The British government, which wants to be able to expel migrants to Rwanda without allowing them to apply for asylum, accuses the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of putting a spoke in its wheels.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is calling for the rules governing the tribunal to be revised so as to prevent it from being able to intervene urgently to prevent such dismissals.
The politician, who was in Iceland on Tuesday to attend a Council of Europe summit, was to meet the president of the court, Siofra O’Leary, on this occasion to plead his case.
“We must do more to cooperate across borders and jurisdictions to stop illegal immigration,” said the head of the British government, who notably criticizes the ECHR for having issued a temporary injunction last year preventing the departure of a first plane loaded with asylum seekers for the African continent.
During a March trip to Rwanda, UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she was “encouraged” by discussions with the tribunal to reform the system in place and prevent this type of of injunction.
François Crépeau, former UN rapporteur on the rights of migrants who teaches at McGill University, notes that the British government has “no chance” of winning the case on this point.
It is unthinkable, he says, that the ECHR’s ability to issue temporary injunctions to prevent “irreparable harm” from being done to an individual should be limited at Britain’s request.
Chris Daw, a British lawyer very critical of the government’s positions on immigration, notes that “no other European country” under the jurisdiction of the tribunal is asking for such a reform.
What the Conservative government is trying to do is set the stage to legislate in a way that is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Chris Daw, British lawyer
A bill on “illegal immigration”, officially introduced in March to discourage migrants from crossing the Channel in makeshift boats, specifies that the government can ignore the injunctions of the European court.
Such a move would ultimately be declared a breach of the country’s legal obligations, notes Mr Daw, who sees the Prime Minister’s outbursts on the workings of the ECHR as a ploy to convince the British people that his government has sought a compromise before opting for the hard line.
An unlikely success
Mr. Crépeau notes that there is no mechanism forcing the countries covered by the European tribunal to apply its judgments, even if they are very widely followed in normal times.
If Britain ultimately decides not to respect an injunction contrary to its immigration plans, the government will say that it is applying its own law and that the ECHR can go to hell.
François Crépeau, from McGill University
Few European countries would throw the stone in London since many of them “secretly wish” to follow such a restrictive approach, underlines Mr. Crépeau.
Alice Donald, a Middlesex University professor specializing in human rights, notes that Britain is one of the European countries that has traditionally respected court decisions the most scrupulously.
Although the Conservative government tries to convey the idea that temporary injunctions issued against it are frequent, the reality is quite different, she says.
There are only two per year on average, underlines the researcher, in particular because the legal threshold to be satisfied is difficult to reach.
“There must be a serious and imminent risk that irreversible damage will occur,” notes Ms.me Donald, who also does not believe in the possibility that the rules surrounding the functioning of the ECHR will be reviewed, as demanded by London.
I would be flabbergasted if anything came of this.
Alice Donald, Middlesex University professor specializing in human rights
Mr. Crépeau believes that the Conservative government would like to reproduce the model of Australia, which for years has been turning back migrants arriving on its shores to Pacific islands without allowing them to submit an asylum application.
Restrictive immigration policies appeal to government supporters as do attacks on European bodies like the ECHR, he says.
“The ultimate objective remains to mobilize their political base for the next elections,” concludes the professor.