A leading human rights organization is raising serious concerns over mounting political pressure being exerted on the judiciary regarding the enforcement of migration agreements within the European system. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has sharply criticized attempts by several European states, notably led by Italy and Denmark, to subtly weaken the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in matters pertaining to migration.
Speaking to the German editorial network, Benjamin Ward, Deputy Director for Europe and Central Asia at HRW, asserted that the demands for reforms championed by European nations should be recognized for what they are: attempts to undermine the Court’s authority. This criticism arrives as Europe grapples with challenges described by HRW as some of the most severe since the end of World War II, highlighting the critical need to bolster, rather than erode, regional institutions.
The concerted effort by 20 European states, framed as a “statement of principles” aims to navigate perceived conflicts between national deportation strategies and the ECtHR’s interpretation of human rights obligations. HRW acknowledges that national courts sometimes invoke the ECtHR’s framework to obstruct government-led deportations. However, Ward strongly refuted the notion that international human rights standards are the primary impediment. He emphasized that the prevalent obstacle is the frequent unwillingness or lack of cooperation from the countries to which deportations are intended.
“While the European Court of Human Rights undoubtedly sometimes restricts state action, that is precisely its purpose: to protect individuals from arbitrary state power and ultimately serve as a bulwark against tyranny and war” Ward stated. He warned against the increasing calls for the ECtHR to distance itself from sensitive topics like migration, accusing some governments of a reluctance to fully implement court rulings and address the underlying injustices that prompted them. HRW argues this failure represents the most significant hurdle to the court’s functionality and the overall effectiveness of the Convention system, potentially jeopardizing the safeguards it provides against state overreach.
