Listen to the article
Rwanda Takes UK to International Court Over Scrapped Migrant Deal
Rwanda has launched legal action against the United Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking financial compensation for the abruptly terminated migrant deportation agreement between the two nations.
The East African country announced the lawsuit on Tuesday, claiming the UK breached treaty obligations when Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared the controversial deal “dead and buried” shortly after taking office in July 2024.
“He did so without prior notice to Rwanda, contrary to the spirit of partnership that had always characterized the agreement,” the Rwandan government said in a statement.
The disputed agreement, which came into force on April 25, 2024, under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government, would have seen Rwanda accept asylum seekers who had entered Britain illegally. In exchange, the UK agreed to significant financial payments to fund the program.
The scheme faced substantial criticism from human rights groups and legal challenges from its inception. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled the deal “unlawful,” determining it violated both British and international law. Despite this ruling, the Sunak government pressed ahead with implementing the agreement, though only four asylum seekers voluntarily relocated to Rwanda under the program.
When Starmer’s Labour government took power following the July general election, it immediately scrapped the policy, which had been a central pillar of the previous administration’s approach to reducing illegal migration across the English Channel.
The financial implications of the abandoned deal are substantial. UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper previously revealed that Britain had already paid Rwanda £290 million for the failed scheme. The agreement included additional payments of £50 million each, due in April 2025 and April 2026.
According to Rwanda’s statement, in November 2024, the UK requested that Rwanda waive these upcoming payments, suggesting this would be part of a formal termination process. Rwanda indicated willingness to accept these arrangements provided new financial terms were negotiated, but claims such discussions “did not ultimately take place, and the amounts remain due and payable under the treaty.”
The British government has stated it has no intention of making further payments under the agreement.
Legal experts are divided on Rwanda’s chances of success in the arbitration. Some question whether parties to a contract deemed unlawful can seek financial remedies, while others see potential grounds for Rwanda’s claim.
Jonathan Musangwa, a Rwandan international law expert, told The Associated Press that Britain cannot rely solely on its domestic legal ruling to justify breaking an international agreement. “A domestic judgment may prevent the government from continuing to implement the scheme internally, but it does not by itself terminate the treaty or erase obligations that already exist between the states,” he explained.
The case raises complex questions about international treaty obligations versus domestic legal systems. Musangwa noted the arbitral tribunal will examine whether the UK lawfully terminated the agreement in accordance with its terms or with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
“If it did not, an arbitral tribunal may still find an internationally wrongful act and consider questions of responsibility and reparation, even though domestic courts found otherwise,” he added.
In its arbitration filing, Rwanda alleges multiple breaches by the UK, including violations of the treaty’s financial arrangements under Article 18 and failure to resettle vulnerable refugees as required by Article 19.
The dispute highlights the challenges and costs associated with outsourced migration policies that have gained traction among European nations seeking to reduce asylum applications. The outcome of this case could influence how countries approach similar agreements in the future.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
The scrapped migrant deal between the UK and Rwanda is a contentious issue with far-reaching consequences. Rwanda’s decision to sue the UK for breaching treaty obligations is a bold move that warrants close attention.
While the original agreement was controversial, Rwanda’s legal action highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in international migration policies. The court’s ruling could have significant ramifications.
Rwanda’s decision to sue the UK over the scrapped migrant deal is a bold move that underscores the high stakes involved in this issue. The case will likely test the limits of international treaty obligations and the treatment of asylum seekers.
While the original agreement faced significant criticism, Rwanda’s pursuit of financial compensation raises intriguing questions about the enforceability of such deals and the potential consequences for nations that renege on their commitments.
This is an interesting development. Rwanda’s lawsuit against the UK over the scrapped migrant deal raises important questions about international treaty obligations and the complexities of migration policies.
I’m curious to see how this case plays out at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The financial implications could be significant for both countries.
The lawsuit filed by Rwanda against the UK over the migrant deportation agreement is a significant development that highlights the ongoing tensions and complexities surrounding global migration policies. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications.
This dispute between Rwanda and the UK will be closely watched by the international community, as it touches on fundamental issues of national sovereignty, human rights, and the responsibilities of nations in addressing the global migration crisis.
Rwanda’s lawsuit against the UK over the migrant deal raises important questions about the sanctity of international agreements and the responsibilities of nations when it comes to managing migration flows.
It will be interesting to see how the Permanent Court of Arbitration weighs the legal and diplomatic implications of this case. The outcome could set a precedent for similar disputes in the future.
The controversial migrant deportation agreement between the UK and Rwanda was always going to be a legal and ethical minefield. It’s not surprising to see Rwanda seeking compensation after the deal was abruptly terminated.
Human rights groups had serious concerns about this deal from the start. It will be important for the court to carefully weigh the competing interests at stake.
This case highlights the complexity of global migration issues. While countries have a right to manage their borders, the treatment of asylum seekers is a sensitive and contentious topic with no easy solutions.
I’m interested to see how the Permanent Court of Arbitration rules on Rwanda’s claims of breached treaty obligations. This could set an important precedent.
The UK’s decision to scrap the migrant deal with Rwanda is certainly controversial. I can understand Rwanda’s desire to seek financial compensation, but the ethical implications of the original agreement are also worth scrutinizing.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. I hope the court can find a balanced resolution that respects human rights while also addressing legitimate security concerns.
This case touches on fundamental issues of state sovereignty, human rights, and the responsibilities of nations in managing global migration challenges. It will be important for the Permanent Court of Arbitration to carefully balance these competing interests.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have ripple effects on future migration agreements between countries. I’m curious to see how the court navigates the complex legal and diplomatic considerations at play.