Winston Churchill’s famous post-war rallying cry, 'Let Europe arise' was about more than a physical reconstruction. It was about a new settlement for our continent.
The effort to rebuild Europe was carried out by a generation that understood something profound: that peace could not be found in military victory alone. It required institutions underpinned by shared values strong enough to prevent further atrocities.
That was how the Council of Europe was born. For decades since it has helped to protect fundamental freedoms, uphold the rule of law, and strengthen democratic institutions across our continent – all with the European Convention of Human Rights at its heart.
Far from being imposed upon us, Britain was central to that project from the very beginning. British lawyers helped to draft the Convention. And Britain’s leaders recognised that British values – fairness, liberty, and accountability before the law – had to be at the heart of it.
Last month, the UK welcomed the secretary general of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, for an official visit, which saw the government reiterate our commitment to the Council of Europe – and to the Convention system that underpins it.
That commitment matters more than ever today. Because Europe once again faces deep uncertainty. War rages on our continent. Democratic institutions are under strain. Criminal gangs are exploiting vulnerable people across borders. And migration pressures are placing enormous demands on asylum systems.
These challenges – like those faced by the architects of the council following the war – cannot be solved by any one nation acting alone. They require co-operation with our European partners, rooted in a collective commitment to our shared values and the rule of law.
But institutions endure only if they retain the confidence of the public. If people believe that our human rights frameworks are incapable of responding to challenges like migration and border control, support for them will begin to erode. Once public consent weakens, the long-term future of the system itself becomes harder to sustain. This tension is something the secretary general of the Council of Europe has repeatedly acknowledged.
Last week, foreign ministers from the Council of Europe’s 46 member states were meeting in Chisinau, Moldova and on Friday they adopted a political declaration that addresses the application of the convention in the context of migration. The meeting reflects a recognition across Europe that support for human rights and effective border control cannot be treated as forces working in opposition to each other. Indeed, we must work together to develop new approaches to the challenges mass migration poses, whilst staying true to our values.
Given the intensity of the public debate around migration and human rights, it is important to be honest and precise about what this declaration is – and what it is not.
First, it is not an attempt to dismantle the convention. It does not rewrite the text of the ECHR. And it does not undermine the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, which the UK and every other European country, save for Belarus and Russia, continue to respect and support.
The convention has endured for so long because democratic nations have been willing to make the changes necessary to ensure it remains credible and effective under changing conditions. Political declarations have long played an important role here, with previous declarations – including those agreed in Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton, Brussels and Copenhagen – all helping to clarify how the convention should operate in practice while reaffirming its core principles.
The Brighton declaration in 2012, strongly supported by the UK, reinforced the idea that national governments and courts have primary responsibility for protecting convention rights within their own legal systems. This latest declaration will continue in that tradition.
And this government is clear: the convention should not unnecessarily constrain democratic states from controlling their borders, protecting public safety or removing foreign nationals who commit serious crimes.
That debate inevitably touches on Articles 3 and 8 of the convention. Article 3 – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – is absolute. That will not change. Nor should it.
But absolute rights require careful application. The declaration is expected to reaffirm the importance of maintaining a high threshold for engaging Article 3 protections given the seriousness of the prohibition involved. This is important, because governments and courts are increasingly being asked to apply Strasbourg case law in the context of significant and complex migration challenges that the framers of the convention could never have imagined.
Greater clarity and consistency in this area is not a retreat from human rights protections – it is necessary to maintain public confidence in them.
Article 8 raises different questions, because it requires a balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest. The fact is that democratic societies can only sustain confidence in their immigration systems if governments have the power to enforce immigration law, deport serious offenders, and maintain effective border control.
These are difficult issues, and they have real consequences on people’s lives. But refusing to engage with them honestly risks weakening public confidence – not only in migration systems, but in human rights protections themselves.
The challenge now will be to develop systems with our international partners to counter illegal migration. The political declaration offers the basis to ensure that these new approaches can be operationalised and remain true to our fundamental values.
The lesson of post-war Europe was that democratic nations must work ever more closely together to defend liberty as the world changes. That remains Britain’s approach today: committed to the convention, committed to the rule of law, but equally committed to ensuring the systems built after 1945 retain the strength, legitimacy, and public confidence needed to endure in the decades ahead. And it is in that spirit that we now turn to the Chisinau declaration.
Jake Richards MP is parliamentary under secretary of state for justice
No comments yet