The High Court in Belfast has determined that significant parts of the UK's Illegal Migration Act conflict with the Windsor framework and should not be enforced in Northern Ireland, The Conversation reported.

However, this time the ramifications extend beyond Northern Ireland. The judgment affects the core of the UK's post-Brexit immigration policy, finding that provisions of the act granting the government broad powers to deport asylum seekers infringe on the human rights of those seeking refuge in Northern Ireland.

Predictably, the government plans to appeal. Nonetheless, the ruling has already revealed certain aspects about the UK.

UK’s border control ambitions clash with human rights

The issue goes beyond discussions about migration, Brexit, or the unity of the UK, as per the report. It is fundamentally about human rights—rights that the UK deemed crucial to human dignity after World War II and vital for peace in Northern Ireland in 1998. Following a brutal conflict, the UK committed to its neighbors to uphold higher and universal standards to safeguard humanity.

During the complex Brexit negotiations, the importance of upholding human rights was so clear that it became one of the points of agreement between the UK and the EU. An article dedicated to protecting the “rights of individuals” in Northern Ireland was included in the initial draft of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement in March 2018. This provision remained consistent through various iterations of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that followed: Theresa May’s “backstop” in November 2018, Boris Johnson’s deal in October 2019, and Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework in February 2023.
 
The protocol's purpose, now called the "Windsor Framework," was not only to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland but also to "protect the 1998 [Good Friday/Belfast] Agreement in all its dimensions," as stated in Article 1. The main aim of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework is to uphold that peace agreement. Notably, although this is a joint agreement between the UK and the EU, the article emphasizes one party in particular. It states, “The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in … the 1998 Agreement … results from its withdrawal from the [European] Union”.

The constitutional integration of human rights in Northern Ireland is vital to its governance after the conflict. The 1998 agreement, which ended 30 years of violence, also created institutions to maintain these protections, including specific human rights and equality commissions.

The second part of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework obligates the UK to support the work of these bodies. It is either ironic or reassuring that these same institutions are now taking the UK government to court for violating this very article, the report argued.

Brexit law violates Northern Ireland's human rights

The legal actions initiated by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission focused on Article 2. Essentially, the ruling indicates that aspects of UK law reduce rights fundamental to the 1998 agreement, including those in the European Convention on Human Rights. Significantly, this marks the second instance this year where the Belfast High Court has made such a finding.

Critics argue that the judgment will turn Northern Ireland into a "magnet" for asylum seekers trying to avoid deportation to Rwanda. However, they overlook the larger context.

Northern Ireland holds a distinctive position within the UK, primarily as a channel for enforcing international human rights standards, even as the government appears to be dismantling them.

Northern Ireland’s governance and constitution are uniquely and directly bound by international agreements, and this is for a significant reason, the report further stressed.

These protections supersede domestic law, providing assurance after a troubling history of state discrimination and rights violations. Even if Northern Ireland's constitutional status changes, the importance of international human rights standards and their defense will remain crucial.

"For that, after all, is the point of universal human rights: we do not get to choose whether or not we might need to draw upon their protection," the report concluded by saying.

Read next: UK asylum seekers flee to Ireland amid Rwanda deportation threat