Critics who imagine that we can secure our borders against migrants simply by leaving the European convention on human rights have overlooked another major international agreement that the UK signed at around the same time.
The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, gives important rights to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own countries. In particular, refugees must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
Speaking in the House of Lords on 2 June, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC (pictured) said that at the time the convention was agreed in 1951 there were thought to be around 2.1 million refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Last year, according to the UNHCR, there were no fewer than 43.7 million refugees.
The former director of public prosecutions said:
It is in the light of the changes since 1951 that I believe the rubric of the refugee convention must be considered. It says that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution in their place of abode is entitled under the convention to asylum when they arrive in a contracting state, but that characterisation applies to literally tens of millions of people worldwide and may plausibly be claimed by tens of millions more.
Macdonald suggested that the UK might need to “revisit” the refugee convention. But how could that be done? And what might happen if we don’t?
Those are among the questions I put to him yesterday when we recorded the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks.
My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A Lawyer Writes to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
