Why Offshore Processing of Asylum Applications is Actually Racist

With the Rwanda scheme, the UK government unleashes a regime of offshore asylum processing which is being considered by countries around the world. Such schemes though may be considered racist for their obvious neocolonial implications of removing and returning asylum seekers and refugees from the global north to the global south. More importantly though, such schemes undermine the commitment to abide by international human rights law and the obligations which attach to states in a particular rather than vicarious sense.

Addressing Racial Discrimination Through International Law

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’s design makes it a very promising legal instrument to combat racial discrimination in particular regarding its structural manifestations. Expecting this legal framework to be of use in combatting racism is not unrealistic, but is hindered by the lack of visibility of the Convention, a lack of resources for the Convention system, and, above all, the lack of political will of States to effectively implement their obligations under the Convention.

Von Agenten und globalen Kriegsparteien

Die georgische Demokratie befindet sich in der Krise. Die Regierungspartei „Georgischer Traum“ verschärft ihren autoritären, rechtsstaatsfeindlichen Kurs immer weiter. Am 26. Oktober wählen die Georgier:innen nun nach politisch ereignisreichen Monaten ein neues Parlament. Der Wunsch der Georgier:innen nach einer Annäherung zur EU ist dabei weiterhin stark. Doch auch wenn die Regierung zuletzt auf viel Widerstand stieß zeigte sich die Opposition überwiegend zerstritten. Ob sie es schafft, sich auf den Erhalt der Demokratie zu besinnen und ihre Differenzen hintanzustellen, ist offen. Georgien steht vor der kommenden Wahl, so auch die Worte Phirtskhalashvilis, am Scheideweg.

Non-Retrogression as Progress

Latin America has often led the way in protecting the right to health, particularly in regulating risk factors such as tobacco and unhealthy diets. However, some of these advancements have recently been jeopardized as governments prioritize private economic interests over health. Judicialization has thus emerged as an opportunity – perhaps the only one – to defend progress achieved. Given recent judicial rulings in Uruguay and Ecuador, we reflect on the fragility of legal interventions that threaten powerful economic interests, as well as on the opportunities offered by human rights-based litigation.

Taking Back Control?

This week, the Polish government unveiled its new migration strategy which lays out a proposal that, “in the event of a threat to destabilize the country by an influx of immigrants, it should be possible to temporarily and territorially suspend the right to accept asylum applications.” This blog argues that the proposal is not only unlawful but also poses a threat to the common European asylum system. This is so especially in light of the upcoming implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law

This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT.

Unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024

This post analyses the possibility of unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The Advisory Opinion provides a particularly strong legal basis – grounded primarily in the right to self-determination – to unseat Israel’s government from the General Assembly until it complies with the Opinion – as the Assembly did with South Africa fifty years ago.