The Government’s support for watering down protections for migrants under the European Convention on Human Rights is another step rightwards. Ireland finds itself in the company of the United Kingdom, its nearest neighbour. But it also sees the State allied, amongst others, with Hungary and other states where atavistic nationalism holds sway.
The joint statement signed this week by Ireland and 26 of the other 45 signatories to the convention reflects the pressure even liberal European states are under to respond to the issue of illegal migration. It calls for the European Court of Human Rights to take a narrower view of Article 3 of the convention, which governs torture. The signatories claim that the current interpretation limits their ability to deport failed asylum seekers.
The statement is, to a certain extent, a first step into uncharted waters. There have been 17 protocols regarding the interpretation of the convention agreed since 1953 but most were concerned with expanding rather than restricting rights. Germany, France and Spain have not signed the statement despite their governments’ own political difficulties in relation to migration. For the moment it has only persuasive effect on the court and political value for the governments that signed it.
Caution is certainly warranted. The signatories to the convention should be slow to tinker with a fundamental element of the post-second World War architecture of Europe. The ECHR, which comes under the Council of Europe , is a separate entity to the European Union, but together they helped to deliver 80 years of peace and prosperity.
RM Block
The ECHR has been of immense value to small counties like Ireland. It was a bulwark for civil rights campaigners in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Article 3 – one of the articles in question – was the basis for the the successful “ Hooded Men” case, taken against the UK in 1978 over its interrogation techniques. The UK’s obligations under the convention were a safeguard that helped to enable the Belfast Agreement and allowed as favourable as possible an outcome for this island from the EU-UK Brexit negotiations.
Supporters of the proposal to limit the scope of Article 3 argue that the convention is a living document and its interpretation by the ECHR must reflect changing realities. Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan said “an appropriate balance between individuals’ rights and the public interest” was needed.
Few could have predicted the geopolitical turmoil that has led to the current high levels of migration. And it may be politically expedient from the Government to have signed this week’s statement. However it must not be a prelude to a weakening of core European values and the role of the ECHR in safeguarding them.
