Examining the United Kingdom’s Use of Diplomatic Assurances - Is it Fully Compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights?

In this piece, I argue that the present use of diplomatic assurance is still not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. To do this I look at the historical treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and how the classification of a “Terrorist” and “Terrorism” impacts the political opinion on when an Asylum Seeker should be classed as a national security risk. I examine the case of Chahal v UK (1996) and the Labour Government’s response after the 2006 London Bombings to showcase the UK’s failed attempts at finding a satisfactory response to foreign terrorist suspects, with some of these responses allowing for an increased acceptance of torture. In illustrating the failings of the past, I will be able to convey the importance of achieving an effective and a non-discriminatory policy for Asylum Seekers. Nevertheless, I conclude from evidence of cases like the Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom case and other similar cases that even though the use of diplomatic assurances might be effective on paper they are not effective in achieving a satisfactory response with regards to upholding the European Convention on Human Rights.