With the election of the right-wing Conservative Party’s new leader, there are renewed threats in the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. To what extent do the candidates really believe that attempts to regulate migration are hampered by the convention?
An apparently common debate has emerged in Great Britain: should the UK leave or stay in Europe? This time, the EU is not a topic of discussion. As an alternative, Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick has promised that if he ever gets to be prime minister, he will immediately withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
‘She’s Labour’s worst nightmare because she tells it like it is.’
Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Kevin Hollinrake MP, on what to expect from Kemi Badenoch in GB News’ Conservative leadership debate tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/SwEAjiNvW4
— GB News (@GBNEWS) October 16, 2024
He explains that this is because the convention makes it difficult to control immigration by enabling migrants to file an appeal against their deportation from the UK with the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR in Strasbourg. Jenrick’s opponent for the leadership position, Kemi Badenoch, has stated that she would be prepared to withdraw from the ECHR if it were necessary to reduce immigration, even though she hasn’t made any guarantees.
Not only ECHR Protects Asylum Seekers
The argument that the ECHR is preventing the UK from deporting migrants has some merit, but it is not totally accurate for two reasons. First, the court’s authority to intervene is limited to certain situations. In accordance with Article Three of the ECHR, the ECtHR has the authority to stop deportations in cases where the asylum seeker in question really faces a risk of torture or other cruel treatment in the nation to which they would be returned.
“The European Court of Human Rights can block deportations only in cases where there is evidence that a person can suffer very serious harm by being returned to a third country,” Ilias Trispiotis, professor of human rights law at the University of Leeds, told EuroVerify.
“The second reason, and perhaps even more important reason why that claim is false, is that the legal principle of non-refoulment is not just based on the ECHR,” he added. “It is a core principle of international law.” Based to the non-refoulment principle, nations are not allowed to send individuals back to a place where their freedom or life may be in danger because of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
It is an essential part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as other international agreements like the UN Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Refugee Convention of 1951.
“Even if the UK decided to withdraw from the ECHR, state authorities would still not be able to deport any migrants they want to third countries because of other international law, treaties and obligations outside the ECHR,” Trispiotis said.
This would remain the case even in the event that the UK chose to exit the ECHR and implement a British Bill of Rights – a proposal supported by the outgoing Conservative administration.
“It wouldn’t have actually made much difference in relation to this particular point,” said Gavin Phillipson, professor of public law and human rights at the University of Bristol. “And whatever bill of rights you have only deals with your domestic situation.”
“If you really wanted to give yourself a completely free hand internationally, you’d have to withdraw not only from the ECHR but also from the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which I can’t realistically see us doing,” he said.
This would remain the case even in the event that the UK chose to exit the ECHR and implement a British Bill of Rights a proposal supported by the outgoing Conservative administration.
Refugee Backlog in the UK is Lower after Rwandan Plan was Abandoned
According to an analysis from the Refugee Council, roughly 120 000 people are awaiting case processing, and the Labour government is expected to grant asylum to 63,000 of them.
The Refugee Council predicts, the government’s decision to abandon the plan to deport people to Rwanda and expedite claims meant that, at the beginning of 2025, the backlog of asylum cases was expected to be 118 063. This means -59,000 fewer cases than if the policy had been carried out.
In a further development, Downing Street said ministers were “committed” to ending the use of asylum hotels. Reports have claimed that the Home Office was considering reopening some previously closed by the Conservatives. Labour had pledged in its manifesto to stop housing asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded hotels but was on Wednesday accused of seeking to use more.
UK to Drop Rwandan Initiative
The Labour Party called the Rwanda plan a “gimmick” and a “waste of money” and pledged to replace it with a border security command if they were elected back in June. Starmer stated that it was necessary to reduce the number of people crossing the Channel “materially,” but he refused to commit to “stop the boats,” Sunak’s catchphrase. While he would not place a “false number” on his plans, he stated that he would “like it to come down completely.”
Later on the EPC summit together with the French President, Emmanuel Macron Sir Keir advocated for a reversal of the UK’s illegal migration policy as well as increased defense and border security cooperation with Europe.