Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:53:41.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Memorandum of understanding between the government of the United Kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Rwanda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2022

Guy S. Goodwin-Gill
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill*
Affiliation:
Honorary Professor, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Emeritus Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford, United Kingdom. In June 2022, I submitted an expert legal opinion in proceedings involving an asylum seeker faced with removal to Rwanda and concluded that removal was incompatible with the 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, particularly because they would likely not receive effective protection and should in any event benefit from the protection of Article 31(1) of the Convention.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in Kigali, Rwanda on April 13, 2022 by the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Home Department, Priti Patel, and the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Vincent Biruta. It is part of the UK Government's strategy to deal with asylum seekers, particularly those deemed to arrive “irregularly,” under which Rwanda will take responsibility for those deported in return for payments from the United Kingdom, including an upfront payment of £120 million. The United Kingdom will also pay the processing and integration costs for each relocated person.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 166 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 “Irregularly”, when applied to asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, tends to be used indiscriminately by states, with little or no regard to the right to seek asylum recognized by Article 14(1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entitlement of refugees under Article 31(1) of the 1951 Convention not to be penalized on account of their irregular entry or presence.

2 Melanie Gower and Patrick Butchard, UK–Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, House of Commons Library, Research Briefing (July 12, 2022), p. 5, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9568/.

3 Press release, UK Supreme Court, Rwanda Permission to Appeal Application refused (June 14, 2022), https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/rwanda-permission-to-appeal-application-refused.html.

4 Press release, European Court of Human Rights, Further requests for interim measures in cases concerning asylum-seekers’ imminent removal from the UK to Rwanda, Press release ECHR 199 (2022) (June 15, 2022); see also submission by Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children, in the case of K.N. v United Kingdom, App. No. 28744/22, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-trafficking-in-persons/submissions-courts-and-other-bodies. Although the UK Government has agreed to abide by the rulings, it has nevertheless heightened the rhetoric regarding future compliance with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights; see Cristina Gallardo, UK courts could ignore interim ECHR decisions under new human rights plan, Politico (June 21, 2022), https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-euro-justice-law-uk-courts-ignore-decisions-new-human-rights-plan; Dominic Casciani, Plan to reverse European Court Rwanda rulings, BBC News (June 22, 2022), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61887933.

5 The “Australian model” appears to have influenced the decision to remove asylum seekers, even though much of the evidence relating to costs, efficacy and impact provided by the Australian High Commissioner to the UK Parliament was incorrect. It was later corrected in a submission from the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Faculty of Law & Justice, University of New South Wales; see Madeline Gleeson and Natasha Yacoub, Cruel, costly and ineffective: The failure of offshore processing in Australia, Kaldor Ctr. Int'l Refugee L. Policy Brief (Aug. 11, 2021), https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/policy-brief-11-cruel-costly-and-ineffective-failure-offshore-processing-australia?mc_cid=52d1273a18&mc_eid=9309b3b646; see also, Kaldor Ctr. Int'l Refugee L, Offshore processing resources, https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/offshore-processing-resources?mc_cid=52d1273a18&mc_eid=9309b3b646.

6 See, e.g., Global Detention Project, The Ukraine Crisis Double Standards: Has Europe's Response to Refugees Changed? (Mar. 2, 2022), https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/ukraine-crisis-double-standards-has-europe-s-response-refugees-changed; UNHCR, Ukraine Refugee Situation, https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine;Sasha Vakulina, EU Commission deputy: Response to Ukraine refugees showed “Europe at its best,” Euronews (May 24, 2022), https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/24/eu-commission-deputy-response-to-ukraine-refugees-was-europe-at-its-best.

7 The EU is an exception, with regard to the 1990 Dublin Convention, since converted into a Regulation. The EU continues to wrestle, however, with the challenges raised by the distribution of refugees and with mandatory resettlement.

8 It was reported that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was contemplating removals without the monitoring in place. See Jon Stone, Priti Patel: Rwanda deportations to go ahead without promised watchdog to monitor conditions, The Independent (June 10, 2022), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-deportations-priti-patel-home-office-b2098413.html. The importance of monitoring the human rights situation at the EU's external borders is clear from a recent study, which recommended a model that took account of the criteria of independence, an adequate mandate, funds and powers, transparency and publicity, as the essential basis for effective monitoring; see Markus Jaeger et al., Feasibility Study on the setting up of a robust and independent human rights monitoring mechanism at the external borders of the European Union (May 2022), https://www.proasyl.de/en/material/feasibility-study-independent-human-rights-monitoring-mechanism-at-the-external-borders-of-the-eu/.

9 See Gower and Butchard, supra note 2, pp. 30–44.

10 U.N. Human Rights Council, Human rights violations at international borders: trends, prevention and accountability, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/50/31 (Apr. 26, 2022), ¶¶ 30–31.

11 Id., ¶¶ 70, 81.

12 UNHCR, Analysis of the Legality and Appropriateness of the Transfer of Asylum-Seekers under the UK-Rwanda arrangement (June 8, 2022), https://www.refworld.org/docid/62a31cc24.html.

13 Id., ¶¶ 1–2.

14 Id., ¶¶ 11–12.

15 Id., ¶ 15 (relying on the findings of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration).

16 Id., ¶ 17.

17 Id. ¶ 18.

18 Id., ¶¶ 23, 27.

19 MOU, Preamble and ¶¶ 2.1, 4, 10, 10.6, 29.2.

20 There have been various earlier proposals, some of which are listed in Gower and Butchard, supra note 2, pp. 9, 27–29.

21 See the lengthy exchange in 25 Apr. 2022, Parl Deb HL (2022) col. 15 (UK).