Barriers to Durable Solutions: Resettlement As discussed above, UNRWA’s mandate does not include resettlement or other durable solutions, and UNHCR’s mandate does not apply in UNRWA’s area of operation. This has led to a particular problem relating to the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from UNRWA's area of operations to countries such as the UK, which only accepts refugees for resettlement who have been referred by UNHCR. The UK’s resettlement scheme for refugees from Syria was challenged through litigation in the UK, in Turani v SSHD.25 The applicants were Palestinians who had fled from Syria to UNRWA's area of operations and who had various vulnerabilities which would likely have made them eligible for the UK’s resettlement programme had they not been Palestinians in UNRWA's area of operations, where UNHCR could not refer them for resettlement. The applicants argued that the UK’s resettlement scheme discriminated on the basis of race or ethnicity, violating domestic law as well as international declarations, treaties, and customary international law.26 The Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal held that the UK’s resettlement scheme is not unlawful. The Court of Appeal found that the UK Government was justified in accepting referrals for resettlement exclusively from UNHCR. Although the appellants submitted that other countries (e.g., USA, Canada, and Norway) accept resettlement referrals from NGOs as well as UNHCR, preventing this discriminatory situation from arising, the Court of Appeal observed that evidence relating to this was submitted late in the case and was sparse. The Court of Appeal considered that the Administrative Court “Judge was entitled to conclude that … referral by an NGO could not have achieved the ‘security, reliability, speed and consistency which flow from using UNHCR as a gatekeeper.’”27 Further, the Court of Appeal held that it was not an error for the Administrative Court Judge to find that UNRWA’s existence and the assistance it provides had at least some mitigating impact for Palestinians from Syria, thus justifying some difference in treatment from non-Palestinian refugees.28 This outcome means that a clearly discriminatory impact continues, barring Palestinian refugees in UNRWA's area of operations from the UK’s resettlement programme and thus restricting their access to a durable solution that might otherwise be available to them. Further appeal is ongoing. 2. The 1951 Refugee Convention 2.1. The Meaning of Protection Under the 1951 Refugee Convention Protection, in international refugee law, is inextricably linked to the provision of durable solutions for refugees. Having a protective legal status – refugee status – is vital to the concept of protection under the 1951 Convention, and it must encompass all the rights set out within the Convention such as non-refoulement, 25 Turani v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 348 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/348.html and the previous (lower) decision Turani v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1586 (Admin) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/1586.html. 26 See eg: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Art 2; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1969; Lord Steyn, in R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55; [2005] 2 AC 1, 46 in In re Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd (Belgium v Spain) (second phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, at paras 33-34 referred to binding obligations in international law ‘including protection from slavery and racial discrimination.’ 27 Turani v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 348, Para 90. 28 Turani v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 348, Paras 43,72,74, 91. 5