The massive influx of illegal immigrants into the UK is understandably a problem for the UK itself. Many argue that there are already too many people and not enough jobs and other resources for everybody. The continuous stream of asylum seekers into the UK, which compounds this problem, has led to a relatively innovative solution: an MoU between the UK and Rwanda, in terms of which, broadly, Rwanda will accept some of the asylum seekers that have made their way to the UK, mostly through the criminal networks of human trafficking syndicates, in exchange for payment from the UK. But the MoU between the UK and Rwanda is not without controversy. Is it permissible under public international law? While international law prohibits refoulement (sending refugees back to their own country if they face serious human rights violations there), it does not expressly prohibit their relocation to another “safe” third party state provided that they won’t face serious human rights violations there as well. But is Rwanda a safe place? Many believe that it is not, basing their belief on various reports published by international human rights organizations that have been highly critical of Rwanda’s track record. The Rwandan government, in response, has acknowledged its poor track record but says that it is doing much to improve that. Is this good enough? Another issue that arises from this type of innovation is this: can refugees and asylum seekers insist on getting a new home in the country of their choice or does their claim for a new home end if they are provided with a safe haven, albeit not in the country of the choice? #internationallaw #tilapa #asylumseekers