Europe on the verge: International human rights under threat

By Jungho Kim | ISSUE 28

European Court of Human Rights, photo courtesy of geralt via Pixabay

On 22 May 2025, nine European states led by Italy and Denmark issued a joint letter calling out that the European Court of Human Rights (Court) has gone ‘too far’ in interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). Calling for an ‘open minded conversation’, they collectively raised a concern that the Court’s interpretation has affected their ability to protect their national population, ultimately weighing migrant safety from the risk of return to torture over the public interest.

The Convention is a postwar architecture. It was established in 1953 to ensure widespread human rights abuses “never again” occur in Europe. The Court, the judicial body, interprets the Convention and decides on whether a contracting state has breached the Convention. 

The letter from the nine member states left no further details on what they seek to reform, but it certainly did launch a tipping point in Europe for future changes to the Convention. It only took less than 7 months to reach consensus from most Council of Europe member states, adding up to 27 members, to discuss reform in Strasbourg, on 10 December 2025.

The 27 members, a significant proportion of the Council of Europe (46 members in total), collectively and immediately delivered a joint statement, this time with details of what they seek to reform and why. The main grounds for reform were based on the “gaps” they identified in the Article 3 and 8 of the Convention.

What are Articles 3 and 8?

Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are at risk, and collectively they protect some of the most basic rights many of us take for granted - the bare minimum of how people should be treated, and in this case, how migrants should be treated.

Article 3 bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment without an exception. It is absolute, meaning it can never be broken, no matter the circumstances. For example, a government cannot send someone to a country where they are likely to be tortured, even if that person is considered dangerous.

Article 8 is different. It protects the right to private and family life, rights like living with your family and keeping personal information private. But this right is qualified, which means it can be restricted. For instance, a court may decide that deporting someone interferes with their family life but still allow it if it is necessary to protect public interests, such as public safety. In short, Article 8 allows judges to weigh individual rights against public interests to make a judgement depending on the situation, while Article 3 draws a firm line that can never be crossed. 

The demeaning calls to reform Articles 3 and 8

The joint statement from the 27 states argues that these two human rights Articles make it harder for governments to remove people from their countries who have committed serious crimes. They say the balance has shifted too far in favour of individual rights and away from the public interest.

First, the 27 states want courts applying Article 8 to focus more on how serious the crime is, and less on the person’s family life. In practical terms, this could mean that someone with a partner or children in the country could still be deported if they committed a serious offence.

Take the case of Hesham Ali, an Iraqi national convicted in the UK for helping his parents enter the country illegally. Despite the offence, the court allowed him to remain in the UK under Article 8, recognising that deportation would tear him away from his partner and children. The harm to his family life was judged to outweigh the public interest in removing him.

Now imagine, if Article 8 put greater emphasis on the criminal record as suggested by states. In this case, it would have led to separation of family, without a question.

The 27 states also argue that Article 3 should be interpreted more flexibly, so that public interests like public safety can be taken into account, allowing governments to remove foreign criminals even where there is a risk of degrading treatment abroad.

This interpretation would strike at the heart of the Convention. Asking the Court to reinterpret Article 3's ‘prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment’ appears to attack the Court's very independence and purpose of the ECHR.

See the case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom (1996). Mr Chahal was seen by the UK government as a serious security threat for supporting Sikh extremism, yet the Court ruled he could not be deported because he risked torture in India. The message was clear: no one should be sent to face torture, whatever the allegation.

Article 3 is an absolute right: it allows no balancing even against state security. Allowing exceptions to Article 3 would strip the Convention of its most basic sense of human dignity.

Are we at a tipping point?

The Convention may be approaching a tipping point. Support for reform is growing, and with it the risk that governments are permitted to treat basic human rights as negotiable. While the exact changes will not be known until an interpretive declaration is ready by May 2026, weakening Articles 3 and 8 in the ways proposed by the Court would be a perfect storm for international human rights in Europe.

But let me give some hopes for our readers before I zip my lip. Changing the Convention is extremely difficult. Amending the text of the Convention would require all 46 Council of Europe states to agree, and that level of consensus seems currently far-fetched. Several governments, including Spain and Norway, have already expressed opposition. In the short run, it seems, unanimous agreement on reform looks unlikely.

Nevertheless, what a global audience should watch out for is ‘the danger of contagion’. Amidst the growing Eurosceptic politics in Europe, negative messages can spread fast and domestic political discourse can easily divert fickle-minded national governments.

In the end, the future of human rights in Europe is not set in stone; the Convention only survived for decades because people upheld its basic human standards and it will require sustained efforts to ensure it continues to do so.

Jungho Kim

Jungho is a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, with a master’s in International Migration and Public Policy and an undergraduate degree in Sociology. He is passionate about political journalism focused on migration policy and law in Europe, including family migration, family reunification, asylum procedures, and climate-related displacements in the Americas. His master’s research, accredited Distinction, examined UK family reunification policy, assessing the liberal constraints across Europe. He has hands-on experience assisting in refugee resettlement and integration projects. Through his work, he aims to shed light on power dynamics, legal frameworks, and human stories behind politics of migration, while promoting accountability and social justice.