How the UK could reform the European convention on human rights – The Conversation

 

Report on the United Kingdom’s Relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights and its Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: The Nexus of Human Rights, National Sovereignty, and Global Goals

A protracted political debate within the United Kingdom (UK) centres on its continued membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This discourse, primarily driven by concerns over migration and criminal justice policies, has significant implications for the UK’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The debate questions the balance between national policy autonomy and adherence to international legal frameworks designed to protect fundamental human rights, a core tenet of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2.0 Analysis of the UK’s Domestic Debate

2.1 Political Drivers and Institutional Trust

The primary impetus for considering withdrawal from the ECHR stems from a perception that the convention obstructs the government’s ability to manage migration and deport foreign national offenders. This narrative, often fuelled by unsubstantiated anecdotes, challenges public confidence in legal and judicial institutions, undermining progress towards SDG 16.6, which calls for the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

• Proponents of leaving the ECHR, including former and current Conservative party figures, advocate for repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 to reassert national sovereignty.
• The Labour party has signalled an alternative approach, focusing on domestic reforms to the application of the ECHR, particularly concerning the deportation of foreign criminals, aiming to restore public trust in the system.

2.2 International Context and Multilateral Cooperation (SDG 17)

The UK’s concerns are not held in isolation. Several European nations are seeking adjustments to the ECHR’s application, reflecting a broader challenge in balancing migration management with human rights obligations. This creates an environment for multilateral dialogue, aligning with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• In May 2025, a coalition of nine countries, led by Italy, issued an open letter calling for the European Court of Human Rights to grant states more latitude in managing irregular migration and deportations.
• This collaborative approach demonstrates a commitment to reforming international institutions through partnership rather than unilateral withdrawal.

3.0 The ECHR Framework and its Alignment with Sustainable Development

3.1 Core Protections and Relevance to SDGs

The ECHR provides fundamental protections that are integral to achieving several SDGs. The convention does not grant a right to asylum or entry but establishes critical safeguards against human rights violations during removal processes.

1. Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture): This absolute right prevents deportation to a country where an individual faces a serious risk of torture or inhuman treatment. It is a cornerstone of international law and directly supports SDG 16.3 by promoting the rule of law and ensuring justice for all.
2. Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life): This qualified right allows for challenges to deportation based on significant family ties, such as dependency of children. It intersects with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring that the rights and welfare of vulnerable individuals, including migrant families, are considered. The protection of the family unit is also relevant to SDG 5 (Gender Equality), as deportation decisions can disproportionately affect women and children.

3.2 Statistical Reality vs. Political Narrative

Data indicates that successful human rights challenges to deportation are rare, suggesting the political narrative may overstate the ECHR’s impact on migration control. An evidence-based approach is crucial for effective policymaking in line with the principles of the 2030 Agenda.

• The European Court of Human Rights has found the UK in violation of Article 8 in a deportation case only four times since 1980.
• UK domestic court data shows that only 2.5% of Article 8 appeals against deportation were successful over a six-year period.

4.0 Proposed Reform Pathways and Their SDG Implications

4.1 Domestic Legislative Reform

The UK government is considering domestic legislative changes to clarify the application of Article 8, aiming to strengthen the “public interest test” in deportation cases. This approach seeks to recalibrate the balance within the existing international framework.

• Current UK immigration rules already require courts to balance an individual’s right to family life against the public interest in deporting foreign offenders.
• Proposed legislation would instruct courts to give greater weight to public safety and the risk of reoffending, thereby narrowing the scope for successful appeals. This represents an attempt to strengthen national institutions (SDG 16) while remaining compliant with international obligations.

4.2 The Option of Withdrawal and its Consequences

A more extreme proposal involves legislating to exclude all deportation decisions from the scope of the Human Rights Act. Such a move would have severe repercussions for the UK’s standing and its commitment to global goals.

• This action would be a significant departure from the principles of universal human rights and the rule of law, directly contravening the spirit and targets of SDG 16.
• It would risk profound political and legal consequences, damaging international partnerships (SDG 17) and the UK’s reputation as a proponent of a rules-based international order.
• Experts note that even this would not be a “silver bullet” for managing migration, the causes of which are complex and often linked to economic and security factors addressed by other goals, such as SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 16.1 (reduce all forms of violence).

5.0 Conclusion: A Call for Evidence-Based Policy Aligned with Global Commitments

The debate surrounding the UK’s membership in the ECHR is fundamentally a discussion about the nature of justice, the strength of institutions (SDG 16), and the management of inequality (SDG 10). It is evident that reforms to the ECHR, whether domestic or international, cannot single-handedly resolve the multifaceted challenges of irregular migration. A sustainable path forward requires a commitment to accurate, evidence-based discourse that clarifies the convention’s true impact. Any reforms must be carefully designed to strengthen, not undermine, the UK’s domestic and international commitments to human rights, the rule of law, and the overarching principles of the Sustainable Development Goals.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article extensively discusses the rule of law at both national (Human Rights Act 1998) and international (European Convention on Human Rights) levels. It focuses on the functioning of judicial institutions like UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and the debate around reforming them to be more effective and accountable. The core theme is the tension between human rights, criminal justice, and state policy, which is central to SDG 16.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article’s focus on migration policy, particularly “irregular migration,” the deportation of foreign nationals, and the rights of migrants, directly connects to SDG 10. The debate over the ECHR is framed by its impact on the government’s ability to manage migration and control its borders, which relates to creating well-managed migration policies.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article details how individuals can “challenge their removal on human rights grounds” in UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights, which is a form of access to justice. The entire debate about whether the UK should remain in the ECHR is a discussion about the role of international law in the national legal system.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article highlights calls for reform of the ECHR and domestic immigration rules to make them more effective in dealing with foreign criminal deportations. It also points to a lack of transparency, noting that “information on how many foreign national criminal deportations have been stopped on human rights grounds is scarce” and calls for “accurate information” and “clarification.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. The article centers on the challenges governments face in managing migration. It explicitly mentions concerns over “irregular migration” and the desire for states to have “more freedom” to implement migration policies, such as deporting foreign national criminals, which is part of managing the mobility of people.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• For Target 16.3: The article provides specific statistics that can serve as indicators for access to justice and legal outcomes.
  • The number of adverse judgments from the European Court of Human Rights against the UK in deportation cases is mentioned: “Since 1980, there have been only four cases where the court ruled that the UK violated the right to family life in a deportation case.”
  • The success rate of legal challenges to deportation in domestic courts is also provided: “only 2.5% of Article 8 appeals against deportation (or 645 cases over six years) were successful in UK courts.”
• For Target 16.6: The article implies an indicator related to institutional transparency.
  • The availability of public data on deportation cases stopped on human rights grounds. The article highlights a deficiency in this area, stating that such information is “scarce” and that data on whether successful appeals were “subsequently overturned… is not publicly available.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• For Target 10.7: The article implies indicators related to the management of migration.
  • The prevalence of “irregular migration” is identified as a key challenge that government policies aim to address, making its measurement an implicit indicator of policy effectiveness.
  • The number of foreign national criminal deportations is a central metric in the political debate, serving as an indicator of the government’s ability to implement its migration policies.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.	Prevalence of “irregular migration.” Number of deportations of foreign national criminals.
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.	Number of adverse judgments from the European Court of Human Rights in deportation cases (e.g., “four cases since 1980”). Percentage of successful appeals against deportation on human rights grounds in national courts (e.g., “2.5% of Article 8 appeals”).
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	Availability of public data on deportation cases stopped on human rights grounds (the article notes this is “scarce”).

Source: theconversation.com