An institution capable of defending itself
The European Court of Human Rights responding to claims of ‘excessive interference’ and becoming a more robust institution
Orlando Moore
In recent years, Council of Europe member states have increasingly criticised the European
Court of Human Rights for ‘excessive interference’ in their domestic affairs, with the current
source of political outrage and public incandescence being domestic immigration, asylum,
and deportation policies’ conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. Although
the Court’s jurisprudence can be criticised for doctrinal inconsistency, overly liberal
interpretations of its case law, and contextual insensitivity, current critiques are mainly
political. In my view, this is unsurprising, given the inherently political nature of human
rights law.
But the Court and the Convention it defends are under sustained pressure on two fronts.
Amongst Council of Europe member states, a growing populist backlash against immigrants,
asylum seekers, and refugees has seen the Court been portrayed as a ‘blocker’ of
deportations, leading to politicians and Europe calling for the Convention’s reform and some
going as far to suggest outright withdrawal. Outside the Council, assertive authoritarian
states, like Belarus, seek to leverage this anger by manufacturing humanitarian crises at its
frontiers with Council member states. If the Court wishes to ensure the Convention’s
survival, it needs to adapt, even if that means conceding certain points to its detractors to win
the overall argument.
Comments