Demands for a reassessment of the European Court of Human Rights are intensifying across Europe, with critics arguing that the court’s interpretations of the Convention on Human Rights are hindering national foreign policy objectives. Denmark has recently joined eight other nations in formally criticizing the court, raising questions about the balance between international human rights law and national sovereignty.

The core of the controversy lies in Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family and private life. Opponents claim that the court’s interpretation of this article has prevented the deportation of criminal foreigners, undermining national efforts to maintain security and order.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and leaders from seven other countries, have voiced their concerns in an open letter, asserting that the court’s rulings limit the decision-making power of democratically elected governments. They argue that if international rules are not updated to reflect current realities, public support for them will erode.

Specific cases, such as the prevention of the expulsion of individuals convicted of serious crimes like drug trafficking and illegal weapons possession, have fueled the debate in Denmark. In each instance, the court cited stronger ties to Denmark than to their home countries as justification for preventing deportation.

Experts argue that the original intent of the Convention on Human Rights, drafted in the aftermath of World War II, was to protect individuals from state overreach, not to address deportation cases. The convention aimed to prevent the recurrence of atrocities like the Holocaust by establishing a system of international law that safeguards individual rights.

Frode Jakobsen, a key figure in the Danish parliament during the convention’s ratification, emphasized the importance of a court to enforce human rights and the right of individuals, not just states, to file complaints. He described the court as “the crown jewel” of the convention, essential for realizing its aims.

While acknowledging the legal basis for the court’s interpretations, legal experts caution against overlooking the historical context of the convention. Professor Jens Vedsted-Hansen warns that neglecting the lessons of the Holocaust, where national decisions led to extreme abuses, could have dire consequences.