This article considers the impact of UK measures removing social security entitlements from certain groups of asylum seekers and explores their compatibility with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and with a number of international human rights instruments. The author argues that a dynamic interpretation of the latter instruments can be more effective in protecting the rights of asylum seekers, in particular their right to life, their rights to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination, and their economic and social rights. Although the measures removing benefits have been undermined by recent judicial decisions, they have not been overturned by the new Labour Government, which is presently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the social security system, including the arrangements concerning asylum seekers. Irrespective of any future changes, the author contends that these measures, as well as the related case law, are important, since they reveal a lacuna in refugee protection, namely, the rights to which asylum seekers are entitled while awaiting the determination of their claims, including any appeals. Because of the weakness of the 1951 Convention in this area, international human rights instruments have much to offer asylum seekers, although reliance upon them is problematic in the UK where international treaty provisions cannot yet be directly invoked in domestic courts. A further difficulty concerns the argument that the measures constitute an infringement of economic and social rights, which are frequently perceived as being progressive in nature and non-justiciable. On this point, the author contends that recent judgments in the UK make out a strong case for the immediate application of a minimum core content of these rights in national legal systems.

[No Keywords available]

[No Keywords available]