No Right to Liberty: The Detention of Asylum Seekers for Administrative Convenience

Abstract

This article critically examines the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the EctHR in Saadi v UK 2008. The decision endorses short-term detention of asylum seekers on the basis of administrative convenience, specifically ruling out a requirement of necessity. The decision is examined in the light of international law on the detention of asylum seekers and the requirements of proportionality and lack of arbitrariness. It is anticipated that the use of routine detention will increase across Europe and that asylum seekers will be lumped together with other migrants in policies aimed at further restricting access to the European club. This presents a serious threat to the international right to seek and enjoy asylum provided in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Doing research in immigration removal centres: Ethics, emotions and impact

“…Detainees can apply for bail or judicial review, to have their case heard before a court or tribunal. The conditions allowing for such judicial overview are increasingly restricted (Costello, 2015; O’Nions, 2008).…”

The Political Discourse Behind Canada’s Unusually Harsh Detention Practices: The MV Sun Sea Case

“…In another case displaying the power of legislation, O'Nions ( 2008) examines the shortterm detention of Saadi in the UK. Saadi was an asylum seeker detained for the administrative convenience of the detention system, with the decision to detain upheld by the courts (O'Nions, 2008). In both these international cases, detention was treated as a commonplace and ordinary practice because the legislation allowed for it to be.…”

Why Immigration Detention is Unique

“…What is the impact of these policy changes on would‐be immigrants and detainees themselves? Scholars are beginning to address similar questions from a variety of approaches and perspectives: criminological and legal studies (Dow, ; Banks, ; O'Nions, ; Bailey, ; Bosworth, ; Cornelisse, ; Wilsher, ); class and economic theories (Bacon, ; Burnett and Chebe, ; Menz, ); theories stressing the influence of racism, xenophobia, and neo‐colonialism (Fekete, ; Fekete and Webber, ); liberal political and ethical theory (Caloz‐Tschopp, ; Nicholas, ; Khosravi, ; Anderson et al ., ); feminist, post‐structuralist, and post‐modernist theories (Agamben, ; Jackson, ; Agamben, ; Alberti, ; Mountz, ); approaches from anthropology, human geography, and sociology (Bloch and Schuster, ; Crawley and Lester, ; Welch and Schuster, ; Fischer, ; Gill, ; Coleman and Kocher, , Freedman, ); and so forth.…”