The Conservative Party’s latest election manifesto notably avoids exiting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), despite significant pressure from the right-wing faction within the party. Instead, the manifesto proposes an international summit aimed at reforming global laws to better address the challenges of mass migration. This cautious approach contrasts with the bolder step of outright withdrawal from the ECHR, a move Tories believe is necessary to protect UK sovereignty and security.
The manifesto also emphasizes that the UK’s security will always come before the jurisdiction of foreign courts, including the ECHR. Critics argue that the ECHR has impeded UK policies and interests, particularly in areas such as immigration control. For instance, the ECHR’s rulings have restricted the UK’s ability to deport foreign nationals on several occasions, creating tensions over the perceived infringement on national sovereignty. The proposed Bill of Rights Bill aims to weaken the Human Rights Act, which integrates the ECHR into the UK’s law, signaling the UK’s desire for greater autonomy in human rights matters.
A significant point of contention is the ECHR’s influence on the UK’s ability to manage the small-boats crisis in the English Channel. The Conservatives’ policy to send irregular migrants to Rwanda has been repeatedly blocked by the ECHR and UK domestic courts. In 2022, an ECHR judge issued an injunction preventing the first Rwanda flight from taking off, causing significant embarrassment to the Tory government. Since then, no flights under this scheme have departed, and only one asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda through a separate, voluntary arrangement.
Despite frequent hints from Conservative leaders about leaving the ECHR, these plans have not materialized. In the 2010 manifesto, David Cameron proposed replacing the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights to allow UK courts to interpret commitments under the European Convention independently. Although this legislation was introduced in 2022, it was quietly abandoned by Sunak in 2023.
Sunak’s promise to reform international law is not new. The 2005 Conservative manifesto suggested withdrawing from the 1951 Refugee Convention in favor of modernized international agreements on migration. Although the Tories lost that election and the proposal was dropped, remaining a signatory to the Refugee Convention continues to pose challenges. For example, the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that the Rwanda plan was unlawful was partly based on the Refugee Convention. Sunak’s government later bypassed this ruling by passing the Safety of Rwanda Act.
This recent manifesto aims to balance the two opposing poles within the UK whose opinion over immigration differs, on one end, conservatives who oppose unregulated immigration, and on the other end of the spectrum are liberal and globalists who are more vocal for human rights issues and call for further relaxation over immigration processes. Through, this process conservative party aims to get its work done without losing the liberal vote count by taking the process of immigration to international law, to gain legitimacy for their actions.
The ECHR is often criticized as an overpowerful body that has extended its influence beyond its original mandate. Decisions by ECHR judges, who are not elected, can override those made by UK politicians, raising concerns about the UK’s institutional sovereignty. Many in Europe believe that migration and asylum decisions should be made by elected representatives in Westminster, not by foreign judges.
However, the Conservative Party seems hesitant to take decisive action on this front. Despite the apparent need to restore democratic control over laws, borders, and rights, the political will to leave the ECHR appears lacking.
UK’s current relationship with the ECHR involves a complex interplay of legal, practical, and democratic considerations. While there is a clear argument for reform and greater autonomy, actual steps towards such changes are hampered by political caution and the intricacies of international law. For now, the Conservative Party is trying to show that it is comfortable with the status quo, even as calls for change grow louder. How will the government balance this sensitive issue is a matter of time.
