February 22, 2024

Governance in Rwanda: London’s Failed Asylum Policy – and the Alternative

opinion Rwanda rule

London’s failed asylum policy – and the alternative

Great Britain correspondent Stephanie Bolt Author photo APO Global Correspondents Meeting, September 2022 Great Britain correspondent Stephanie Bolt Author photo APO Global Correspondents Meeting, September 2022

Welt author Stephanie Bolts

Source: Marilyn Jawrich

You can listen to WELT’s podcast here

To view embedded content, your revocable consent to the transfer and processing of personal data is required, since providers of embedded content as third-party providers require such consent [In diesem Zusammenhang können auch Nutzungsprofile (u.a. auf Basis von Cookie-IDs) gebildet und angereichert werden, auch außerhalb des EWR]. By setting the toggle switch to ON, you agree to this (which can be revoked at any time). This also includes your consent to the transfer of certain Personal Data to other countries, including the United States of America, in accordance with Article 49(1)(a) GDPR. You can find more information on this. You can withdraw your consent at any time via the switch and the Privacy Policy at the bottom of the page.

The British Prime Minister has failed the trial for the second time in his attempt to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda. It should also be noted the judges’ reference to human rights in the European Union. There one must now discuss new methods.

DrBritain’s Court of Appeal ruled this week that London cannot transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claims in West Africa. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak responded angrily. His government “should be able to identify who comes into our country, not criminal gangs.”

See also  Vienna nuclear talks on Iran continue - news.ORF.at

Britain’s attempt to discourage migrants from fleeing to Europe by outsourcing asylum procedures is being watched closely in Germany and elsewhere. In the second case, Sunak has now failed. Two of the three judges said his conservative government’s plans violated international law.

Read also

There is a very real risk that asylum seekers will be returned to their countries of origin and face torture and persecution there. In doing so, the British government violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the prohibition against torture.

However, the three justices did not fundamentally question the government’s right to transfer persons seeking protection to safe third countries. Rather, he argues, on the basis of the Geneva Refugee Convention, that “there is in principle nothing to prevent the UK from deporting asylum-seekers to safe third countries”. This is exactly what Britain has been doing for many years, sending thousands of migrants to the continent every year thanks to its membership in the European Union and the Dublin System.

Read also

A UK Border Force ship brings rescued migrants to shore at Dover in the English Channel

From a European point of view, this raises two options that should be discussed without emotion. Is it ever possible to outsource the asylum procedure to another country if the referring state has no control over the treatment of those seeking protection there? This is exactly what the British failed to do.

If the answer to the first option is no, then the following is: Is it possible to set up centers close to the EU borders so that the required deterrent effect can be achieved by outsourcing the asylum procedure? And to manage this across national borders and on the basis of European laws and values ​​by a higher authority like the UN or agencies like Frontex? In the end, it must be about one thing above all else: promoting the rights of all those who really need protection.

See also  4th Jharkhand International Film Festival kicks off