Prime Minister Keir Starmer has joined other European leaders in calling for a modernisation of the European Convention on Human Rights to enable stricter migration policies, amid rising pressure from far-right parties across the continent.
At a summit in Brussels in December 2025, discussions centred on reinterpreting key provisions of the convention to reduce legal barriers to deporting failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders. The UK government, while ruling out withdrawal from the ECHR, supports a non-binding declaration aimed at guiding the European Court of Human Rights towards narrower application of certain articles.
The proposals focus on Article 3, which prohibits removal to countries where individuals face torture or inhuman treatment, and Article 8, protecting the right to private and family life. Leaders argue that current broad interpretations often block legitimate removals, even in cases involving serious criminals.
Keir Starmer emphasised the need for change, stating: “We need to modernise the interpretation of the ECHR to reflect today’s challenges.” He presented the initiative as a pragmatic response to public concerns over uncontrolled migration, insisting it would preserve the convention’s core principles.
Similar views emerged from counterparts in France and Italy, where anti-immigration sentiment has boosted far-right electoral gains. A reported comment from the French Interior Minister highlighted frustration: “We cannot allow legal technicalities to block legitimate deportations.”
The push follows years of tension between national governments and the Strasbourg-based court. Britain’s previous Rwanda deportation scheme was halted by ECtHR interim measures, contributing to the collapse of that policy. Other member states have faced similar rulings thwarting removals.
Human rights organisations have reacted with alarm. Philippe Dam, Europe director at Human Rights Watch, warned: “This risks creating a hierarchy of rights where migrants are treated as lesser humans.” He argued that weakening protections for one group could erode safeguards for all citizens.
Critics also point to the convention’s origins in the aftermath of the Second World War, designed as a bulwark against state abuse. They fear that selective reinterpretation sets a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging authoritarian regimes to demand further exemptions.
Supporters counter that the ECHR must evolve to remain relevant. They maintain that clarifications would not abolish rights but ensure balanced application, allowing governments to fulfil democratic mandates on border security.
No immediate changes to the convention itself are proposed, as amendments require unanimous agreement among 46 member states. Instead, leaders hope a political declaration will influence future court judgments.
The initiative reflects broader European anxiety over migration flows and political polarisation. Recent electoral successes for parties advocating tough controls have intensified pressure on centrist governments to act.
As discussions continue, the outcome remains uncertain. Any shift in judicial approach would likely emerge gradually through case law rather than formal treaty changes.
Written By Were Kelly
Sources: The Guardian, BBC News, Reuters, Politico Europe, Human Rights Watch.
