Restructuring asylum: Recent trends in United Kingdom asylum law and policy

International Journal of Refugee Law

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 60-72

  Harvey, Colin ^a  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002816332     PISSN: 09538186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/9.1.60     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. See generally on United Kingdom asylum law, D.Jackson, Immigration: Law and Practice, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1996, ch. 10; I. Macdonald and N. Blake, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, London, Dublin and Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1995, ch. 12. For a critical analysis of current law and practice see P. Tuitt, False Images: The Lawi Construction of the Refugee, London, Pluto Press, 1996.
2. See generally on United Kingdom asylum law, D.Jackson, Immigration: Law and Practice, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1996, ch. 10; I. Macdonald and N. Blake, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, London, Dublin and Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1995, ch. 12. For a critical analysis of current law and practice see P. Tuitt, False Images: The Lawi Construction of the Refugee, London, Pluto Press, 1996.
3. See generally on United Kingdom asylum law, D.Jackson, Immigration: Law and Practice, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1996, ch. 10; I. Macdonald and N. Blake, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, London, Dublin and Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1995, ch. 12. For a critical analysis of current law and practice see P. Tuitt, False Images: The Lawi Construction of the Refugee, London, Pluto Press, 1996.
4. See, for example, M. Barutciski, 'The Reinforcement of Non-Admission Policies and the Subversion of UNHCR: Displacement and Internal Assistance in Bosnia Herzegovina', 8 IJRL 49 (1996); B. Frelick, 'Preventative Protection and the Right to Seek Asylum: A Preliminary Look at Bosnia and Croatia', 4 IJRL 439 (1992).
5. See, for example, M. Barutciski, 'The Reinforcement of Non-Admission Policies and the Subversion of UNHCR: Displacement and Internal Assistance in Bosnia Herzegovina', 8 IJRL 49 (1996); B. Frelick, 'Preventative Protection and the Right to Seek Asylum: A Preliminary Look at Bosnia and Croatia', 4 IJRL 439 (1992).
6. This point is made on the basis of an understanding of the protean nature of the concept of asylum. Discussion of the right to seek asylum is based on an acceptance of Einarsen's argument that the most important aspect of asylum for international law purposes is the freedom from return to an unsafe state. However, if asylum is to be viewed as a fluid term, is there anything to prevent the inclusion of modern forms of protection, associated with the evolution of the principle of non-return, within the notion of the right to seek asylum? In this sense there is a two stage process at work. First, upholding the right to seek asylum is linked with non-return as a preliminary matter. In other words the focus of asylum is on avoiding placing the individual in the situation from which he or she has fled. This would be in line with a definition of asylum as protection, see G.S. GoodwinGill, 'The Law and Politics of Change', 7 IJRL, 1 (1995). Secondly, it is possible then to turn to other aspects of international refugee and human rights law to explore the sorts of human rights protection which asylum seekers require. One well-known problem is whether the existence of other forms of protection encourages a movement away from recognising 1951 Convention status, see T. Einarsen, 'Mass Flight: The Case for International Asylum', 7 IJRL 551 (1995).
7. This point is made on the basis of an understanding of the protean nature of the concept of asylum. Discussion of the right to seek asylum is based on an acceptance of Einarsen's argument that the most important aspect of asylum for international law purposes is the freedom from return to an unsafe state. However, if asylum is to be viewed as a fluid term, is there anything to prevent the inclusion of modern forms of protection, associated with the evolution of the principle of non-return, within the notion of the right to seek asylum? In this sense there is a two stage process at work. First, upholding the right to seek asylum is linked with non-return as a preliminary matter. In other words the focus of asylum is on avoiding placing the individual in the situation from which he or she has fled. This would be in line with a definition of asylum as protection, see G.S. GoodwinGill, 'The Law and Politics of Change', 7 IJRL, 1 (1995). Secondly, it is possible then to turn to other aspects of international refugee and human rights law to explore the sorts of human rights protection which asylum seekers require. One well-known problem is whether the existence of other forms of protection encourages a movement away from recognising 1951 Convention status, see T. Einarsen, 'Mass Flight: The Case for International Asylum', 7 IJRL 551 (1995).
8. Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1995, 9/96.
9. Ibid.
10. UNHCR, The State of the World's Refugees: In Search of Solutions, New York, Oxford University Press Inc. 1995, 243.
11. M. Howard (Secretary of State for the Home Department) Hansard, H.C. Deb. 268, col. 699, 11 Dec. 1995, 'Britain has a proud record of giving refuge to those fleeing genuine persecution, but we cannot ignore the fact that our procedures are being abused.'
12. See, for example, J. Hathaway, 'Harmonizing for Whom? The Devaluation of Refugee Protection in the Era of European Economic Co-operation', 26 Corn. Int'l LJ 719 (1993); D. Joly, 'The Porous Dam: European Harmonisation on Asylum in the Nineties', 6 IJRL 159 (1994); K. Hailbronner, 'Perspectives on a Harmonisation of Asylum Law after the Maastricht Treaty', 29 CMLR 917 (1992); G. Loescher, 'The European Community and Refugees', 65 Int. Aff. 613 (1989).
13. See, for example, J. Hathaway, 'Harmonizing for Whom? The Devaluation of Refugee Protection in the Era of European Economic Co-operation', 26 Corn. Int'l LJ 719 (1993); D. Joly, 'The Porous Dam: European Harmonisation on Asylum in the Nineties', 6 IJRL 159 (1994); K. Hailbronner, 'Perspectives on a Harmonisation of Asylum Law after the Maastricht Treaty', 29 CMLR 917 (1992); G. Loescher, 'The European Community and Refugees', 65 Int. Aff. 613 (1989).
14. See, for example, J. Hathaway, 'Harmonizing for Whom? The Devaluation of Refugee Protection in the Era of European Economic Co-operation', 26 Corn. Int'l LJ 719 (1993); D. Joly, 'The Porous Dam: European Harmonisation on Asylum in the Nineties', 6 IJRL 159 (1994); K. Hailbronner, 'Perspectives on a Harmonisation of Asylum Law after the Maastricht Treaty', 29 CMLR 917 (1992); G. Loescher, 'The European Community and Refugees', 65 Int. Aff. 613 (1989).
15. See, for example, J. Hathaway, 'Harmonizing for Whom? The Devaluation of Refugee Protection in the Era of European Economic Co-operation', 26 Corn. Int'l LJ 719 (1993); D. Joly, 'The Porous Dam: European Harmonisation on Asylum in the Nineties', 6 IJRL 159 (1994); K. Hailbronner, 'Perspectives on a Harmonisation of Asylum Law after the Maastricht Treaty', 29 CMLR 917 (1992); G. Loescher, 'The European Community and Refugees', 65 Int. Aff. 613 (1989).
16. See A. Achermann and M. Gattiker, 'Safe Third Countries: European Developments', 7 IJRL 19 (1995).
17. See A. Shacknove, 'From Asylum to Containment', 5 IJAL, 516 (1993).
18. S. Castles and M. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modem World, London: Macmillan, 1993, 77-80; S. Collinson, Europe and International Migration, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, 1993, 46-63.
19. S. Castles and M. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modem World, London: Macmillan, 1993, 77-80; S. Collinson, Europe and International Migration, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, 1993, 46-63.
20. This is initially dependent on state acceptance of the relevant instruments of international refugee and human rights law. For the refugee and human rights lawyer, however, it is with adequate implementation of international legal rules that attention must then focus. This requires some consideration of institutional context.
21. Hansard, H.C. Deb. 268, col 201, 5 Dec. 1995. This was during a period when the emphasis in public administration in the UK was on saving money and reducing the functions of the state.
22. See Home Office Statistical Bulletin, above note 4, explanatory notes.
23. Amnesty International, Slamming the Door: The Demolition of the Right to Asylum in the UK, 1996, 8-9.
24. Ibid.
25. However, by the end of June 1996 under the scheme there were 5,735 refusals, 3 grants of asylum and 996 cases still under consideration, Hansard, H.C. Deb. 282, col 159, 24 Jul. 1996.
26. The refusal rates for those subjected to 'shortened procedures' does seem to be surprisingly high.
27. See Castles and Miller, above note 11.
28. 20 The Refugee Legal Centre was created in 1992 to provide free legal advice and representation to asylum seekers for the purposes of an appeal to the Immigration Appeals Authority (IAA). For recent empirical research on selected SA determinations, see A. Harvey, 'The Risks of Getting it Wrong', Asylum Law Campaign (1996).
29. See G.S. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, 331-2.
30. Ibid. He argues that international law generally favours a 'second look' at asylum claims.
31. AIAA 1993 s. 8(5).
32. This is not the position in 'safe third country' (STC) cases where the individual may appeal initially only on certain prescribed grounds.
33. The usual position in immigration law is that the IAA assesses the case with reference to the information available to the Home Secretary at the time at which the decision was taken.
34. See Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 354-6.
35. See K. Hailbronner, 'The Concept of "Safe Country" and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective', 5 IJAL (1994) 31.
36. AIA 1996 s.1.
37. The Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 SI No.2070.
38. AAPR r.5 (2).
39. AAPR r.5(1).
40. AAPR r.9(2).
41. AAPR r.9(1).
42. AAPR r.10(1).
43. AAPR r. 10(2).
44. See Amnesty International, Europe: Harmonisation of Asylum Policy, Accelerated Procedures for 'Manifestly Unfounded' Asylum Claims and the 'Safe County' Concept, 1992, 6-7.
45. Ad Hoc Immigration Group, Compilation of Texts on European Practice with Respect to Asylum, SN 2836/93.
46. C. Harvey, 'The Right to Seek Asylum in the UK and "Safe Countries",' PL 196, 201-4 (1996).
47. AIA 1996 s. 1(8).
48. See, for example, Amnesty International above note 15, 12-19.
49. Note Sir T. Bingham M.R. in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Onibiyo [1996] 2 WLR 490, at 500 C.A. 'The obligation of the [UK] under the Convention is not to return a refugee ... to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened for any reason specified in the Convention. That obligation remains binding until the moment of return.'
50. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
51. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
52. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
53. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
54. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
55. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 333-44; Hailbronner, above note 27; UK Delegation, Geneva, 'Sending Asylum Seekers to Safe Third Countries', 7 IJRL 119 (1995); UNHCR, 'The Concept of "Protection Elsewhere",' 7 IJRL, (1995) 123; Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9; Amnesty International, Playing Human Pinball: Home Office Practice in 'Safe Third County' Asylum Cases, 1995; M. Kjaerum, 'The Concept of Country of First Asylum', 4 IJRL 514 (1992); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries: European and International Aspects', 1 EPL 259 (1995); P. Shah, 'Refugees and Safe Third Countries', 9 INLP 3 (1995).
56. See Achermann and Gattiker, above note 9, 36-7.
57. Goodwin-Gill, above note 21, 200-2; J. Thorbum, 'Transcending Boundaries: Temporary Protection and Burden-Sharing in Europe', 7 IJRL 459 (1995).
58. The notion of moral individualism used here comes from the intuition that the operation of the safe third country concept involves a certain element of evasion on the part of states with quite well developed asylum determination systems.
59. See H.C. 395 (1993-94), paras. 337, 345. Although announced in 1990 it was an aspect of United Kingdom law and practice for some time before that, see Hansard, H.C. Deb. 109, col. 262-63, 25 Jul. 1990 (D. Waddington). See, for example, R. v. Secretay of State for the Home Department, ex p. Bike Bokele [1991] Imm AR 124 (QB); Kemal Karali and ors u. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] Imm AR 199 (CA); Cf. Charles Bouzeid and ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] Imm AR 204 (CA); David Thevarajah and ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] Imm AR 371 (CA); R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Stanislaus Rubanraj [1993] Imm AR 447 (QB); Nagalingam Kanapathypillai v. Special Adjudicator [1996] Imm AR 180 (CA). See Shah, above note 42, for an analysis of United Kingdom practice in the light of European developments and the guarantees of international human rights law.
60. AIA 1996 s. 2(2).
61. AIA 1996 s.3(1)(a).
62. AIA 1996 s.3 (1)(b)(ii).
63. AIA 1996 s.8-11, sch. 1. Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations S.I. 1996 No. 30; Housing Accommodation and Homelessness (Persons Subject to Immigration Control) S.I. 1996 No. 1982.
64. See Report by the Social Security Advisory Committee, Jan. 1996, Cmnd. 3062; Amnesty International, above note 42, 10-21; The Glidewell Panel, The Asylum and Immigration Bill 1995: The Report of the Glidewell Panel, 16 Apr. 1996, para. 9, executive summary; C. Harvey, 'The UK's New Asylum and Immigration Bill', 8 IJRL 184, 185-6 (1996).
65. See Report by the Social Security Advisory Committee, Jan. 1996, Cmnd. 3062; Amnesty International, above note 42, 10-21; The Glidewell Panel, The Asylum and Immigration Bill 1995: The Report of the Glidewell Panel, 16 Apr. 1996, para. 9, executive summary; C. Harvey, 'The UK's New Asylum and Immigration Bill', 8 IJRL 184, 185-6 (1996).
66. R. v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; R. v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. B. [1996] NLJ 146.
67. Above note 49.
68. AIA 1996 s. 11(2).