We live in dangerous times.
Russia’s war against Ukraine grinds on. Hostile states probe our defences through terrorism, cyber-attacks, and disinformation. Democracy is under pressure across Europe and beyond.
In such an age, serious countries do not retreat into splendid isolation. They build alliances, strengthen institutions and multiply their influence. One of the most important of those institutions is the Council of Europe, an association of 46 states whose democratic assembly includes politicians from across our own parliament. At its heart sits the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Convention is not some foreign imposition. Championed by the UK, it was born from the conviction that peace, freedom and the rule of law are inseparable. British judges have long had an outsize influence on the work of the European Court, which deliberates in English and French from a Richard Rogers building in Strasbourg.
As former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, we have seen at close quarters what is too often absent from today’s debate: the ECHR is not merely a human rights instrument. It is a national security asset.
The threats we face do not respect borders. Terrorist networks, hostile states, organised crime gangs, people smugglers and online extremists all operate internationally. Combating them requires intense international cooperation – not least within the patchwork of sovereign states that make up the continent of Europe. That cooperation depends by its very nature on internationally agreed human rights standards, applied by a supranational court.
The ECHR is woven into many of our international agreements. Our recent agreement with the EU on Gibraltar is based on giving domestic effect to the ECHR. Our prison transfer agreement with Latvia commits the UK to compliance with European Court of Human Rights case law. Our 'one in, one out' migration agreement with France depends on our respect for the ECHR.
On a wider scale, UK-EU cooperation under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is based on both parties protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms in the ECHR – a point compellingly made in a recent paper by JUSTICE.
Part Three of the TCA, on law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation, is expressly based on giving domestic effect to the rights and freedoms in the ECHR – as the UK does through the Human Rights Act 1998. If the UK should ever give notice of its intention to withdraw from the ECHR, the EU would have the right to bring all cooperation on law enforcement and criminal justice matters to a hard stop after just 15 days.
In our contacts with European colleagues we detect no political willingness to excuse the UK from compliance with the minimum human rights obligations of the Convention, to which the EU is committed to signing up and to which all its members already adhere.
The suspension of Part Three would mean the discontinuation of joint investigations with Europol and Eurojust into cybercrime and terrorism. It would mean the end of UK police access to European passenger, fingerprint, DNA and vehicle record data. This work is vital to the everyday protection of the public from serious cross-border crime, including people smuggling and drug trafficking.
Much more could be said about the possible consequences of ECHR withdrawal for Northern Ireland – the subject of a current investigation by the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords – and indeed for the devolution settlement more generally.
In short, if Britain were to leave the ECHR, it would not be 'taking back control'. It would be surrendering influence over the rules and institutions that help keep us safe.
The debate about the ECHR is too often conducted as though it were a choice between national sovereignty and international law. That is a false choice.
The Convention advances British interests because it reflects British values: liberty under law, democratic government and the accountability of power.
Walking away would not make Britain freer. It would make Britain weaker.
It would weaken cooperation against terrorism and organised crime. It would complicate key international agreements. It would inject profound uncertainty into the constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. And it would diminish Britain’s ability to shape events on a continent whose security remains inseparable from our own.
At a time when authoritarian powers are growing more aggressive and democratic institutions face mounting pressure, Britain should not be abandoning one of its greatest post-war achievements.
The question is not whether we can afford to remain within the Convention.
It is whether, in an increasingly dangerous world, we can afford not to.
Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE KC is a cross-bench peer and a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (2001 – 2011). Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE KC is a cross-bench peer and a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (2011 – 2017). Sir Max Hill KCB KC is a former Independent Review of Terrorism Legislation (2017 – 2018) and former Director of Public Prosecutions (2018 – 2023). Read JUSTICE’s paper, Soft Power and Hard Law: why the ECHR is in the UK’s National Interest
No comments yet