The movement of asylum seekers from France to the UK presents complex legal challenges under international refugee law. Withstanding the crucial importance of U.N. Human Rights Treaty, the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, the UK Human Rights Act 1998, and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), a treaty of the Council of Europe; human rights safeguards can be throughly and extensively applied although International Treaties in force already establish legal criteria for the UK, France, and the European Union in managing failed asylum seekers who cross the Channel, with particular focus on repatriation mechanisms and potential policy reforms. The most important point to understand for the British public at large concerns the Dublin Treaty and the availability of removing proven failed asylum seekers to a safe country of origin. The UK’s choice of Brexit has deprived the country of a widely accepted instrument of burden sharing and cooperation across the whole of the European geographical area.
Current Legal Framework. The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention Safeguards
Under the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, both the UK and France operate within strict parameters regarding the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. The principle of non-refoulement, established in Article 33(1), prevents signatory states from returning individuals to territories where they face persecution, torture, or threats to life or freedom. However, the Convention does not grant individuals the right to choose their preferred country of asylum. This creates a legal foundation for the “safe third country” principle, whereby states may decline to process asylum claims from individuals who have already received protection or could have sought protection in another safe country.
Restrictions on Criminalising Asylum Seeking
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits the imposition of penalties on refugees for illegal entry, provided they come directly from territories where their life or freedom is threatened and present themselves to authorities without delay. The interpretation of “coming directly” creates significant legal complexity for UK authorities dealing with Calais arrivals. The UK government’s position that transit through France breaks the “direct” route finds some support in academic commentary and state practice, but faces substantial legal challenges. European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence suggests that reasonable transit through safe countries does not necessarily vitiate Article 31 protection, particularly where individuals had no realistic opportunity to seek protection in the transit country or where such protection was inadequate. For sans papiers in Calais who may have attempted to claim asylum in France but were unable to access the system due to practical barriers, the legal protection against criminalisation may remain intact. This legal uncertainty has practical implications for UK enforcement measures. While administrative detention for immigration purposes remains permissible, criminal prosecution for illegal entry faces legal challenges where individuals can demonstrate they sought to access protection in France but were prevented by systemic barriers or administrative obstacles.
Brexit Complications
The UK’s departure from the European Union fundamentally altered the legal landscape for managing asylum seekers arriving from EU territory. Previously, the Dublin Regulation provided a clear framework for returning asylum seekers to their first country of entry within the EU. This mechanism enabled the UK to transfer responsibility for processing asylum claims back to other EU member states, including France. Following Brexit, no equivalent bilateral or multilateral agreement exists between the UK and EU member states. This legal vacuum creates significant operational challenges for both British and French authorities when addressing irregular migration flows.
What the UK Can and Cannot Do. Theoretically Permissible Actions Under International Law
The UK retains several legal options when processing asylum seekers who have previously been in France. First, British authorities may declare asylum claims inadmissible on the grounds that applicants have passed through a safe third country where protection was available. This approach aligns with established interpretations of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, which defines refugee status based on the inability to obtain protection. Second, for individuals who have already had their asylum claims rejected in France, the UK may argue that their refugee status has been definitively determined by a competent authority in a safe country. Such failed asylum seekers may theoretically be repatriated to their countries of origin, provided this does not violate non-refoulement obligations. Third, the UK may implement detention measures for irregular arrivals pending resolution of their cases, subject to the constraints established by the Hardial Singh principles, which require that detention serve a lawful purpose, last only for a reasonable period, and be pursued with diligence toward achieving removal.
Legal Limitations
Despite these theoretical options, practical implementation faces significant constraints. The principle of non-refoulement continues to apply even to failed asylum seekers if country conditions have deteriorated since their original claim was assessed. For nationals of Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq, current security and humanitarian conditions often preclude safe repatriation regardless of their asylum status in France. Additionally, the UK cannot simply return failed asylum seekers to France without French consent. The absence of a readmission agreement means that unilateral repatriation to France would violate French sovereignty and potentially constitute a breach of international law.
French and EU Perspectives, France’s Legal Obligations
France, as a signatory to the Refugee Convention and member of the European Union, maintains primary responsibility for processing asylum claims from individuals who first enter EU territory through French borders. However, once individuals leave French territory, France has no obligation to readmit them absent a specific bilateral agreement. The French position reflects broader EU policy, which seeks to maintain the integrity of the Dublin system while resisting ad hoc bilateral arrangements that might undermine collective European asylum policies. The European Union’s approach to asylum policy emphasises responsibility-sharing among member states and the maintenance of coherent external borders. The EU has consistently opposed arrangements that would allow third countries to bypass established procedures for asylum claim processing or that might incentivise irregular secondary movements within Europe.
Policy Recommendations: Dublin Agreement Participation
The most comprehensive solution would involve the UK’s participation in a reformed Dublin Agreement or similar multilateral framework. Such an arrangement would restore clear legal pathways for transferring asylum seekers between the UK and EU member states based on established criteria such as the first country of entry or family connections. This approach would provide legal certainty for all parties while enabling more efficient processing of asylum claims. It would also reduce the incentive for dangerous Channel crossings by clarifying that geographical location at the time of application does not determine the responsible processing state.
Comprehensive Bilateral Agreement
Should EU-wide participation prove politically unfeasible, the UK could negotiate a comprehensive bilateral readmission agreement with France. Such an agreement would need to address not only failed asylum seekers but also the broader question of responsibility allocation for future arrivals. A successful bilateral framework would require mutual concessions, potentially including UK contributions to French border management efforts and agreed quotas for direct resettlement of refugees from French facilities.
Enhanced Third Country Processing. Building a Processing Hub in Calais
The UK could develop robust third-country processing arrangements that comply with international law requirements. Unlike previous proposals that have faced legal challenges, a well-designed system would ensure full procedural safeguards and genuine protection in the third country. This approach would require careful selection of partner countries and substantial investment in processing infrastructure and oversight mechanisms. The optimal achievement can be developed around the established Calais area, where there are already British and French cooperation agreements, in order to build processing hubs for asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers, sans papiers, undocumented migrants, and all those currently exploited in the human trafficking business. The Calais Processing Hub can be financed by the European Union Refugee Agency, in order to dismantle the Calais camps. France could receive a substantial financing boost in processing its own sans papier and asylum seekers’ claims; on the other hand, the UK could continue cooperation with France, for all the asylum seekers that have crossed into Britain, in order to assess asylum seekers’ and undocumented migrants’ claims. In the specifics of a future Calais processing hub, with shared France-UK jurisdiction under international law and EU treaties, the processing hub would be of course open to UNHCR inspections and support, in order to monitor asylum seekers’ living conditions. These arrangements would simplify the processing and evaluation of asylum seekers’ claims, while stopping at the source, in the area where the flow of human trafficking happens, once an asylum seeker’s Processing Hub is in operation. Prospective Asylum seekers, under established conventions, would have to choose at first under which jurisdiction, whether the wider France-EU jurisdiction or the UK jurisdiction, to apply for asylum, to then have their claims fairly and legally processed. This procedure simplifies the bureaucracy at source, and constrains the possibility of claiming asylum in more than one country, which, under current treaties it’s not always formally customary allowed practice to undocumented asylum seekers and refugees. A Calais Processing Hub for Asylum seekers and refugees would create order in the hosting of human beings, provide better living conditions, in the interim, safeguard that all ECHR and Geneva Convention Treaties are observed and respected. These measures will crucially prevent asylum seekers and undocumented refugees from claiming asylum in multiple countries, and provide a definitive response to their humanitarian cases.
A critical consideration in any repatriation framework involves the European Convention on Human Rights, which applies regardless of EU membership. Article 3 ECHR’s prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment creates additional barriers to repatriation beyond those established by the Refugee Convention. However, ECHR obligations can be satisfied through robust assessment procedures that evaluate individual circumstances and current country conditions. The key requirement is ensuring that repatriation decisions are based on a thorough, up-to-date analysis of protection risks rather than blanket policies.
Implementation Considerations
Any UK and France policy initiatives must address practical implementation challenges, including the establishment of efficient processing systems, adequate detention facilities that comply with human rights standards, and effective cooperation mechanisms with countries of origin for travel document issuance. Robust legal safeguards must accompany any enhanced repatriation system, including independent review mechanisms, adequate legal representation for asylum seekers, and clear appeal processes that comply with procedural fairness requirements.
Legal Basis for Repatriating Failed Asylum Seekers to Countries of Origin, Theoretical Framework
When an individual has had their asylum claim definitively rejected in France, they lose the presumptive protection afforded under the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. This creates a distinct legal category that permits repatriation to countries of origin under specific circumstances, even for nationals of conflict-affected states such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq. The legal foundation rests on Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, which defines refugee status as contingent upon a well-founded fear of persecution. Once a competent authority in a safe country has determined through proper procedures that such fear does not exist or is unfounded, the individual no longer enjoys the protection against refoulement under Article 33(1).
Conditions Permitting Lawful Repatriation and Individual Assessment Requirements
The UK may lawfully repatriate failed asylum seekers when several conditions are satisfied simultaneously. First, the original French rejection must have been based on substantive grounds rather than procedural technicalities. A decision finding that the individual does not qualify for refugee protection because their claimed persecution lacks credibility or falls outside Convention grounds provides a stronger legal basis than a rejection based solely on late application or procedural defaults. The UK must conduct its own assessment of whether circumstances in the country of origin have materially changed since the French decision. This assessment must be individualised rather than based on general country guidance. Where conditions have deteriorated significantly, the non-refoulement principle may be re-engaged even for previously rejected applicants. The individual must not present new evidence of persecution risk that was not previously considered. However, where identical evidence was properly assessed and rejected by French authorities, the UK may rely on that determination without conducting a full merits review.
Permissible Procedures Under International Law
The UK retains legal authority to implement safe third country procedures that declare asylum claims inadmissible where applicants have transited through or had access to protection in safe countries. This authority derives from the interpretation that the Refugee Convention does not grant individuals the right to choose their preferred country of asylum, provided adequate protection is available elsewhere. For sans papiers arriving from Calais, the UK may lawfully argue that France, as a signatory to the Refugee Convention with functioning asylum and integration systems, constitutes a safe third country where protection should have been sought. This determination requires assessment of both the general safety of France as a receiving country and the specific accessibility of protection for the individual concerned. However, the practical implementation of safe third country procedures depends critically on the cooperation of the proposed receiving state. Without French agreement to readmit individuals, UK declarations of inadmissibility become legally ineffective, creating obligations to process claims domestically. The absence of a bilateral readmission agreement since Brexit has rendered this theoretical authority largely inoperative in practice.
Offshore Processing Arrangements, Calais Processing Hub Feasibility And Compliance
Under international law, the UK retains the authority to arrange for asylum claims to be processed in safe third countries, provided that such mechanisms comply fully with refugee protection standards. The legal framework permits transfers where the host country guarantees genuine access to fair asylum procedures and ensures protection that meets international benchmarks. However, the practical feasibility of offshore processing has been repeatedly tested in court, most notably in the context of the Rwanda policy, where judges closely examined both the actual safety of the partner country and the robustness of procedural safeguards. For a Calais-based processing hub to be compliant, it would need to demonstrate that all transferred individuals benefit from protection standards equivalent to those available in the UK, including legal assistance, fair hearings, and sustainable solutions for those granted refugee status. Importantly, the assessment of “safe third country” status extends beyond formal assurances and requires scrutiny of on-the-ground practices and the host country’s track record in upholding human rights obligations. Where proposed partner countries lack proven capacity in refugee protection or show weaknesses in human rights compliance, UK courts have consistently expressed caution in approving transfer schemes, even in the presence of diplomatic guarantees.
Country-Specific Repatriation Theoretical Scenarios
Afghanistan Cases: Despite the general suspension of removals to Afghanistan following Taliban control, specific categories may remain eligible for repatriation. These include individuals who collaborated with Taliban forces, those with no demonstrated opposition to the current regime, and persons whose claimed persecution was based on general security conditions rather than targeted threats. Additionally, Afghan nationals who lived safely in Taliban-controlled areas prior to their migration may be considered for return, particularly where their asylum claims were based on economic rather than protection grounds.
Somalia Repatriation Opportunities: The UK maintains greater flexibility regarding Somali nationals, particularly those from relatively stable regions such as Somaliland or specific areas of Mogadishu under government control. Failed asylum seekers who originate from these areas and whose claims were rejected based on credibility findings or lack of individual targeting may be repatriated. The key legal requirement involves demonstrating that the specific region of return offers adequate protection and basic services.
Iraq Removal Framework: Iraq presents the most viable repatriation option, particularly for individuals who can be returned to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which maintains relative stability and functional governance structures. Failed asylum seekers from Baghdad or other areas under government control may also be considered for return where their original claims were based on general security concerns rather than individual persecution.
Procedural Safeguards and Implementation and Due Process Requirements
Lawful repatriation requires adherence to specific procedural safeguards even for failed asylum seekers. The UK must provide notice of intended removal, allow access to legal representation, and permit appeals where there is prima facie evidence of changed circumstances or procedural errors in the original French decision. The Hardial Singh principles continue to apply to detention pending removal, requiring that detention serve the specific purpose of facilitating departure and last only for the period reasonably necessary to achieve removal. Where practical obstacles prevent timely removal, continued detention becomes unlawful regardless of the individual’s failed asylum status.
Cooperation with Countries of Origin
Successful repatriation requires active cooperation from origin countries in issuing travel documents and accepting returnees. The UK may lawfully detain individuals pending such cooperation, but must demonstrate ongoing efforts to secure the necessary documentation. Where countries of origin refuse cooperation or impose unreasonable delays, indefinite detention violates both domestic and international law principles.
Exceptions to Non-Refoulement Protection
Article 33(2) Exclusions
The Refugee Convention permits removal even to potentially dangerous territories where individuals pose threats to national security or have been convicted of particularly serious crimes. This exception applies regardless of asylum status and provides additional legal basis for the repatriation of failed asylum seekers who fall within these categories. Serious criminality that engages this exception includes offences such as drug trafficking, serious violent crimes, and terrorism-related activities. The assessment must balance the severity of the crime against the degree of risk in the country of return, with more serious offences justifying removal even to relatively dangerous destinations.
ECHR Article 3 Threshold
The European Convention on Human Rights establishes a higher threshold for protection than the Refugee Convention through its absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment. However, this protection applies only where there is a real risk of treatment reaching the Article 3 threshold in the specific circumstances of return. For failed asylum seekers, the Article 3 assessment focuses on individual risk factors rather than general country conditions. Where French authorities have already determined that an individual would not face Article 3 treatment upon return, UK courts may defer to that assessment absent evidence of a material change in circumstances.
Strategic Implementation Framework and Risk Assessment Protocols
Effective implementation requires sophisticated risk assessment protocols that distinguish between different categories of failed asylum seekers. Those whose claims were rejected on credibility grounds present different legal considerations than individuals whose claims failed due to a lack of Convention nexus or exclusion clauses. The UK should develop country-specific guidance that identifies regions and circumstances where return remains viable despite general instability. This guidance must be regularly updated to reflect changing conditions and should incorporate input from diplomatic missions and international monitoring bodies.
Diplomatic Engagement
Successful repatriation programmes require sustained diplomatic engagement with countries of origin to secure cooperation in accepting returnees and issuing travel documentation. This may involve bilateral agreements addressing the conditions of return, monitoring arrangements, and support for reintegration programmes. Where countries of origin initially refuse cooperation, graduated diplomatic pressure combined with incentives for compliance may prove effective. However, the UK must balance these efforts against its broader foreign policy objectives and international relationships.
The current legal framework governing asylum seeker movements between France and the UK reflects the absence of agreed cooperation mechanisms following Brexit. While international law provides some flexibility for managing failed asylum seekers, practical implementation remains constrained by non-refoulement obligations and the lack of bilateral agreements. However, where individuals have had their asylum claims definitively rejected in France through proper procedures, the UK possesses significant legal authority to pursue repatriation to their countries of origin. This authority is strongest for failed asylum seekers whose claims lacked a credible basis, who originate from relatively stable regions, or who fall within exclusion categories under international law. The optimal policy response requires either renewed participation in multilateral European frameworks or the negotiation of comprehensive bilateral arrangements that address the legitimate interests of all parties while maintaining compliance with international refugee and human rights law. Simultaneously, the UK should develop robust systems for identifying and processing failed asylum seekers who may lawfully be repatriated to their countries of origin, thereby reducing the incentive for irregular secondary movements within Europe. The path forward requires political commitment to pragmatic solutions that balance sovereignty concerns with the practical necessity of international cooperation in refugee protection. Only through such cooperation, combined with effective use of existing legal authorities, can the current impasse be resolved in a manner that serves both humanitarian objectives and legitimate state interests in managing migration flows.
READ MORE :
Primary Legislation and International Instruments
1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
- Article 1A(2): Definition of refugee status
- Article 31: Protection from penalties for illegal entry
- Article 33(1): Non-refoulement principle
- Article 33(2): Exceptions to non-refoulement for national security threats
- Full text: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees
European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 3: Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment
- Article 5: Right to liberty and security
- Full text available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
UK Domestic Legislation
- Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2
- Nationality and Borders Act 2022, Sections 14-36
- Illegal Migration Act 2023
Key Case Law
Hardial Singh Principles
The foundational Hardial Singh case (R v Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704) which established the principles limiting immigration detention Detention & The Hardial Singh Principles +2, along with subsequent cases that developed these principles including R(A(Somalia)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 804 and R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12.
- Case summaries: https://freemovement.org.uk/what-are-the-hardial-singh-principles/
- https://www.ein.org.uk/blog/unlawful-detention-deemed-even-less-graceful
Non-Refoulement and Article 3 ECHR
- Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439
- This case established the extraterritorial application of Article 3 of the ECHR, prohibiting extradition to a country where there is a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57657%22]}.
- Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413
- This ruling affirmed the absolute nature of Article 3’s prohibition against removal to a country where there is a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, even in cases involving national security concerns.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58004%22]}
- N v. United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 453
- This case addressed the medical threshold under Article 3, determining that the risk of death or serious deterioration in health due to lack of medical treatment must be substantial and irreversible to engage the Convention’s protections.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-86490%22]}.
- Saadi v. Italy [2008] ECHR 179
- This decision examined the use of diplomatic assurances in deportation cases, concluding that such assurances do not absolve a state from its obligations under Article 3 if there is a real risk of ill-treatment.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-85276%22]}.
Safe Third Country Cases
- T.I. v. United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 43844/98
- This case addresses the safe third country assessment requirements, focusing on the conditions under which an individual can be transferred to another country under the Dublin Convention.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-5105%22]}.
- M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [2011] ECHR 30696/09
- This judgment examines the systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures and reception conditions in Greece, and the obligations of Belgium under the Dublin II Regulation.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-103050%22]}.
- Tarakhel v. Switzerland [2014] ECHR 29217/12
- This case discusses the necessity of obtaining individual guarantees before transferring asylum seekers to another country under the Dublin Regulation, particularly concerning the protection of minors.
- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-148070%22]}.
Government Policy Documents
Home Office Asylum Instructions
- Exclusion (Article 1F) and Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-instruction-exclusion-article-1f-of-the-refugee-convention/
- Detention and Case Progression Review: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management/detention-and-case-progression-review-accessible
Academic and Professional Commentary
Legal Analysis
- Garden Court Chambers: “Hardial Singh and the Illegal Migration Act 2023” https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/immigration-blog-the-expansion-of-immigration-detention-in-the-illegal-migration-act-2023/
- Doughty Street Chambers: Immigration Law Resources https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/immigration-asylum
- Free Movement Blog: Immigration Law Analysis https://freemovement.org.uk/
Parliamentary Evidence
- Parliamentary Committee Evidence on Immigration Detention https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/96558/html/
- https://www.unhcr.org/media/unhcr-manual-refugee-protection-and-echr-part-2-fact-sheets
UNHCR Guidance Documents
Non-Refoulement Principle
- Note on Non-Refoulement (Submitted by the High Commissioner) https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publications/note-non-refoulement-submitted-high-commissioner
- The 1951 Refugee Convention Overview https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention