MOSCOW, RUSSIA - MAY 08: A little boy inspects a billboard showing a winking Russian President Vladimir Putin and a bear as well as a t-shirt that reads: "I'm a friend of Putin" at Victory Park ahead of celebrations to mark the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany and the end of World War II on May 8, 2015 in Moscow, Russia. The city of Moscow will celebrate the anniversary on May 9 with a Victory Day international military parade and other events that most European leaders are snubbing because they accuse Russia of involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
The debate surrounding the United Kingdom’s potential withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has intensified, with some politicians warning that such a move would align the UK with nations like Russia and Belarus. This comparison, which has gained traction among several officials, including the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, has sparked considerable discussion regarding the implications and motivations behind the UK’s relationship with the ECHR.
Supporters of the ECHR often cite the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe in 2022 as a reason to maintain membership. They argue that leaving the ECHR places the UK in a “club” with nations that disregard human rights. Notably, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, emphasized this point during a testimony to the Constitution Committee in September 2022, warning that withdrawal would lead the UK into “splendid isolation.” This rhetoric has been echoed by various parliamentarians, including Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has forcefully argued against ECHR withdrawal, claiming it would mean joining Russia.
While these comparisons resonate on an emotional level, critics, including legal experts and policy analysts, argue that such assertions are unfounded. In a recent Policy Exchange paper, experts including Conor Casey and Sir Stephen Laws KC contend that equating the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR with the actions of Belarus and Russia lacks merit. They challenge proponents of this view to clarify the basis of their comparisons and to consider the broader context of human rights protection in various jurisdictions.
The **political discourse** surrounding this topic has often overlooked critical distinctions. For instance, Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe due to its invasion of Ukraine and did not withdraw voluntarily from the ECHR. In contrast, a decision by the UK to leave the ECHR would likely stem from legitimate concerns regarding judicial overreach and the desire to reinforce national sovereignty rather than an intent to evade accountability.
Alexander Downer, former foreign minister of Australia, criticized the notion that leaving the ECHR would result in diplomatic isolation, framing it as “parochial nonsense.” He asserted that the UK could maintain robust international relations outside the ECHR framework, emphasizing that its status as a civilised nation would not be diminished.
There is historical precedent for a country leaving the Council of Europe. Greece withdrew in 1969 under a military dictatorship following findings of mass human rights violations. Should the UK choose to exit the ECHR, it would not be in an attempt to escape scrutiny but rather to address perceived shortcomings in the European human rights system.
As the UK contemplates its future with the ECHR, it is crucial to consider the broader context. Currently, 27 member states have expressed concerns regarding the Strasbourg Court’s handling of immigration and asylum cases. If reform efforts fail, the UK’s potential departure could be seen as a response to these systemic issues rather than a rejection of human rights norms.
Ultimately, leaving the ECHR would not equate to joining Belarus or Russia. Instead, the UK could maintain its commitment to European security and its opposition to Russian aggression while exploring alternative avenues for protecting human rights. In many ways, the more relevant comparisons may lie with nations such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, where human rights are upheld without ECHR oversight.
As the debate unfolds, it remains vital for policymakers to engage in informed discussions that reflect both the complexities of international human rights law and the unique position of the UK on the global stage.
