Introduction
This essay critically evaluates how contemporary state practices in the United Kingdom and the European Union are reshaping the operation of international refugee law, with specific reference to legislative measures adopted between 2020 and 2025. Focusing on the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum (2020), it assesses their legality under the 1951 Refugee Convention, examines justifications from a state sovereignty and border-control perspective, and explores practical implications for refugee protection in Jordan, a key host state in the Global South. Through this analysis, the essay highlights tensions between state interests and international legal obligations, supported by primary legal sources, policy documents, and academic commentary.
Legislative Measures and Legality Under the 1951 Refugee Convention
The UK’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduces a two-tier asylum system, differentiating between refugees arriving via “legal” routes and those using “irregular” means, such as small boat crossings. Section 12 of the Act allows for reduced rights and potential removal for the latter group (UK Parliament, 2022). This measure arguably contravenes Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits penalties for illegal entry if refugees present themselves without delay and show good cause for their actions (UNHCR, 1951). Academic commentary suggests this policy risks undermining the Convention’s non-discrimination principle by creating disparities in treatment based on mode of arrival (Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, 2021).
Similarly, the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, proposed in 2020, promotes pre-entry screening and border procedures to expedite returns of those deemed ineligible for protection (European Commission, 2020). While intended to streamline processes, critics argue that accelerated procedures may violate the right to a fair hearing under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, particularly if individuals lack access to legal support (Ecre, 2021). These measures highlight a trend of restrictive interpretation of international obligations, prioritising deterrence over protection.
State Sovereignty and Border-Control Justifications
From a state sovereignty perspective, both policies are justified as necessary for maintaining border control and managing public resources. The UK government, for instance, has argued that the Nationality and Borders Act deters dangerous Channel crossings and combats human trafficking (Home Office, 2022). Indeed, controlling borders is a legitimate state interest, as sovereignty includes the right to regulate entry. However, this justification must be balanced against legal commitments to non-refoulement under the 1951 Convention.
Likewise, the EU’s Pact is framed as a response to overburdened asylum systems, aiming to distribute responsibility among member states (European Commission, 2020). While this addresses practical concerns, the emphasis on returns raises ethical questions about whether state security trumps refugee rights. As Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (2021) note, such policies often shift the burden to less-resourced states, exacerbating global inequalities in protection.
Practical Implications for Refugee Protection in the Global South
The restrictive policies of the UK and EU have ripple effects on host states in the Global South, such as Jordan, which hosts over 670,000 Syrian refugees (UNHCR, 2023). By tightening asylum routes, these measures increase pressure on countries near conflict zones. Jordan, already strained by limited resources, faces challenges in providing adequate shelter and healthcare, with funding gaps reported by UNHCR (2023). Furthermore, policies like the UK’s potential outsourcing of asylum processing—echoed in discussions around the Act—risk normalising externalisation, leaving states like Jordan to bear disproportionate burdens without sufficient international support.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum illustrate how state practices are reshaping international refugee law, often at the expense of compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. While justifications rooted in sovereignty and border control hold some validity, they must be weighed against legal and ethical obligations. The practical implications for states like Jordan underscore the inequitable distribution of responsibility, highlighting the need for a more balanced approach to refugee protection. Ultimately, these policies reveal a growing tension between national interests and global commitments, with significant consequences for the most vulnerable.
References
- Ecre. (2021) ECRE Comments on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. European Council on Refugees and Exiles.
- European Commission. (2020) New Pact on Migration and Asylum. European Commission.
- Goodwin-Gill, G. S. and McAdam, J. (2021) The Refugee in International Law. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Home Office. (2022) Nationality and Borders Bill Becomes Law. UK Government.
- UK Parliament. (2022) Nationality and Borders Act 2022. HMSO.
- UNHCR. (1951) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. United Nations.
- UNHCR. (2023) Jordan: UNHCR Operational Update. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
