In international news
This week the International Court of Justice held public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. This is in response to a vote by the United Nations General Assembly to request an advisory opinion on (in the words of the UN General Assembly):
- What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
- How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in [the] paragraph…above affect the legal status of the occupation and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status?
In the UK
As the Russia-Ukraine war reached its second anniversary, the Home Office has published a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules closing the Ukraine Family Scheme. This scheme allowed UK residents to sponsor Ukrainian family members to come to the UK. Ukrainians currently in the UK will be able to apply for the Ukraine Extension Scheme, which will provide them with an additional 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK on the expiry of their visa. The Ukraine Extension Scheme will close on 16 May 2024. This means that the only remaining “bespoke” visa for Ukrainians outside the UK will be the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. The statement of changes has reduced the length of the Homes for Ukraine Scheme visa from three years to 18 months. It has also restricted who is eligible to be a sponsor. Previously, to be a sponsor you had to hold at least six months’ permission to stay in the UK from the date of the visa application, now you have to be a British or Irish citizen or have indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
In the courts
Shamima Begum has lost her appeal against the removal of her British citizenship. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that in depriving Ms Begum of British citizenship, the Home Secretary was in breach of article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) by failing to consider that she was a potential victim of trafficking, to protect her from trafficking, to discharge legal obligations owed to potential victims of trafficking. The Home Secretary did not fail to take into account the risk of trafficking as a relevant consideration, and did not fail to consider Ms Begum’s de facto statelessness after the deprivation of her British nationality. The Court of Appeal also rejected arguments based on procedural fairness and breach of public sector equality duty.
