Global crimes 8

Global Crimes (Border Criminology)

• The lecture is about global crimes, specifically border criminology, from Valeria Ferraris.
• The session runs Thursday and Friday, from 2 PM to 4 PM.

UK-Rwanda Agreement

• Facts: On April 13, 2022, Boris Johnson signed a Migration and Economic Development Program (MEDP) with Rwanda.
• Aim: To relocate asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.
• Conditions: Rwanda received an initial payment of £140 million for processing asylum seekers, reaching £240 million by end 2023.
• Legal Issues: Asylum seekers weren't granted legal rights in the UK or international courts.
• ECtHR Decision: In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) intervened, halting the first flight to Rwanda due to the risk of 'refoulement.'
• High Court ruling: In December 2022, the UK High Court allowed the policy to proceed, though specific decisions were deemed procedurally unfair for individuals.
• Court Decision (UK Court of Appeal): The UK Court of Appeal ruled in favor of declaring the policy illegal due to concerns about Rwanda's asylum system and potential risks of refoulement.
• Supreme Court Decision: The UK Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision in November 2023, declaring that the policy was unlawful due to insufficient safeguards against refoulement.
• Unreliable assurances: The court highlighted Rwanda's unreliable assurances about its asylum system when compared to other similar agreements, especially between Rwanda and Israel.

UK-Rwanda Agreement - HR Issues

• Human Rights Concerns: Human Rights groups and UNHCR criticized Rwanda's high rejection rates for asylum claims (sometimes 100%) and inadequate legal protections available for applicants. The high court ruled policies were procedurally unfair.
• Absence of appeal procedure: There is no written appeal procedure to allow for a legal review of decisions.
• Risk of refoulement: There are risks of asylum seekers being returned to a country where they face danger; a violation of human rights.
• Insufficient independent monitoring: Insufficient/nonexistent independent monitoring mechanisms exist inside Rwanda.

UK-Rwanda Agreement - The Bill

• Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Introduced in December 2023, to declare Rwanda a "safe country" by law; the bill passed in April 2024.
• Judicial restrictions: Restrictions on judicial reviews on Rwanda's status as a "safe" country for deported asylum-seekers.
• ECtHR intervention limitations: Limits the application of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interventions for flights to Rwanda; the UK government would be able to ignore ECtHR urgent orders halting flights.

UK-Rwanda – The Bill Controversy

• Public Debate: Political and public debate centered on concerns that the policy disregarded the UK's international obligations.
• Legal fiction: The bill created a "legal fiction" by legislating Rwanda's safety despite documented concerns about potential human rights abuses.
• Civil servant resistance: British civil servants challenged the policy, arguing it would violate the Civil Service Code. They filed legal challenges before flights.

UK-Rwanda – The Bill Controversy (Additional Issues)

• Logistical Issues: Rwanda maintained that they were prepared to accept migrants if procedures favored their protection. However, housing was allocated elsewhere and remained unutilized by migrants seeking sanctuary.
• Broader Debates: Significant debate, involving legal systems, civic liberties, and immigration policy.
• Public Opinion: UK public opinion remained divided concerning both the plan and the Bill, raising questions about the rationale for deploying funds. Some questioned spending on the Rwanda scheme versus other domestic priorities.

UK-Rwanda – The Non-existent Results

• No Migrants: No asylum-seekers have left the UK for Rwanda.
• Financial incentives: The UK government offered financial incentives to relocate (a total of £3,000 was offered) but few had accepted.
• Political Change: The UK government lost the election and the new party vowed to not proceed. This left migrants’ safety and the scheme's legitimacy unknown.
• Refunds: Rwanda refused to refund any funding the UK invested in their initiative.

Italy-Albania Agreement

• Agreement: Signed on November 6, 2023, by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama.
• Aim: Externalize migration management, transferring intercepted migrants to Albania to process.
• Confidentiality: Full protocol details were only publicly available after an Albanian website published them. The secrecy heightened political scrutiny and debate.
• Constitutional Court Review: The Albanian Constitutional Court reviewed two appeals, concluding that the agreement didn't infringe on Albania's territorial integrity, allowing for parliamentary ratification.

Italy-Albania Agreement – Legal Pitfalls

• Democratic & Transparency Issues: The agreement acted as a bilateral arrangement rather than an international treaty, lacking scrutiny from EU bodies.
• Search & Rescue (SAR) Concerns: The protocol raises concerns about Italy's obligations regarding search and rescue at sea. It may transport rescued people over 700 km for processing to Albania. This delay and the method of selection may put people in dangerous situations (e.g., health and safety, humanitarian risks).
• Access to Refugee Rights: There are concerns about limited legal access to procedures, language barriers, and due process rights for asylum seekers in Albanian centers. This is perceived to compromise rights guaranteed under EU law.

Italy-Albania Agreement – Costs

• Total Cost Projection: Italy projected the five-year cost to be about €650 million, potentially higher depending on varying factors (e.g., additional infrastructure costs).
• Infrastructure: Italy assumes full cost in building and operating the migrant centres in Albania, including ongoing costs, such as sewage, electricity, and roads).
• Security Costs: Italy funds for deploying 500 Italian security officers and €6.5M for legal representatives for ongoing legal processes to monitor migrants' rights.

Externalization, summarised

• Shifting Focus: The focus has shifted from humanitarian obligations to controlling migration, prioritising containment over compassion, while raising significant questions concerning human rights issues. This is viewed as harmful to those seeking sanctuary.
• Economic & Ethical Implications: Externalization has implications for global economic, ethical, and political systems in response, and has been compared to historical colonization patterns.
• Deterrent Strategy: Actions like the UK-Rwanda deal are meant to deter migrants and signal that Europe’s borders are closing.

Control over Compassion – A Hidden Agenda

• Migration Restrictions: Externalization focuses on limiting rather than addressing the underlying causes of migration, while maintaining a focus on control.
• Populist Policies: Policies promote fear-mongering approaches towards migrants (e.g., by using rhetoric, and emotional appeal), shifting from a humanitarian approach.
• Transparency and Accountability: Policies try to hide the actuality of migration issues by reducing public scrutiny and creating more opaque policies to avoid public transparency. The aim is to reduce domestic pressure regarding these policies.

A Colonial Legacy in Modern Policies

• Colonial Practices: Modern externalization mirrors historical colonial-era practices.
• Differential Treatment: Policies concerning migrants differentiate certain groups based on race and geopolitical factors, with some considered "desirable" versus "undesirable"
• Shifting Burdens: Agreements with less powerful countries showcase the continued EU dominance, moving the burden of asylum seekers away from Europe itself.

Hidden Agreements and Risks

• Opaque Decision-Making: International agreements regarding externalization practices are carried out through informal agreements (i.e., memoranda of understanding). This secrecy often lacks parliamentary and public scrutiny.
• Legal and Ethical Concerns: Concerns about compliance with international standards and risks of potential human rights violations exist.
• Public Trust: Secrecy undermines trust in governmental processes to create legitimate and transparent migration policies.

Costly Policies, Empty Promises

• Financial Investment: Externalization projects receive significant funding but often don't yield long-term results. The money has questionable sustainability, as it could be used toward better solutions.
• Aid Diversion: Development funds are re-allocated for border security measures, diverting funds to potentially less effective solutions.
• Sustainability of Approach: There are reasonable doubts regarding the economic sustainability of externalization strategies.

Political Gain over People

• Populistic Policies: Policies that reinforce nationalist sentiment and fear of outsiders (e.g., "Fortress Europe") to drive political gain.
• Short-term Solutions: A focus on short-term political outcomes over long-term solutions will affect vulnerable populations as well as economic and geopolitical stability overall.
• Demographic Needs Ignored: These policies are often made with no consideration for long-term societal needs and demographic realities (i.e., need for a younger workforce in European nations).

Test your knowledge on the UK government's controversial Rwanda scheme and its implications concerning migrant treatment and agreements, especially the Italy-Albania deal. This quiz explores key points, criticisms, and legislative changes that have emerged in relation to these agreements.