The recent open letter endorsed by nine European Union member states represents a significant challenge to the post-World War II human rights architecture that has underpinned the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) since 1950. Spearheaded by Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her counterpart – Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, the signatories seek to recalibrate the Convention’s interpretation to permit more expansive national discretion over migration controls. Their initiative underscores a broader trend within Europe, where concerns about migration flows and domestic political pressures have driven a coalition of governments to question whether supranational legal constraints unduly hamper sovereign decision-making.
At the heart of the nine governments’ argument lies a perception that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has, in recent decades, extended the Convention’s scope beyond the original aspirations of its drafters. By invoking the need to “re-examine whether the Court has over-extended the scope of the Convention”, the letter’s authors effectively posit that shifts in judicial interpretation have upset the balance between collective human rights protections and the prerogatives of democratic states. This critique resonates strongly with electorates in several of the signatory countries, where anti-immigration parties have made substantial electoral gains by framing migration as an existential challenge to national identity and social cohesion.
Concretely, the letter proposes granting states broader latitude to expel foreign nationals who commit serious offences, to suspend certain procedural guarantees when deportation is not feasible, and to counter so-called “instrumentalization” of migrants by hostile external actors. Implicit in these recommendations is a redefinition of human rights obligations in the context of national security and public order. While the desire to deter criminal elements among migrant communities is understandable, the suggested measures risk undermining core Convention guarantees, such as the right to respect for private and family life and the prohibition of collective expulsion, both of which have been central to the ECtHR’s jurisprudence.
Prime Minister Meloni’s call for a “political debate” on the Convention’s capacity to address contemporary issues highlights the tension between legal continuity and evolving policy needs. It reflects a longstanding debate within international law: to what extent should domestic political considerations shape the evolution of treaty obligations? By seeking to anchor the reinterpretation in an “open-minded conversation”, the signatories implicitly acknowledge that any recalibration of the Convention would require not only judicial but also political consensus — a prospect complicated by divergent national interests and the mandatory nature of the Court’s judgments for all 46 Council of Europe members.
The response from Council of Europe Secretary-General Alain Berset was swift and unequivocal. Emphasising that “no judiciary should face political pressure”, Berset underscored that undermining the ECtHR’s independence would erode the very foundations of the rule of law in Europe. His defence of the Court’s role — in particular its ongoing adjudication of human rights violations arising from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine — serves as a potent reminder of the Convention’s unique position as a bulwark against state excess, even in the most fraught geopolitical contexts.
Historical rulings provide a sobering illustration of the stakes involved. The Court’s decisions in cases such as the 2016 Lampedusa expulsions of Tunisian migrants and Denmark’s denial of family reunification to a Syrian refugee in 2021 reflect a commitment to protect individuals against collective enforcement measures and to uphold the right to family life. Meanwhile, pending litigation against the Baltic states and Poland over alleged pushbacks into Belarus highlights the Convention’s reach into situations where national border policies intersect with allegations of hybrid warfare tactics. Such jurisprudence not only safeguards individual rights but also establishes precedents that guide domestic policymaking.
The nine-nation initiative thus poses a dual risk. On one hand, it could diminish the ECtHR’s authority by inviting overt political interference in what must remain an independent judicial process. On the other, it could foster a fragmentation of rights protections across Europe if states begin to contest the binding nature of certain judgments. Either outcome would weaken the Convention’s ability to speak with one voice on matters of fundamental rights, eroding public confidence in the Court’s fairness and impartiality.
From an institutional standpoint, the debate raises profound questions about the viability of multilayered governance in Europe. The ECHR system was designed precisely to mediate tensions between national sovereignty and supranational oversight, providing both a safety-net for individuals and a framework for shared values. Reversing or diluting key aspects of the Convention would undermine this delicate equilibrium, potentially dissuading citizens from seeking redress through the Strasbourg Court and limiting the Convention’s capacity to function as a common yardstick of human rights.
Yet the signatories’ concerns cannot be dismissed outright. Legitimate questions arise over whether the Convention adequately anticipates modern migration dynamics, transnational criminal networks, and asymmetric tactics by non-state and state actors alike. Any constructive reform must therefore reconcile the imperative of human rights protection with the pressing demands of democratic governance and security. This necessitates a measured dialogue that respects both the rule of law and the prerogatives of elected governments.
In navigating this impasse, European states should consider convening a formal consultative process under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Such a mechanism could bring together legal experts, judges, parliamentarians, civil society representatives, and migration authorities to explore targeted amendments or protocol revisions. By fostering transparency and broad stakeholder engagement, it would help ensure that any evolution of the Convention remains rooted in consensus rather than unilateral political manoeuvring. Only through such an inclusive approach can Europe safeguard both the rights of individuals and the integrity of its foundational human rights institutions.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
