Migration and asylum have become permanent features of international politics as is the development of human rights principles. As the world today experiences tremendous population turbulence, states have intensified their efforts to control and deter potential migrants and asylum seekers. State actions have often disregarded international human rights principles, thus the question as to why this is the case. In this regard, the issue of treatment of migrants and asylum seekers in host states has drawn the attention of the international community, scholars and policymakers and the focus is centered on state compliance with international human rights standards in the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers.; Within the international legal context, numerous instruments have been created to protect the rights of all humans regardless of their nationality, status, color or creed. The principles contained in these instruments have imposed duties and obligations to signatory states on legal grounds and to all other states on moral grounds. This study is about states' compliance with human rights standards. It analyzes state immigration and asylum policies as one of the fundamental influences of state human rights policies and practices. It also focuses on compliance with human rights principles based on theories of compliance. The study problematizes the extent of state compliance with human rights principles with specific reference to the rights of immigration and asylum detainees. The thrust of this dissertation is to ascertain the degree to which nation-states comply with international human rights obligations and norms regarding detention of migrants and asylum seekers.; This study argues that state compliance with international human rights principles is based on legitimacy (ratification and/or incorporation) of human rights commitments and reputational or credibility concerns.{09}The acceptance of treaty obligations raises expectations about the state's behavior and once made it becomes reputationally costly to violate terms of the treaty. It analyzes domestic immigration and asylum policies and how they influence migrants and asylum seekers' flows and the state's level of compliance. This study reviews core international and regional human rights instruments and identifies principles that are applicable to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers and analyzes Britain's compliance with some of the core principles.; The study concludes that Britain's treatment of migrants and asylum seekers is discriminatory and does not comply with international human rights standards. It illustrates the existence of racial bias in British immigration and asylum policies and practices and the limits of reputational or credibility and legitimacy considerations to enforce compliance. It shows that anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling legislation and enforcement has virtually criminalized asylum seeking. It makes some recommendations for better protection of migrants and asylum seekers in Britain.
展开▼
