a sufficient majority to carry out the reform.
If Parliament approves the bill, the bar for dealing with human rights complaints would rise. It would also undermine the ability of foreigners convicted of a crime in Britain to challenge deportation on the basis of their human rights.
He also mentioned the flight to Rwanda as an example.
– It is a disadvantage that an order from Strasbourg (EIT) could, for example, prevent planes from leaving, Raab told the BBC.
According to Scheinin, what is essential is what is happening to asylum seekers in Rwanda.
– That is the ultimate question. Not expulsion by mutual agreement, but that they will not be able to secure post-return conditions that are in line with international law.
“Denmark is my second cry”
And can Britain unilaterally withdraw from an international agreement? Scheinin says Britain’s difference with the EU has no effect on the relationship between Britain and the EIT.
– The European Convention on Human Rights is a separate system, its legal status has not changed in any way. The domestic status of the agreement, in turn, is in Britain’s own hands.
Denmark is also currently negotiating the deployment of asylum seekers in Rwanda, which has been deplored by the European Commission and the UN.
– Denmark is another cry of grief over the European Convention on Human Rights and the treatment of asylum seekers. That pretty much Denmark is taking Britain as a model if it wants to say so.