I will look at how the United Kingdom has attempted to handle its own obligations under the Refugee Convention of 1951 - and the European Convention on Human Rights - under the pressures of the increased numbers of those arriving in the country and claiming protection. I propose to survey the development of the system over the years, and in what seems to be a crisis management manner, the role played by the judiciary, and the overall effect on the refugee and how he or she establishes the claim. I will draw attention to some of the cases, particularly in the higher courts, which have sought (not always with lasting effect) to limit the increasing restrictions on welfare provisions while the claimant's application is being processed, and to confine the extent of detention without trial of terrorist suspects, and address the ever-tightening approach toward the remedies available against an adverse status determination. This Article coincides with the entry into force of the latest Act in this progressively restrictive legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is too early to be dogmatic about its ultimate effect, but I will conclude by posing some questions on the issue of impact/effect and proffering some tentative answers.
The Judiciary, the State, and the Refugee: The Evolution of Judicial Protection in Asylum – A U.K. Perspective,
28 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1421
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol28/iss5/5