‘Are refugees being traded?’ UN questions the UK-France asylum swap 

Experts warn bilateral exchange may erode refugee protections

Originally published on Global Voices

A controversial “one in, one out” agreement between the United Kingdom and France linking forced returns of people arriving in small boats to matched legal admissions has drawn sharp criticism from United Nations human rights experts. In a letter published in early February 2026, the experts highlighted documented cases where people who had fled war, torture and trafficking (including from Sudan and Gaza) were placed in detention and subjected to force before being sent back to France under the arrangement.

Human rights advocates say the pilot, intended to reduce irregular migration across the English Channel, is treating asylum seekers as “parcels, not people” and risks turning an individual human right into a commodity traded between states for political convenience.

A deal built on exchange, not protection

Under the UK-France “one in, one out” scheme, people who arrive in the UK by small boat and are selected for return can be sent back to France. In exchange, the UK agrees to admit a matched number of people from France through designated safe routes.

International refugee law recognizes the right to seek asylum as an individual entitlement based on personal risk and persecution, not as a negotiable quota or an accounting exercise. Critics argue that by tying a legal admission to every deportation, the arrangement commodifies people seeking protection. 

The written concerns from the nine UN human rights experts — including special rapporteurs — describe cases where people awaiting removal were detained prior to deportation and raise questions about arbitrary selection criteria and eligibility. The letter warned that the process “may in itself amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Reports of force during removals

Rights organisations have also documented distressing treatment during detention and removals. A joint statement by refugee support groups notes that people with histories of torture, trafficking or severe violence have been held in prison-like centres and subjected to restraints, segregation and force while being prepared for removal. For survivors of trauma, such practices risk retraumatisation and aggravate mental health conditions.

One advocacy group report described cases involving survivors of torture and extreme violence being pushed into removal procedures without proper safeguards. These include people from conflict zones such as Sudan and the Gaza Strip, where war and genocide have displaced millions.

Civil society voices

Civil society organisations spanning the UK and France have urged airlines and companies involved in deportation flights to reconsider their role in the scheme. In coordinated letters, 28 NGOs urged carriers to stop cooperating with removals, calling the deportations “cruel and forced” and highlighting the involvement of survivors of trafficking and modern slavery.

A spokesperson for one rights coalition said the policy “is a dehumanising way to treat people who came here to seek safety from war and persecution,” arguing that the system effectively trades people to meet political targets rather than protect rights. 

Legal and ethics questions

Governments implementing the agreement say it complies with domestic and international law and can help reduce dangerous sea crossings. However, rights groups question whether key protections have been upheld, and whether adequate assessment of protection needs has taken place before removals.

UN experts asked both governments detailed questions about unpublished aspects of the pilot, including how decisions are made on who is returned and what safeguards exist to prevent onward refoulement — the return of people to a place where they could face danger.

What this means for universal rights

When asylum policies are structured around bilateral exchange rather than individual protection needs, critics say the very concept of universal human rights is weakened. The UN experts’ warnings and civil society responses point to a broader debate about whether such pilot schemes uphold the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention and related human rights obligations.

As the UK-France arrangement continues, questions persist about how far states can go in balancing migration control with obligations to safeguard the dignity and rights of those seeking refuge. If protection becomes contingent on political exchange, the right to asylum may be reshaped into a ledger entry rather than an inviolable individual entitlement.