The European Court of Human Rights is set to reconsider migrant policy across nine member states, sparking controversy and raising questions about judicial independence in Europe.
A New Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe
The European Convention on Human Rights: A Global Framework
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a foundational document that sets out fundamental rights and freedoms for individuals in Europe.
Adopted in 1950, the convention has been ratified by all Council of Europe member states, making it one of the most widely accepted human rights instruments globally.
The ECHR outlines rights such as freedom from torture, right to life, and freedom of expression.
It also establishes mechanisms for individuals to petition against alleged violations of their rights.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty that sets out fundamental rights and freedoms for signatory states. Drafted and signed over 75 years ago, it has been updated several times to reflect changing societal values and norms. One of its key provisions prohibits torture, guarantees the right to a fair trial, and protects freedom of expression. In the 1960s, it was also updated to ban the death penalty.
The European Court of Human Rights: A Safeguard Against Abuse
The ECHR forms the legal backbone of the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body. Its jurisdiction allows individuals to sue their governments at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if they believe their rights have been violated and have exhausted national legal remedies. Recent high-profile cases at the court include orders to ground migrant deportation flights bound for Rwanda from the UK due to concerns over the African country’s human rights record, as well as cases involving older Swiss women seeking greater action against climate change.
A Call for Reform: Nine EU States Push for Change
In a recent open letter, nine European states – including Italy and Denmark – have called for a ‘new interpretation’ of the ECHR to make it easier to expel foreign national criminals. The signatories argue that they need more freedom to decide when to deport criminal foreigners and to track those who cannot be deported effectively. While their exact demands are unclear, the move has sparked controversy and raised questions about judicial independence in Europe.
A Concern for Judicial Independence
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently emphasized the importance of judicial independence as a cornerstone of democratic societies.
In Europe, judges are expected to remain impartial and free from external influences when interpreting the law.
According to a 2020 survey by the ECHR, 75% of respondents believed that an independent judiciary is essential for ensuring justice and upholding human rights.
In practice, this means that judges should be protected from political interference, have secure tenure, and enjoy financial independence.
The Council of Europe’s secretary-general, Alain Bersel, has expressed concerns that politicizing the court is not healthy. ‘Debate is healthy, but politicizing the Court is not,’ he said. ‘Institutions that protect fundamental rights cannot bend to political cycles. If they do, we risk eroding the very stability they were built to ensure.’ The Danish and Italian prime ministers who drafted the open letter have been accused of attempting to undermine judicial independence.
A Complex Issue: Migration and Deportation
The push for more restrictive migration policies from some European governments has pivoted toward Europe’s top human rights court. Germany, among many other EU countries, is trying to clamp down on irregular migration through strengthened border checks. Despite a decrease in the number of people arriving illegally in Europe, migration policy remains a fiercely debated issue in the EU.
A Long-Term Solution?
Experts say that the nine states’ push for reform may not address the root causes of migration and deportation issues. ‘Neither European law nor the convention prevent them from expelling persons who pose a security threat,’ said Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, a senior migration researcher with the European Policy Centre. The issue of lack of cooperation between member states and third countries that often do not want individuals posing a security threat back on their territory remains a significant challenge.
A Simplistic Solution?
Critics argue that pointing fingers at the court is a simplistic solution to complex problems. ‘This stays as a legal fact, regardless of these kinds of letters,’ said Basak Cali, a professor focused on international human rights law at the University of Oxford. The EU and UN rules on migrant rights remain in place, and it is unclear whether a new interpretation of the ECHR would significantly alter the current situation.
A Politically Charged Issue
The European Union's migration policy has undergone significant changes over the years.
In 2015, a massive influx of migrants from 'Syria' and other countries led to a crisis in handling asylum seekers.
The EU introduced the Dublin Regulation to assign responsibility for processing asylum claims to the first country of entry.
However, this system was criticized for being inefficient.
In response, the EU implemented the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) to standardize procedures across member states.
According to 'Eurostat' , over 1 million migrants arrived in Europe between 2015 and 2020.
The migration policy continues to evolve with a focus on integration, border control, and cooperation among member states.
Migration policy remains a highly politicized issue in Europe, with many countries trying to address voters’ concerns through stricter controls. However, this approach may not shift public opinion away from extremes towards the center. ‘Most likely, they will continue voting for the parties who are somehow sponsoring the most radical solutions,’ said Neidhardt.
A Call for Caution
The push for reform of the ECHR must be approached with caution. While it is understandable that governments want to address migration and deportation issues, any changes to the court’s interpretation must be carefully considered to ensure that human rights are protected. The European Court of Human Rights plays a critical role in safeguarding these rights, and any attempts to undermine its independence must be taken seriously.
A Global Perspective
The ECHR is not just an EU issue but also a global one. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is essential that we have robust frameworks for protecting human rights and freedoms. The European Convention on Human Rights provides a valuable model for other countries to follow, and its principles should be respected and upheld.
Conclusion
The push for reform of the ECHR is a complex issue that raises important questions about judicial independence, human rights, and migration policy. While it is understandable that governments want to address these challenges, any changes must be carefully considered to ensure that human rights are protected. By taking a nuanced and informed approach, we can work towards finding solutions that balance the need for security with the need to protect individual rights and freedoms.
