Distributing mobility: regressive asylum agreements and racialised difference
Clicks: 3
ID: 321127
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
0.6
/100
3 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract In AAA (Syria) and others, the United Kingdom Supreme Court found the migration agreement, under which the UK could forcibly transfer asylum-seekers to Rwanda, to be unlawful. The decision was met with widespread legal approval for upholding the international principle of non-refoulement. However, this paper argues that both the agreement and the judicial review of its legality relied on a deep racialisation of Rwanda, while leaving open the possibility for future regressive safe third country agreements.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7168350652
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Nicola Palmer |
| Journal | London Review of International Law |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/lril/lrag010
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.