At an informal meeting of Council of Europe ministers, steps were taken that could lead to changes in the migration provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950. Initially proposed by Denmark and Italy, the “recalibration” aims to give states more leeway on border controls, deportations and measures against human smuggling.
Open/close all quotes
Adjust to current circumstances
The Times considers a reform that takes public sentiment into account necessary:
“Across Europe, the rise of hard-right parties reflects, in part, mounting frustration with uncontrolled immigration. This is a warning that those who value the liberal post‑war order must not allow legal considerations to become detached from public consensus.Strasbourg’s ‘living instrument’ [the interpretation of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights] must listen and adapt to new challenges. If it fails to do so, it could fall apart.”
Non‑negotiable fundamental rights
The proposed reform would be a declaration of moral bankruptcy, warns The Guardian:
“They present this as measured and responsible, even progressive. But what they propose is not a new centre ground; it is a retreat into a politics that regards some lives as less worthy than others. … Human rights were never designed only for safe, comfortable times. They were written precisely for moments like this: when pressure mounts, when scapegoating becomes tempting, when compassion is portrayed as weakness. These protections exist to prevent us from repeating history’s worst mistakes. The whole point of human rights is that they are neither negotiable nor temporary.”