Europe Grapples with Human Rights as Migration Policies Face Scrutiny
A growing push to redefine human rights standards across Europe is raising concerns about a potential “hierarchy of people,” where certain groups are deemed more deserving of protection than others. The debate, fueled by escalating migration challenges and the rise of right-wing political forces, centers on proposals to limit the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and facilitate stricter border controls.
The Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Michael O’Flaherty, warned that even “middle-of-the-road politicians” are inadvertently bolstering the arguments of the populist right. He cautioned against the “lazy correlation” often drawn between migration and crime, stating, “This doesn’t correspond with reality.” O’Flaherty expressed alarm at the incremental nature of the proposed changes, questioning where the line will be drawn. “For every inch yielded, there’s going to be another inch demanded,” he said. “For example, the focus right now is on migrants, in large part. But who is it going to be about next time around?”
Concerns Over a Two-Tier System of Rights
At the heart of the controversy is the principle of universality enshrined in the ECHR – the idea that all individuals are equal in dignity and rights. O’Flaherty emphasized the importance of politicians reaffirming this core tenet, warning that fostering the impression of a “hierarchy of people” would be “a very, very worrying one indeed.”
The current debate gained momentum after 27 of the Council of Europe’s 46 member states – including the UK, Hungary, and Italy – signaled their support for “constraining” human rights laws. This move aims to facilitate agreements similar to the UK’s controversial deal with Rwanda, which seeks to transfer asylum seekers to a third country, and to expedite the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of crimes.
Narrowing the Definition of “Inhuman and Degrading Treatment”
The unofficial statement signed by the 27 nations proposes a new framework for the ECHR, specifically targeting Article 3, which prohibits “inhuman or degrading treatment.” The proposal suggests that this article should be “constrained to the most serious issues” to allow states greater latitude in expelling foreign criminals, even in cases involving concerns about healthcare or prison conditions.
Furthermore, the statement argues for an “adjustment” to Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life, giving greater weight to the severity of a crime and less consideration to a criminal’s ties to the host country. The Council of Europe is scheduled to reconvene in May to formalize these views in a declaration, a political statement that, while not legally binding, can influence case law and European court rulings. Sources indicate that a two-thirds majority – 31 members – could potentially enforce a binding decision on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 8.
Political Fallout and Diverging Views
The proposals have sparked concern across the political spectrum. Lord Alf Dubs, a Labour peer and a survivor of the Kindertransport, warned that the changes could represent “the thin edge of the wedge” in eroding human rights protections. “I’m alarmed and concerned that 27 countries are ganging up to do this in Europe to their citizens,” he stated.
Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, a human rights barrister, condemned the proposals as an attack on “the very heart of postwar rights and freedoms.” Veronika Fikfak, a professor of international law at University College London, highlighted the potential impact beyond migrants, noting that the reinterpretation of Article 3 could affect individuals arrested for protesting or held in poor detention conditions. “To be allowed to expel a handful of criminals, states are today embarking on a path that will reduce human rights protections for all of Europe,” she explained. Akiko Hart, director of the human rights organization Liberty, cautioned that the government “risks taking us down a road of no return by jeopardizing the legal framework that protects us all.”
However, some voices have offered support for the proposals, advocating for a more pragmatic approach to balancing human rights with national security concerns. Former Labour cabinet minister Lord Hain argued that while withdrawing from the ECHR would be detrimental, “curbing the excesses of the Strasbourg court in a sensible fashion” is a viable option.
UK Considers Further Border Enforcement Measures
The debate comes as the UK government itself explores more assertive border enforcement tactics. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper declined to rule out “pushing back” small boats in the Channel, even suggesting consideration of offers from far-right political figures in France to conduct such operations, stating that the government would “look at any mechanism that can work effectively and also can work safely.”
Labour remains committed to upholding the ECHR, a commitment made in the aftermath of World War II. However, the party has faced declining poll ratings, partly attributed to public anxieties surrounding immigration, both legal and unauthorized. The proposed changes to the ECHR represent a significant challenge to the post-war human rights framework, raising fundamental questions about the future of rights protections in Europe and the potential for a tiered system of justice.
