The Case Against Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights

 

Abandoning the ECHR would not only strain Britain's international relationships but could potentially violate foundational elements of peace and cooperation such as the Good Friday Agreement and the post-Brexit trade deal with the EU.

In an ideal world, bad ideas would naturally fade into irrelevance. Unfortunately, in the realpolitik of Britain's Conservative Party, these ideas often find fertile ground for implementation. Recent propositions—ranging from Brexit to controversial asylum-seeker policies—underscore this trend. Now, the party is flirting with another contentious idea: withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Established in the aftermath of the Second World War, the ECHR was the first treaty that Britain signed, committing to uphold individual rights and freedoms. This historical commitment is not merely a relic; it is a testament to Britain’s long-standing leadership in human rights. The ECHR has provided a framework that helps maintain a balance between respecting sovereignty and ensuring human rights are protected across Europe.

However, perceptions have shifted, especially following incidents where the ECHR appeared to interfere with national policies. A vivid example was in 2022 when the European Court, which enforces the ECHR, blocked Britain's attempts to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Such decisions have intensified frustrations within certain segments of the Conservative Party, viewing the ECHR as an obstruction rather than a safeguard.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's assertion that no "foreign court" should impede Britain's immigration controls reflects a growing sentiment that national policy should trump international agreements. Yet, this perspective is dangerously narrow. It overlooks the integral role that such frameworks play in upholding justice and preventing the erosion of fundamental rights.

First, it is essential to address the misconception that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) solely impedes Britain’s asylum policies. This narrative is not only misleading but overlooks critical judicial perspectives within the UK itself. For instance, last year, Britain’s highest domestic tribunal supported the stance of the ECHR by ruling that Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum-seekers. This judicial decision was grounded not merely in the directives of the ECHR but was also influenced by a broad spectrum of international laws and agreements. The actual challenge lies within the inefficiencies and complexities of Britain's own asylum process, which often misattributes systemic issues to the influence of external bodies like the ECHR.

Second, the potential repercussions of withdrawing from the ECHR are far-reaching and could extend well beyond any immediate political advantages that might be envisioned. Exiting the ECHR could severely strain the United Kingdom's relationships with various international entities and risk breaching crucial existing agreements. Notable among these are the Good Friday Agreement and the post-Brexit trade agreement with the European Union. These agreements are not merely bureaucratic formalities but are the bedrock of peace and cooperative relations that have been meticulously cultivated over decades. The damage to these foundational elements could be profound and lasting, undermining both peace and cooperation.

Moreover, the flexibility and adaptability of the ECHR should not be underestimated. Recent reforms within the Court highlight its capacity to evolve in response to member states' concerns and inputs. Notably, significant changes concerning the anonymity of judges and the criteria for issuing emergency injunctions have been implemented, largely due to Britain's advocacy. These amendments illustrate that the UK can play a pivotal role in shaping the Court from within, suggesting that reforming the system is a more constructive approach than outright withdrawal. This capacity for internal evolution presents a compelling argument for continued engagement with the ECHR, enhancing its functionality and ensuring it remains responsive to the needs of its member states.

As the Conservative Party considers making ECHR withdrawal a key issue, it is vital to consider the broader implications. Such a stance might appeal to certain voter bases but ultimately detracts from addressing more pressing national concerns. Conversely, the Labour Party has expressed no intent to withdraw from the ECHR, recognizing its value and the broader implications of such a withdrawal.

In plain terms, the notion of leaving the ECHR is not just a reflection of a policy stance but a symbol of a deeper political malaise — one where quick fixes are favored over substantive solutions to complex problems. As a nation that prides itself on its commitment to justice and the rule of law, Britain must reconsider the real costs of abandoning such an important international treaty. It is not merely about the legal bindings that the ECHR imposes, but about the message it sends to the world about what Britain stands for in today’s turbulent times.