One Way Ticket to Rwanda: Statutory Power, Non-Refoulement, and the Constitutional Limits of Asylum Externalisation after R (AAA)

Abstract

This article examines the United Kingdom’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda through the lens of statutory interpretation and constitutional principle. It argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 is best understood not merely as an application of the principle of non-refoulement, but as a significant reconfiguration of the legal limits of statutory removal powers. By treating lawful removal as dependent on the “safety” of the receiving state, namely its ability in practice to prevent refoulement and serious harm, the Court effectively narrowed the domain within which broadly framed removal powers may be exercised. The article reconstructs and critically evaluates the Government’s legal case for externalisation, including its reliance on diplomatic assurances and monitoring, and situates the subsequent Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act within this interpretive landscape. It then develops a framework for identifying the structural tensions inherent in third-country transfer schemes and proposes statutory and institutional preconditions under which future externalisation arrangements might be reconciled with non-refoulement. The article contributes to debates on the relationship between Parliament, the executive, and the courts in the design and interpretation of migration legislation.