Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 3, Issue 2)

Received: 10 March 2020 Accepted: 30 March 2020 Published: 12 May 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In so far as individual States can maintain sovereignty over its internal affairs, they are nonetheless accountable to upholding certain principles and standards in the exercise of sovereignty, thereby calling for a reconciliation of sovereignty with universality of human rights law. In essence, international human rights obligations require States to comply with their treaty obligations regarding the treatment of aliens in their territory. A further implication of the international legal order is that International Bill of Rights is generally insistent on the inclusive applicability and the erosion of distinctions based on citizenship simply for the purpose of rights protection. This paper however finds that international human rights protection has been challenged by the hostile environment policy in the area of rights protection, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This paper further finds that behind the veil of the hostile environment are the ideologies of the Far Right and New Right which incubates, elucidates and implements the hostile policy in such an inexplicable way. The implication is that the adumbration of the hostile environment by these ideologies across Europe and the United States has implication for the respect of international human rights law from the time of the codification of the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in general. As it has been shown, a hostile environment ostensibly created for and formally restricted to irregular immigrants, is in effect, a hostile environment for all racial and ethnic communities and individuals in the UK.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 3, Issue 2) This article belongs to the Special Issue Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
Page(s)	47-59
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Sovereignty, Nationality, Immigration, Hostile Environment, New Right, Far Right, International Human Rights Law, Inclusion and Exclusion

References

[1]	Richard B Lillich, The human rights of aliens in contemporary international law (Manchester University Press 1984) 6.
[2]	Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore eds, first published in 1758, Liberty Fund Inc 2008) 161.
[3]	Edwin Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (New York 1914) 35.
[4]	See generally F Dunn, The Protection of National (1932) 53 cited in Richard B Lillich, The Current Status of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (University Press of Virginia 1983) 1, see also discussions by Myres S McDougal, Lung-chu Chen and Harold D Lasswell, ‘Protection of Aliens from Discrimination and World Public Order: Responsibility of States Conjoined with Human Rights’ (1976) 70 American Journal of International Law 432, 432-437.
[5]	Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case [1924] PCIJ Series A No 2, 12 accessed 25 April 2015 cf Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) [1926] PCIJ Series A No 7.
[6]	Richard B Lillich, ‘The Current Status of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens’ (1979) 73 American Society of International Law 244-249.
[7]	Sohn and Baxter, Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, Explanatory Notes, Art 1, 44 (Draft No 12 1961); see further commentaries by Sompong Sucharitkul, ‘State Responsibility and International Liability under International Law’ (1996) 18 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 821, 822-829.
[8]	Edwin Borchard, ‘Minimum Standard of the Treatment of Aliens’ (1940) 38 (4) Michigan Law Review 445, 448.
[9]	Adriana Sánchez Mussi, ‘International Minimum Standard of Treatment’ accessed 10 January 2017, cf the Calvo Clause, dealing with settlement of disputes between aliens and States requiring aliens to commit themselves, by their very contract with the State, not to seek diplomatic protection from the State of which they are nationals as against the Contracting State which allegedly caused them some damage, Oxford Public International Law accessed 10 January 2017.
[10]	Alwyn V. Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice (Longmans, Green and Co 1938) 498.
[11]	OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs (2004) ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law’ Working Papers on International Investment 2004/3; The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development accessed 10 January 2017.
[12]	L. F. H. Neer and Pauline Neer (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States (Reports of International Arbitral Awards 15 October 1926) (RIAA iv p. 60 at 60-61).
[13]	Harry Roberts (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States (Reports of International Arbitral Awards 2 November 1926) (RIAA iv 77 at 80).
[14]	Convention Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States of 1923 (The Claims Commission).
[15]	Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (7th edn, OUP 2008) 528.
[16]	Ian Bryan and Peter Langford, ‘The Lawful Detention of Unauthorised Aliens under the European System for the Protection of Human Rights’ (2011) 80 Nordic Journal of International Law 193, 194; The following cases support the principle of State sovereignty Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandani v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 471, para 67; Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 449, 86-87; Vilvarajah v UK (1991) 14 EHRR 248, para 102; Amur v France (1996) 22 EHRR 533, para 41; Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413, para 73; Saadi v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 17, para 64, 73.
[17]	Ryszard Cholewinski and Patrick Taran, ‘Migration, Governance and Human Rights, Contemporary Dilemmas in the era of Globalization’ (2010) 22 Refugee Survey Quarterly 1, 3.
[18]	D J Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (5th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 1998) 592.
[19]	R Y Jennings & A Watts (eds) Oppenheim’s International Law (9th edn, Longman 1951) 857-9.
[20]	Carmen Tiburcio, The Human Rights of Aliens under International and Comparative Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2001) 2.
[21]	William W Bishop Jr, International Law: Cases and Materials (3rd edn, Little Brown & Co Law & Business Publishing 1971) 488.
[22]	Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III) (UDHR) Article 15.
[23]	L Oppenheim, International Law (8th edn, Longmans, Green & Co 1955) 642.
[24]	Guy S Goodwin-Gill, ‘’Temporary Exclusion Orders’ and their Implications for the United Kingdom’s International Legal Obligations’accessed 25 March 2015; accessed 25 March 2015.
[25]	See the British Nationality Act 1948, s 1.
[26]	For a discussion of nationality and its redefinition and other connected matters see generally Fiorella Dell’ Olio, ‘The Redefinition of the Concept of Nationality in the UK: Between Historical Responsibility and Normative Challenges’ (2002) 22 Politics 9, 10; Ann Dummet and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (Weidenfield and Nicolson 1990) 216-217; see also Ian Spencer, British Immigration Policy since 1945: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain (Routledge 1997) 1, 21, 53.
[27]	Matthew Gibney, 'Precarious Residents: Migration Control, Membersip and the Rights of Non-citizens' (2009) UNDP Human Development Reports Research Paper 1, 6; for further discussions on this, see generally Etienne Balibar, We, the People of Europe? Reflections on transnational citizenship (Princeton University Press 2004) 180; Anne McNevin, ‘Contesting Citizenship: Irregular Migrants and Strategic Possibilities for Political Belonging’ (2008) 31 New Political Science 163, 166; Alexander Aleinikoff and Vincent Chetail (eds) Migration and International Legal Norms (Asser Press 2003) 21; Paulina Tambakaki, Human Rights or Citizenship? (Birbeck Law Press 2010) 13.
[28]	See s 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended); see also s 66 of the Immigration Act 2014, which came into effect on 28 July 2014, see Melanie Gower, ‘Deprivation of British Citizenship and the withdrawal of passport facilities’ (House of Commons Library 2014) 1-2 accessed 25 November 2019.
[29]	Nottebohm case (Liechtensen v Guatemala) [1955] ICJ Rep.
[30]	Collin Harvey, ‘Time for Reform? Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Protection Under International Human Rights Law’ (2015) 34 Refugee Survey Quarterly 43, 44.
[31]	Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo, ‘Refugee Protection under International Human Rights Law: From Non-Refoulement to Residence and Citizenship’ (2015) 34 Refugee Survey Quarterly 11, 33-34.
[32]	See HRC, Stewart v Canada (1996) Communication No. 538/1993; Nystrom v Australia (2011) Communication No 1557/2007; Beldjoudi v France App No 12083/86 (ECtHR, 26 March 1992); Boujlifa v France App No 122/1996/741/940 (ECtHR 21 October 1997).
[33]	Home Office, Immigration Rules Part 7 (Consolidated version of the current Immigration Rules) accessed 25 March 2018.
[34]	Bosadi (paragraph 276ADE; suitability; ties) [2015] UKUT 00042 (IAC).
[35]	Dube (ss. 117A-117D) [2015] UKUT 00090 (IAC), see the Headnote.
[36]	UNGA Res 61/165 (19 December 2006) UN Doc A/Res/61/165, para 7; see also Amuur v France (1996) 22 EHRR 533, para 41.
[37]	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) Art 12.
[38]	Julian Lehman, Rights at the Frontier: Border Control and Human Rights Protection of Irregular International Migrants’ (2011) 3 Goettingen Journal of International Law 733, 742.
[39]	Mark Salter, ‘When the exception becomes the rule: Borders, Sovereignty, and Citizenship’ (2008) 12 Citizenship Studies 365, 375.
[40]	P Nyers, ‘Abject Cosmopolitanism: the politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement’ (2003) 24 Third World Quarterly 1069, 1093; for further discussion on this issue, see Mark Salter, ‘Governmentalities of an Airport: heterotopia and confession’ (2007) 1 International Political Sociology 49, 50-67; S Taylor, ‘Sovereign power at the border’ (2005) Public Law Review 16, 55-77.
[41]	Bridget Anderson, “Illegal Immigrant”: victim or villain (2008) 64 ESRC Centre on Migration and Policy Working Paper 7.
[42]	Christian Joppke, ‘Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration’ (1998) 50 (2) World Politics 266, 268.
[43]	Matthew Gibney and Randall Hansen (2003) 'Deportation and the liberal state: the forcible return of asylum seekers and unlawful migrants in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom' New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper No. 77, 1.
[44]	Winston P. Nagan & Craig Hammer, ‘The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations’ (2004) 43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 141, 177
[45]	Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1973) 278.
[46]	Alice Bloch, Nando Sigona and Roger Zetter, ‘Migration Routes and Strategies of young undocumented Migrants in England: a qualitative perspective’ (2011) 34 Ethnic and Racial Studies 1287, 1287.
[47]	Gina Clayton, ‘Transparent and Trusted: The Immigration Rules in 2009?’ (2008) 14 Immigration Law Digest 2, 7; see also Christopher Vincenzi, ‘Aliens and the judicial review of Immigration Law’ (1985) Public Law 93, 114.
[48]	See Immigration Act 1971, s 3 (2).
[49]	Gina Clayton, Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law (4edn, OUP 2010) 7.
[50]	Duran Seddon, Immigration, nationality and Refugee Law (JCW1 2006) 1.
[51]	Alison Park and others, British Social Attitudes 29 (eds) (2012 edn, 29th Report, NatCen Social Research) 27 accessed 30 March 2019.
[52]	John L Hammond, ‘Immigration Control as a (False) Security Measure’ (2011) 37 Critical Sociology 739, 740.
[53]	Proclamations of Accession of English and British Sovereigns (1547-1952)< http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/brit-proclamations.htm> accessed 04 April 2018.
[54]	The Proclamations of Edward and Elizabeth Proclamations of Accession of English and British Sovereigns (1547-1952)< http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/brit-proclamations.htm> accessed 04 April 2018.
[55]	Helena Wray, ‘The Aliens Act 1905 and the Immigration Dilemma’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 302, 303; for further information about this Act see the following Ann Dummet and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (Weidenfield and Nicolson 1990) 27; T. W. E Roche, The Key in the Lock: A History of Immigration Control in England from 1066 to the Present Day (1st edn, John Murray Publishers Ltd 1969) introductory pages; Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain (Little Brown 2004) 1-15, 192.
[56]	Theresa Hayter, Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls (Pluto Press 2000) 39; see also Jill Pellew, ‘The Home Office and the Aliens Act of 1905’ (1989) 32 Historical Journal 369, 371.
[57]	Alice Bloch & Liza Schuster, ‘At the extremes of exclusion: Deportation, Detention and Dispersal’ (2005) 28 Ethnic and Racial Studies 491, 493-494.
[58]	Alison Bashford and Jane McAdam, ‘The Right to Asylum: Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act and the Evolution of Refugee Law’ (2014) 32 (2) Law and History Review 218, 311; see generally John Garrard, The English and Immigration 1880-1910 (OUP 1971), Bernard Gainer, The Alien Invasion: The Origins of the Aliens Act of 1905 (Heinemann Education 1972), Helena Wray, ‘The Aliens Act 1905 and the Immigration Act Dilemma’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 302, 303.
[59]	Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law, vol 1 (A W Sijthoff 1966) 11.
[60]	See for instance the Aliens Order Act 1920.
[61]	Milena Chimenti, ‘Mobilization of Irregular Migrants in Europe: a comparative analysis’ (2011) 34 Ethnic and Racial Studies 1338, 1342, cf R Hansen, Citizenship and Immigration in Post-war Britain (OUP 2000) 207.
[62]	Fiorella Dell’ Olio, ‘The Redefinition of the Concept of Nationality in the UK: Between Historical Responsibility and Normative Challenges’ (2002) 22 Politics 9, 10.
[63]	Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997.
[64]	R v Environmental Secretary ex parte Spath Holme Limited [2001] 2 AC (Lord Nichols); see also Ukus (discretion: when reviewable) [2012] UKUT 307, Headnote; Maurice A Roberts, ‘The Exercise of Administrative Discretion Under the Immigration Laws’ (1975-76) 13 San Diego Law Review 144, 145.
[65]	Global Justice, ‘The hostile environment for immigrants’ (February 2018) accessed 18 February 2020.
[66]	Matthew Evans, ‘Operation Nexus and the Hostile Environment: Challenging the Hostile Environment’ ILPA Monthly (June 2018).
[67]	Colin Yeo, ‘Briefing: what is the hostile environment, where does it come from, who does it affect?’ (01 May 2018) accessed 19 February 2020, see also Alan Travis, ‘Post-Brexit Immigration White Paper Delayed Until Late Autumn’, Guardian, 2 October 2017.
[68]	Liam Kirkaldy, ‘How hostile environment immigration policy reaches into every area of UK society’ Holyrood (17 January 2019).
[69]	House of Lords Library Briefing, ‘Impact of ‘Hostile Environment Policy Debate on 14 June 2018’ accessed 19 February 2020.
[70]	House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Immigration Policy: Basis for Building Consensus, 15 January 2018, HC 500 of session 2017–19, p 20., see also House of Lords, ‘Written Question: ‘Undocumented Migrants’, 4 May 2018, HL7145.
[71]	United Nations, ‘End of Mission Statement of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance at the Conclusion of Her Mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, 11 May 2018.
[72]	Martin A Schain, ‘Shifting Tides: Radical-Right Populism and Immigration Policy in Europe and the United States’ (2018) Migration Policy Institute 1; see also Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market (CUP 2005) 8.
[73]	Lizzie Dearden, ‘French Elections: Marine Le Pen Vows to Suspend Immigration to ‘Protect France’’ Independent, 18 April 2017, see also Jorg Michael Dostal, ‘The German Federal Election of 2017: How the Wedge Issue of Refugees and Migration Took the Shine Chancellor Merkel and Transformed the Party System’ (2017) 88 The Political Quarterly 4.
[74]	Geertje Lucassen and Marcel Lubbers, ‘Who Fears What? Explaining Far-Right Wing Preferences in Europe by Distinguished Perceived Cultural and Economic Threats; (2011) 45 (5) Comparative Political Studies 547, 74.
[75]	Martin A Schain, The Politics of Immigration in France, Britain and the United States: A Comparative Study, (2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2012) 118.
[76]	Jooste van Spanje, ‘Contagious Parties: Anti-Immigration Parties and Their Impact on Other Parties’ Immigration Stances in Contemporary Western Europe’ (2010) 16 (5) Party Politics 563, 580.
[77]	Tjitkse Akkerman, ‘Comparing Radical Right Parties in Government: Immigration and Integration Policies in Nine Countries’ (2012) 35 (3) Western European Politics 511, 515.
[78]	Pablo de Orellana and Nicholas Michelsen, ‘Reactionary Internationalism: the philosophy of the New Right’ (2019) Review of International Studies 1; see also Joseph Mackay and Christopher David LaRoche, ‘Why is there no reactionary international theory?’ (2018) 62 (2) International Studies Quarterly 234, 235.
[79]	Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier, ‘Manifesto: the French New Right in the year 2000’ (1999) Spring 115 Telos 117.
[80]	Theresa May commits Tories to cutting net migration to the tens of thousands’ (2017) The Telegraph.
[81]	Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment (ebook 2013).
[82]	Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (Zone Book 2017) 202.
[83]	Salvini: ‘Sui rom non mollo, prima gli italiani, Corriiere della sera< https://www.dire.it/19-06-2018/213036-salvini-censimento-rom-non-mollo/ >accessed 25 February 2020.
[84]	POLITICO, ‘Trump’s 2018 UN Speech (2018).
[85]	Gove and Raab: ‘EU membership makes us less safe’ (08 June 2016) http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/gove_and_raab_eu_membership_makes_us_less_safe.html accessed 25 February 2020.
[86]	Michael Gove, Celsius 7/7 (Phoenix 2007) 135.
[87]	Vote Leave, ‘Rt Hon Liam Fox MP: Memories of the Green? The Cost of Uncontrolled Migration’ (02 June 2016) accessed 25 February 2020.
[88]	Arron Banks, ‘Proof that British people support stronger borders’ (18 November 2015) accessed 25 February 2020.
[89]	Marysia Nowak & Becky Branford, ‘France elections: What makes Marine Le Pen far right? BBC News (10 February 2017).
[90]	Lega, Programma-Elezioni 2018 accessed 26 February 2020.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. (2020). Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Law and Society, 3(2), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Law Soc. 2020, 3(2), 47-59. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. Int J Law Soc. 2020;3(2):47-59. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12,
  author = {Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka},
  title = {Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {47-59},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20200302.12},
  abstract = {In so far as individual States can maintain sovereignty over its internal affairs, they are nonetheless accountable to upholding certain principles and standards in the exercise of sovereignty, thereby calling for a reconciliation of sovereignty with universality of human rights law. In essence, international human rights obligations require States to comply with their treaty obligations regarding the treatment of aliens in their territory. A further implication of the international legal order is that International Bill of Rights is generally insistent on the inclusive applicability and the erosion of distinctions based on citizenship simply for the purpose of rights protection. This paper however finds that international human rights protection has been challenged by the hostile environment policy in the area of rights protection, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This paper further finds that behind the veil of the hostile environment are the ideologies of the Far Right and New Right which incubates, elucidates and implements the hostile policy in such an inexplicable way. The implication is that the adumbration of the hostile environment by these ideologies across Europe and the United States has implication for the respect of international human rights law from the time of the codification of the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in general. As it has been shown, a hostile environment ostensibly created for and formally restricted to irregular immigrants, is in effect, a hostile environment for all racial and ethnic communities and individuals in the UK.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom
AU  - Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka
Y1  - 2020/05/12
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 47
EP  - 59
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
AB  - In so far as individual States can maintain sovereignty over its internal affairs, they are nonetheless accountable to upholding certain principles and standards in the exercise of sovereignty, thereby calling for a reconciliation of sovereignty with universality of human rights law. In essence, international human rights obligations require States to comply with their treaty obligations regarding the treatment of aliens in their territory. A further implication of the international legal order is that International Bill of Rights is generally insistent on the inclusive applicability and the erosion of distinctions based on citizenship simply for the purpose of rights protection. This paper however finds that international human rights protection has been challenged by the hostile environment policy in the area of rights protection, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This paper further finds that behind the veil of the hostile environment are the ideologies of the Far Right and New Right which incubates, elucidates and implements the hostile policy in such an inexplicable way. The implication is that the adumbration of the hostile environment by these ideologies across Europe and the United States has implication for the respect of international human rights law from the time of the codification of the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in general. As it has been shown, a hostile environment ostensibly created for and formally restricted to irregular immigrants, is in effect, a hostile environment for all racial and ethnic communities and individuals in the UK.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka

Almond Legals-immigration, Asylum and Human Rights Lawyers & Researchers, London, UK

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. (2020). Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Law and Society, 3(2), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Law Soc. 2020, 3(2), 47-59. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka. Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom. Int J Law Soc. 2020;3(2):47-59. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12,
  author = {Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka},
  title = {Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {47-59},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20200302.12},
  abstract = {In so far as individual States can maintain sovereignty over its internal affairs, they are nonetheless accountable to upholding certain principles and standards in the exercise of sovereignty, thereby calling for a reconciliation of sovereignty with universality of human rights law. In essence, international human rights obligations require States to comply with their treaty obligations regarding the treatment of aliens in their territory. A further implication of the international legal order is that International Bill of Rights is generally insistent on the inclusive applicability and the erosion of distinctions based on citizenship simply for the purpose of rights protection. This paper however finds that international human rights protection has been challenged by the hostile environment policy in the area of rights protection, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This paper further finds that behind the veil of the hostile environment are the ideologies of the Far Right and New Right which incubates, elucidates and implements the hostile policy in such an inexplicable way. The implication is that the adumbration of the hostile environment by these ideologies across Europe and the United States has implication for the respect of international human rights law from the time of the codification of the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in general. As it has been shown, a hostile environment ostensibly created for and formally restricted to irregular immigrants, is in effect, a hostile environment for all racial and ethnic communities and individuals in the UK.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Immigration Control, Citizenship, the Interplay of Sovereignty and the Vicissitudes of the Hostile Environment in the United Kingdom
AU  - Cosmas Ukachukwu Ikegwuruka
Y1  - 2020/05/12
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 47
EP  - 59
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20200302.12
AB  - In so far as individual States can maintain sovereignty over its internal affairs, they are nonetheless accountable to upholding certain principles and standards in the exercise of sovereignty, thereby calling for a reconciliation of sovereignty with universality of human rights law. In essence, international human rights obligations require States to comply with their treaty obligations regarding the treatment of aliens in their territory. A further implication of the international legal order is that International Bill of Rights is generally insistent on the inclusive applicability and the erosion of distinctions based on citizenship simply for the purpose of rights protection. This paper however finds that international human rights protection has been challenged by the hostile environment policy in the area of rights protection, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This paper further finds that behind the veil of the hostile environment are the ideologies of the Far Right and New Right which incubates, elucidates and implements the hostile policy in such an inexplicable way. The implication is that the adumbration of the hostile environment by these ideologies across Europe and the United States has implication for the respect of international human rights law from the time of the codification of the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in general. As it has been shown, a hostile environment ostensibly created for and formally restricted to irregular immigrants, is in effect, a hostile environment for all racial and ethnic communities and individuals in the UK.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download