Limbo Time? An analysis of whether the limbo argument applies to de facto stateless people in the UK

The ‘limbo argument’ suggests that when the chances of removing a refused asylum seeker are remote or irrational, they should be given some form of temporary permission to remain in order to contribute towards society. This argument has been largely rejected and the current system of destitution for refused asylum seekers who cannot be removed, remains. This work draws a parallel between being in ‘limbo’ and being de facto stateless. It argues that being de facto stateless is a broad term, and goes on to analyse how the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice have given increased protection to de facto stateless people. This work then goes on to apply such protection to refused asylum seekers who are in ‘limbo’, suggesting how such protection can operate in domestic law, and rejecting counter arguments as to the limbo arguments viability, and flawed policy arguments.