Asylum seekers need to be protected from these changes. At the time of writing, over 4000 migrants have successfully crossed the Channel in 2020. Whilst some of those making a journey to the UK are economic migrants who could and, legally should, apply for visas to live and work in the UK, others are fleeing from war and persecution and are seeking asylum.
Boris Johnson stated that it was “very, very hard” to legally return people to France once they have arrived at the UK border which is true due to two sources of international law. The first is the Refugee Convention and the second is the Dublin Convention. From a human rights perspective, it is positive that it is difficult to turn asylum seekers away once they have reached our borders; without these international protections, they could be turned away from all countries and forced to return to their home country where they would remain in danger.
PROTECTION UNDER THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION
Asylum seekers are protected by international law, in particular, by the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol. The current conversation in the media regularly turns to discussions of how asylum seekers are entering the UK “illegally” in arriving by boat at the borders. However, this is misinformation and is directly contradicted by the Convention. Article 31(1) states that:
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened… enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Under this provision, the UK Home Office must process asylum applications of those within its borders, regardless of how they came to be within its borders.
LEGAL LOOPHOLES
An attempt to make the Channel crossing unviable is an attempt to avoid carrying out obligations under international law. This has taken place in Australia through Operation Sovereign Borders. The Australian government maintains its stance that no-one who endeavours to enter Australia by boat will be granted permission to stay in Australia and the military enforces this.
Recent statements from the UK Home Office suggest that it is seeking to implement a similar policy. The unfortunate news for asylum seekers is that whether this is viewed as moral or not, it can be legally done. This is due to the wording of the Refugee Convention as being limited to those who reach the state’s territory. The result is that if asylum seekers cannot reach the UK border (whether that be by not making the journey or being intercepted in non-UK waters) then the UK has no obligation to process their application.
If this policy is successfully implemented, it could lead to dire consequences for those seeking refuge from atrocities in their home countries. This forces us to ask the question: if the UK is successful in closing the route, will it provide alternative measures to allow for claims to be processed and to settle refugees, or will a heavier burden be placed on France and other EU countries to process more applications and provide homes to those in need when they are already struggling?
Katie is an LLB Law with International Law and Globalisation graduate from the University of Birmingham and a 2020-21 Bar Practice Course student. She is passionate about human rights, civil liberties and access to justice, having been on the Pro Bono Committee at Birmingham and a Volunteer Caseworker at Advocate. Her research interests are in public international law, criminal law and public law.