Sign up for weekly newsletters

Get the full picture on the biggest issues and break out the echo chamber.

Read our privacy policy for more info.

The Cragged

Break out of the echo chamber

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) debate – should the UK leave?

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has become a divisive issue in British politics. From migration to sovereignty, it touches many aspects of British life. Should we stay or should we go?

The Cragged
14–21 minutes

Contents

The ECHR was essentially a non-issue in public opinion until recently. However, several prominent legal and political figures in the UK have begun to call for withdrawal.

The recent contentiousness has been spurred in large part by the clashes between UK migration policy and rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). These have raised concerns around sovereignty and judicial overreach.

Should we stay or should we go? Here’s what both sides have to say.

The Context

Overview

The ECHR is an international treaty, which offers fundamental rights and protections to all people living within the jurisdiction of a member state. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), based in Strasbourg, was established in 1959 to uphold the convention, in the event that an applicant has exhausted all their domestic legal options.1

The key rights protected by the Convention are:

Rights protected by the ECHR

  • the right to life
  • the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters
  • the right to respect for private and family life
  • freedom of expression
  • freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • the right to an effective remedy
  • the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions
  • the right to vote and to stand for election

Activities prohibited by the ECHR

  • torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
  • arbitrary and unlawful detention
  • discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention
  • expulsion or denial of entry by a State in respect of its own nationals
  • the death penalty
  • the collective expulsion of aliens2

The ECHR contains a set of ‘Articles’, which are the original clauses; and Protocols, which are clauses that were added over time. Protocols and Articles have equal weight.

Origins

The ECHR was founded by in the wake of the Second World War by the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU or its precursors). The CoE is not a legislative body, but an intergovernmental organisation that upholds human rights, democracy and the rule of law across its European member states.

The ECHR was agreed in response to the significant human rights violations that had occurred during the 1930s-40s. It formed the Council’s response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had been proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948.3

The UK was one of 10 founding members in 1950. The treaty entered force in 1953. There are currently 46 member states.4

The Convention was enshrined in British law through the Human Rights Act (1998). Before this, people had to go to the court in Strasbourg, but now these cases can be heard in British courts.5

Purpose

The preamble to the Convention document sets out that:

The aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms… Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration.6

The Arguments

For

It undermines British political sovereignty

ECHR membership undermines UK sovereignty by giving an overseas court the power to overrule decisions made by the British Parliament. The UK should be free to make and enforce its own laws without interference from international judicial bodies.78910

Controversial rulings that the ECtHR, or British has imposed on the UK include:

  • Blocking the deportation of radical Muslim clerics, such as Abu Qatada to Jordan because of a fear he’d be subjected to torture in his home country
  • Imposing upon the UK the obligation to provide prisoners with a vote in general elections (which the UK did not comply with)
  • Preventing the UK from imposing whole-life sentences upon convicted murderers.1112

Public sentiment increasingly backs the idea that the UK should be free to make, interpret and implement its own laws, with one 2024 poll suggesting a majority of Brits would support a withdrawal.13141516

The UK has a migration problem – the ECHR prevents the solution

The ECHR has made it impossible for the UK Government to tackle illegal immigration.1718

This became clear with the Conservative Government’s Rwanda deportation plan. For several years, tens of thousands of people have been crossing the English Channel and seeking asylum in the UK. For years, Conservative Governments led by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak attempted to pass legislation that would deport these migrants to Rwanda. However, the ECHR prevented the Government from implementing this because of the risk of people being returned to the country from which they were fleeing and the presumed risk of inhuman treatment and torture. The ECtHR blocked the plan through an emergency measure (Rule 39), which the Home Secretary described as:

[A] decision to intervene in how Britain wishes to secure its border, was taken by an unnamed judge, through an opaque process, with no published reasoning, and without the British Government having any ability to put forward its side of the argument.192021

The outcome is that the ECtHR has undermined British attempts to end the cycle of migrant smuggling by criminal gangs.222324

Beyond the Rwanda scheme, several dangerous migrants have committed violent crimes in the UK, after the ECHR granted them the right to stay.2526272829303132

The Strasbourg court has a record of overreach

When the Court was set up in 1953, it set out broad rights and principles to be upheld in law. However, the Court’s interpretation of its own role has greatly expanded in recent years – largely due to the doctrine of the ‘living instrument’, which the Court adopted in 1978.33 This principle means that the Court adapts its rulings ‘in the light of present-day conditions’ and ‘commonly accepted standards’ of the members states of the Council of Europe.34 This nuance means ultimately that the Court intervenes in areas beyond the scope of what the founding members imagined when the ECHR was created.35

This is clear in its overly broad use of Article 8, which has been used by the Court to cover everything from artificial insemination to eviction for non-payment of rent.36

The discretions granted by subsidiarity (the principle that primary responsibility lies with member states) the and margin of appreciation (the space for affording different countries different legal and cultural norms) are insufficient.37

For example, the court ruled in 2024 that the Swiss Government’s climate policies violated the rights of a group of Swiss women, who claimed that their government’s failure to tackle climate change violated their right to health and life. Upholding the claim under Articles 8 (family and private life) and 6 § 1, the Court infringed upon the national, democratic process of law-making.3839404142

The Court has also expanded its purview to extra-territorial jurisdictions, diminishing the ability of British soldiers abroad to conduct their duty and be protected from legal risk, through its rulings on Iraq and Afghanistan, which said that the ECHR applied in those conflict zones.4344

The court is a far remove from what the founding members believed at its formation. It is increasingly usurping the role of national government and imposing obligations on member states that they did not sign up to when they joined the ECHR and which are not clear in the Convention text. This is why former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called for a referendum on membership and why the former Home Secretary describe the judges as ‘unelected activists’ – a sentiment shared by many MPs and political leaders.45464748495051

It’s not democratically legitimate

The power of the court has grown to the point at which it supersedes domestic political power, undermining the UK’s parliamentary supremacy.52 It’s not right that a court which is ‘unanswerable to anybody’ should have as much power as the ECtHR does, as the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and former Home Secretary have argued.5354

Democratically elected governments from different countries – each of which has its own unique political priorities, histories, and cultures – should be free to set their own policies, unhindered by the legal interpretations of a pan-national court with no accountability or democratic mandate.5556

We should choose rights, not have them imposed upon us. People who claim that the Convention has ‘done good’ might be correct, but that’s not the issue at stake: the UK should be free to decide its own laws. It has a good history of democracy and rights protection, which should reassure people that it’s perfectly capable of managing its own human rights laws.5758

We don’t need it. The UK has a long tradition of upholding human rights – at home and abroad

UK courts should be able to set, enact and interpret its own laws. THE UK should replace the ECHR with similar protections for people living in its jurisdiction, but authored and administered by a democratically elected government.59

Many of the rights which the convention proclaims were part of British law long before the convention was conceived. There is nothing in it that we cannot enact by ordinary domestic legislation.6061 The UK is well respected internationally for its principles of law and human rights, and would be undiminished by leaving the ECHR with a suitable alternative, such as a domestic Bill of Rights.62

It’s inconsistent in its protection of rights

The rights protected by the ECHR are general and quite broad. However, this leaves them open to interpretation, and not only has the ECtHR interpreted some of these laws too assertively (see ‘record of overreach’ above), but the Court has also failed to protect the rights in crucial moments. During the 2020 pandemic, the Court failed to protect the liberties of law-abiding people who were subjected to curtailed freedoms and Government overreach.63

Laws should be predictable and readily interpretable by anyone – so that anyone can consult the law and evaluate what they can or cannot do. However, as Jonathan Sumption and Sir Noel Malcolm have argued, the ECtHR does not behave this way, with judges taking far too active and expansive a role in applying ‘extra conditions’ to laws, ‘unknowable with any precision in advance’.6465 In other words, the ECHR does not behave as a law should behave, undermining its legitimacy.

Others have argued that it’s simply failed when it’s been needed: human rights lawyers failed to check the power of the the Government when freedom of movement was restricted during the lockdowns in 2020-21, and after the Public Order Act has reduced the power to protest.66

Britain’s reputation would be secure outside the ECHR

The argument that the UK’s presence in the Convention strengthens rights across Europe is overstated. For example, countries that liberalised after the fall of the Soviet Union were keen to confer greater rights upon their citizens – the fact that the UK had a presence in the ECHR was irrelevant.67

Meanwhile, countries like Turkey, Belarus and Russia have refuted the authority of the ECHR, rendering the Court’s power over these countries meaningless, and proving that the UK’s presence has little impact on international rights.68 Our international reputation on human rights is high because of our longstanding democratic traditions and our application of the rule of law.69

Against

The ECHR provides British residents with fundamental rights

Even in the 2021 consultation on Human Rights Act Reform, the Ministry of Justice concluded that reforms to UK’s legislation would not necessitate withdrawal from the Convention, nor would they be incompatible with it.70

Besides, the Court has made clear that it respects the legislative frameworks behind decisions. For example, in 2005, the ECHR upheld the UK Government’s ban on political advertising in the case, demonstrating how the Court is responsive to the individual ‘historical, cultural and political differences within Europe.’71

UK public sentiment is behind the Convention, with polls consistently showing that a majority beileve the country should remain in the ECHR.727374

Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t stop illegal migration

The ECHR is not the only treaty that has an impact on UK migration policy. Britain has also signed up to: the UN’s Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Convention Against Torture.7576

The EU is unlikely to collaborate effectively with the UK on migration agreements in the event of a withdrawal.77

Those who think the only way to stop illegal migration is to leave the ECHR are misguided. There are other, more impactful avenues that the UK must pursue if it wants to achieve this policy – such as a more efficient Home Office process, fixing the Illegal Migration Act, or negotiating reform to the interpretation of the ECHR with other Council of Europe member states.787980

Others argue that the UK should be less hostile to asylum seekers and refugees coming in illegally, rendering the focus on the role of the ECHR redundant.8182

It protects minorities, makes us safer, and protects our freedoms

The ECHR has been incredibly successful at improving the safety and rights of hundreds of millions of people, and strengthening international political stability. It protects vulnerable people such as asylum seekers and refugees, as human rights charities have argued.8384

Areas where the Convention has protected the rights of Britons include:

  • corporal punishment, 
  • inhuman and degrading treatment,
  • the protection of journalistic sources,
  • the right of access to a lawyer in police detention, 
  • gender recognition certificates, 
  • race discrimination, 
  • freedom of expression, 
  • surveillance858687

The Convention is able to work so effectively to protect rights because of the living instrument policy, which means that the interpretation of the treaty is considered in the light of modern European customs. This has helped the treaty remain relevant and provide greater rights to all residents of CoE states, including the UK.8889

The UK has an influential seat at the table and can help reform the Court

The UK played a central role in drafting the Convention and retains a lot of influence within the Court.9091 Indeed, the UK has led successful efforts for reform of the Court recently. For example, a revision to a recent protocol was made to emphasise that countries are the best arbiters of their own business; changed the way it processes emergency injunctions, after the Rwanda controversy.929394

Most of the big controversial rulings from the Court have been resolved. For example, the Court’s ruling that the UK had to provide prisoners with the right to vote was settled after a compromise with the UK Government, while the issue of British courts imposing ‘whole life’ tariffs in murder cases was resolved after the ECtHR affirmed British law’s supremacy on the issue.95969798

If the UK believes the Court should behave differently, it should work with other member states to bring about reform.99

It protects British residents from totalitarianism or majoritarianism

The Convention was conceived as an ‘early warning system’ against totalitarianism.100101 It still works to achieve that for all people today and aims to strengthen the political system by enshrine laws and rights, and preventing majoritarianism.102103

While the UK might have one of the lowest violation counts in the CoE today, this wasn’t always the case and the ECHR served to course correct where Britain wasn’t respecting the rights of its people.104

In recent years, the UK Government, in trying to implement its Rwanda deportation scheme, claimed to justify the policy by asserting it would break international law only in a ‘specific and limited way.’ ECHR membership provides greater resilience to the rule of law in the UK.105

Notably, many of the leading figures pushing for withdrawal are in a position of power and privilege – they’re not the ones that the Convention was designed to protect. The Convention ensures populist policies don’t risk the rights of vulnerable or minority groups.106107108

Indeed, controversial cases such as the Swiss Climate Change case demonstrate that the Court is protecting citizens when governments attempt to dissolve their responsibilities for protecting their people.109110

It would lead to constitutional problems and destabilise Northern Ireland

The Human Rights Act has led to closer alignment between UK domestic courts and Strasbourg. This has resulted in fewer cases brought against the UK before the Strasbourg court – in fact, the UK has the fewest cases per capita in the entire CoE.111112 There has been a reduction in the number and nature of violations found against the UK.113 In other words, UK law and European have become intertwined and unpicking them would require significant overhaul.114

For example, the devolved authorities – Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – have all entrenched human rights in a way that is not constitutionally universal in the UK and are all strongly supportive of continuing membership of the ECHR. The UK would enter ‘uncharted constitutional territory’ were it to leave the ECHR without their consent, as a 2016 Select Committee warned, while recommending against ECHR withdrawal.115

The Good Friday Agreement requires Northern Ireland law has ‘complete incorporation’ of the ECHR, with direct access to the ECtHR for residents.116 If the UK leaves, it will either: adopt a two-tier system in which Northern Ireland remains in the ECHR while the rest of the UK doesn’t; or, the Good Friday Agreement would have to be amended – politically challenging, and coming with the risk of increased tension in Ireland.117 Some have argued that these complications are simply too profound and would inevitably breach the Good Friday Agreement, making the whole proposition of leaving the ECHR impossible.118119120

It would be disastrous for the UK’s international reputation and trade

We have to be part of an international legal consensus.121 Not only has the UK benefited from the protections granted by the Treaty, but it has helped to raise standards across the whole of Europe.122

The UK wields international soft power and is seen as a leading player on human rights – ECHR participation even boosts British influence and impact on human rights for member countries outside the CoE. For example, the resolution to deport Abu Qatada came after the Jordanian Government agreed to revise its torture laws.123124125 Leaving the Convention would undermine this work and send the signal of a British retreat from international laws and norms.126127

Particularly since Brexit, the UK’s trade and criminal justice agreements are dependent on ECHR membership – both broadly, and in specific details such as policies on data sharing or criminal extradition.128129130131132

Moreover, leaving the ECHR would damage the UK’s standing in Europe: Britain’s CoE membership provides an important avenue for dialogue with other European states, and the UK cannot afford to be seen withdrawing from international agreements, just because it doesn’t like some of the rules.133134135136

Ultimately, there’s a broader risk that the UK could trigger a domino effect, whereby other countries would weaken their protection of rights and even consider withdrawal from the ECHR.137138139

Enter the debate

Enter the debate

Add a comment below to share your view.

This article aims to provide a general introduction to a complex debate. Our goal is to create healthier disagreements, and to provide both sides of an argument.

If you want to submit a revision, please leave a comment below with your proposed edit, including your sources.

External links

Reading

Podcasts

Video

Footnotes

  1. A Convention to protect your rights and liberties, The ECHR, coe.int ↩︎
  2. What are our rights and liberties? European Convention on Human Rights, 2024 ↩︎
  3. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: European Convention on Human Rights, 2024 ↩︎
  4. European Convention on Human Rights ↩︎
  5. Claire Brader, Reforming the Human Rights Act 1998, House of Lords Library, 2022 ↩︎
  6.   European Convention on Human Rights ↩︎
  7. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  8. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  9. Suella Braverman, The Case for Leaving Strasbourg | NatCon Brussels 2, suellabraverman.co.uk, 2024 ↩︎
  10. Richard Ekins, The case for leaving the ECHR Legislative freedom will fix more than the Channel crisis, Unherd, 2023 ↩︎
  11. Ministers angry at European whole-life tariffs ruling, BBC News, 2013 ↩︎
  12. Six key rulings the ECHR forced on the UK, Channel 4 News, 2014 ↩︎
  13. Should the UK leave the ECHR? | LBC debate ↩︎
  14. Majority of Brits back the UK pulling out of the ECHR to deport more illegal migrants, poll finds, The Daily Mail, 2023 ↩︎
  15. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  16. Liberal Authoritarians EXPOSED: Why Britain Must Leave the ECHR ↩︎
  17. Luke Gittos, Why Britain must leave the ECHR, Spiked, 2024 ↩︎
  18.  IN FULL: Robert Jenrick tears into ECHR at Tory conference ↩︎
  19. What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?, BBC News, 2024 ↩︎
  20. Dominic Casciani and Sean Seddon, Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful, BBC News, 2023 ↩︎
  21. Suella Braverman, The Case for Leaving Strasbourg | NatCon Brussels 2, suellabraverman.co.uk, 2024 ↩︎
  22. Nigel Farage’s FIRST speech in Parliament ↩︎
  23. Michael Keohan, ‘I would end small boat crossings in weeks’ – Jenrick, BBC News, 2024 ↩︎
  24. Suella Braverman on two-tier policing, ECHR ‘overreach’, and why she would have voted for Trump ↩︎
  25. Charles Hymas and Max Stephens, Albanian murderer wins right to stay in UK under ECHR, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  26.  Illegal Immigration, Hansard, UK Parliament, 2025 ↩︎
  27.  Arj Singh and Poppy Wood, Cleverly orders immediate review of alleged chemical attack by refugee sex offender, The Independent, 2024 ↩︎
  28. Holly Bancroft, Adam Forrest and Barney Davis, Clapham alkaline attack: Immigration row over refugee granted asylum despite sex crimes, The Independent, 2024 ↩︎
  29.  Matthew Goodwin,10 reasons why we must LEAVE the ECHR and take back control of our borders, Substack, 2024 ↩︎
  30. Alex Barton, Paedophile avoids deportation under ECHR because it would be ‘unduly harsh’ on his children, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  31. IN FULL: Robert Jenrick tears into ECHR at Tory conference ↩︎
  32. We must leave the ECHR. ↩︎
  33. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: A LIVING INSTRUMENT, European Court of Human Rights, 2022 ↩︎
  34. CASE OF TYRER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, European Court of Human Rights, 1978 ↩︎
  35.  Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  36. Jonathan Sumption, Human Rights and Wrongs, Law and the Decline of Politics, The Reith Lectures, BBC, 2015 ↩︎
  37.  James O’Brien reacts to plans to leave the European Convention on Human Rights | LBC ↩︎
  38.  Nuala Burnett and Joanna Dawson, A new precedent for climate change in human rights law, House of Commons Library, 2024 ↩︎
  39. Jonathan Sumption, ECHR’s climate change ruling is its boldest intrusion yet, The Times, 2024 ↩︎
  40.  Daniel Hannan, It’s time to finish the work of Brexit, and finally bring control back to our sovereign Parliament, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  41.  Richard Ekins, The Strasbourg court is engaging in an outrageous power grab, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  42.  Camilla Turner, Sunak criticises ‘complete overreach’ of ‘illegitimate’ ECHR ruling, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  43.  Richard Ekins, Patrick Hennessey and Julie Marionneau, Protecting Those Who Serve, Policy Exchange, 2019 ↩︎
  44.  Jonathan Sumption, Jessica Simor’s misguided defence of the ECHR, Prospect, 2023 ↩︎
  45. Gordon Rayner,  Boris Johnson: UK needs referendum on ECHR, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  46.   Suella Braverman, The Case for Leaving Strasbourg | NatCon Brussels 2, suellabraverman.co.uk, 2024 ↩︎
  47.  Andrew McDonald, How a group of elderly Swiss women could take the UK out of the European Court, Politico, 2024 ↩︎
  48.  Nick Timothy, Britain’s migration policy has failed – and there is only one way to fix it, The Telegraph, 2023 ↩︎
  49.   If you’re right-wing you’re ARRESTED, if you’re left-wing NOTHING happens! | Richard Tice FUMES ↩︎
  50. Annabelle Dickson, Brexit Wars part II: Tories plot British exit from Europe’s human rights treaty, Politico, 2023 ↩︎
  51.  Reform UK Leader pressed on why he wants UK to leave the ECHR | LBC ↩︎
  52.  Suella Braverman on two-tier policing, ECHR ‘overreach’, and why she would have voted for Trump ↩︎
  53. European Court of Human Rights ‘risk to UK sovereignty’, BBC News, 2013 ↩︎
  54. Suella Braverman on two-tier policing, ECHR ‘overreach’, and why she would have voted for Trump ↩︎
  55. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  56. Luke Gittos, Why Britain must leave the ECHR, Spiked, 2024 ↩︎
  57. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  58. Jonathan Sumption, Judgment call: the case for leaving the ECHR, The Spectator, 2023 ↩︎
  59. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  60. Jonathan Sumption, Judgment call: the case for leaving the ECHR, The Spectator, 2023 ↩︎
  61. Gordon Rayner,  Boris Johnson: UK needs referendum on ECHR, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  62. Jonathan Sumption, Jessica Simor’s misguided defence of the ECHR, Prospect, 2023 ↩︎
  63. Why we should leave the ECHR, Spiked, 2024 ↩︎
  64. Sir Noel Malcolm, Human Rights and Political Wrongs, Policy Exchange, 2017 ↩︎
  65. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  66. Why we should leave the ECHR, Spiked, 2024 ↩︎
  67. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  68. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  69. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  70. Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill Of Rights, A consultation to reform the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministry of Justice, 2021 ↩︎
  71. Síofra O’Leary, Why the European Convention on Human Rights still matters, Mackenzie Stuart Lectures, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, 2023 ↩︎
  72. Do you think Britain should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights or should we withdraw from it?, YouGov, 2023 ↩︎
  73. UK: Clear majority of people don’t want to leave European human rights convention – new poll, Amnesty International UK, 2023 ↩︎
  74. Hannah Smith, Are the majority of British people ‘settled’ on leaving the ECHR?, Full Fact, 2024 ↩︎
  75.  James Thomas, Fact check: Is the ECHR really blocking the UK from deporting migrants?, EuroNews, 2024 ↩︎
  76. Joelle Grogan, Leaving the European convention on human rights won’t stop the boats – but it will create other problems for the UK, The Conversation, 2024 ↩︎
  77. James Crisp and Henry Samuel, No Channel migrant deal if UK quits ECHR, say Brussels sources, The Telegraph, 2024 ↩︎
  78. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  79. Alexander Horne, What Robert Jenrick gets wrong about the ECHR, The Spectator, 2024 ↩︎
  80. Rowena Mason, UK would be outlier with Russia if it left ECHR, Law Society says, The Guardian, 2024 ↩︎
  81. UK bill ‘significantly erodes’ human rights and refugee protections, UN agencies warn, United Nations, 2023 ↩︎
  82. Rachel Solomon and Lee Marsons, How the Illegal Migration Bill threatens our constitution, The Public Law Project, 2023 ↩︎
  83. Government hints at withdrawal from ECHR, The Law Society, 2023 ↩︎
  84. The Human Rights Act 1998, Freedom From Torture, 2024 ↩︎
  85. Five ways the European Court of Human Rights makes us safer, Amnesty International UK, 2020 ↩︎
  86. The fight for the ECHR: What is at stake? ↩︎
  87. Jessica Simor, Why Lord Sumption is dangerously wrong about our human rights law, Prospect, 2023 ↩︎
  88. Síofra O’Leary, Why the European Convention on Human Rights still matters, Mackenzie Stuart Lectures, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, 2023 ↩︎
  89.  Jessica Simor, Why Lord Sumption is dangerously wrong about our human rights law, Prospect, 2023 ↩︎
  90. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  91. James O’Brien reacts to plans to leave the European Convention on Human Rights | LBC ↩︎
  92. Britain should not leave the ECHR, despite its flaws, The Economist, 2024 ↩︎
  93. Andrew McDonald, Pajama drama! How European judges’ ‘pajama injunctions’ are tearing Britain’s Tories apart, Politico, 2024 ↩︎
  94. Robert Shrimsley, The ECHR needs saving from itself, Financial Times, 2024 ↩︎
  95. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  96. Owen Bowcott, Council of Europe accepts UK compromise on prisoner voting rights, The Guardian, 2017 ↩︎
  97. Research Briefing: Prisoners’ voting rights, House of Commons Library, 2023 ↩︎
  98. Alan Travis, European judges uphold British courts’ right to impose ‘whole life’ tariffs, The Guardian, 2015 ↩︎
  99.  Stuart Wallace, Case Adjourned: A response to Jonathan Sumption’s “case for leaving the ECHR”, The Constitution Society, 2023 ↩︎
  100. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  101. Britain should not leave the ECHR, despite its flaws, The Economist, 2024 ↩︎
  102. Robert Spano, “Over-reaching or under-achieving? The trajectory of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”, European Court of Human Rights, University of Leuven, 2022 ↩︎
  103.  Robert Spano The Democratic Virtues of Human Rights Law ֊ A Response to Lord Sumption’s Reith Lectures, 2020 ↩︎
  104. Síofra O’Leary, Why the European Convention on Human Rights still matters, Mackenzie Stuart Lectures, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, 2023 ↩︎
  105. Síofra O’Leary, Why the European Convention on Human Rights still matters, Mackenzie Stuart Lectures, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, 2023 ↩︎
  106. Nicholas, Reed Langen, Democratic Delusion, The Justice Gap, 2023 ↩︎
  107. Should we leave the ECHR? With Jonathan Sumption, Law and Disorder, 2024 ↩︎
  108. Lucy Trevelyan, Human rights: UK ministers continue to discuss drastic step of leaving ECHR, International Bar Association, 2023 ↩︎
  109. Bhargabi Bharadwaj, A new European Court of Human Rights ruling has established a vital new precedent, Chatham House, 2024 ↩︎
  110. Benjamin Wehrmann and Julian Wettengel, NGOs hail European human rights court ruling as breakthrough for climate action, Clean Energy Wire, 2024 ↩︎
  111. The fight for the ECHR: What is at stake? ↩︎
  112. Analysis of statistics 2022, European Court of Human Rights ↩︎
  113. Alice Donald and Joele Grogan, Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, UK in a Changing Europe, 2024 ↩︎
  114. Alexander Horner,  Why can’t we just leave the European Convention on Human Rights?, The Spectator, 2023 ↩︎
  115. Chapter 8: The impact of repealing the Human Rights Act in the devolved nations, The UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights Contents, Lords Select Committees, 2016 ↩︎
  116. The Belfast Agreement, Gov.uk,1998 ↩︎
  117. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  118.  Alexander Horner,  Why can’t we just leave the European Convention on Human Rights?, The Spectator, 2023 ↩︎
  119.  ECHR exit ‘would breach Good Friday Agreement’, BBC News, 2024 ↩︎
  120. Joelle Grogan, Leaving the European convention on human rights won’t stop the boats – but it will create other problems for the UK, The Conversation, 2024 ↩︎
  121. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  122. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  123. Jordan passes Abu Qatada treaty, BBC News, 2013 ↩︎
  124. Jonathan Sumption: Britain should quit the intrusive ECHR | SpectatorTV ↩︎
  125. Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason, UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May, The Guardian, 2016 ↩︎
  126. Lucy Trevelyan, Human rights: UK ministers continue to discuss drastic step of leaving ECHR, International Bar Association, 2023 ↩︎
  127. Rashmin Sagoo, The UK must not sleepwalk into leaving the ECHR, Chatham House, 2023 ↩︎
  128. Frederick Cowell, The Brexit deal locks the UK into continued Strasbourg Human Rights court membership, LSE Blogs, 2021 ↩︎
  129. Alexander Horner,  Why can’t we just leave the European Convention on Human Rights?, The Spectator, 2023 ↩︎
  130. Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, 2021 ↩︎
  131.  Lucy Trevelyan, Human rights: UK ministers continue to discuss drastic step of leaving ECHR, International Bar Association, 2023 ↩︎
  132.   Rashmin Sagoo, The UK must not sleepwalk into leaving the ECHR, Chatham House, 2023 ↩︎
  133. Britain should not leave the ECHR, despite its flaws, The Economist, 2024 ↩︎
  134. Artha Spurrier, Boris Johnson’s government is threatening an unthinkable attack on our rights, Open Democracy, 2022 ↩︎
  135. What is the ECHR? And should the UK leave? LBC debate ↩︎
  136. The fight for the ECHR: What is at stake? ↩︎
  137. What is the ECHR and why does it matter?, Liberty, 2024 ↩︎
  138. Lord Phillips, Strasbourg Overreach and ECHR Membership, Policy Exchange, 2018 ↩︎
  139.   BRITAIN | Time to Leave the ECHR? ↩︎

Sign up for weekly newsletters

Get the full picture on the biggest issues and break out the echo chamber.

Read our privacy policy for more info.

Leave a Reply

RELATED POSTS