Demands are growing in Europe for a comprehensive review of the European Court of Human Rights and the conventions that have long been criticized for hindering immigration policy goals. This sentiment is echoed by Lord Jonathan Sumption, a former UK Supreme Court Justice, who believes there’s a real chance for change.

The core issue revolves around Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to family life. Critics argue that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has interpreted this article too broadly, preventing European countries from deporting foreign criminals.

Lord Sumption is a prominent advocate for the UK withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. He asserts that the court has become an activist body, overriding the legislative assemblies of member states and effectively creating laws that national parliaments cannot repeal. He emphasizes that this undermines democratic control and the principle of clear, understandable legislation.

Denmark, along with Italy and several other European nations, has voiced similar concerns. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark and her Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni initiated a letter criticizing the court for overreach. This joint effort signals a growing discontent with the court’s interpretation of the human rights convention.

While some, like Lord Sumption, advocate for complete withdrawal from the convention, others propose alternative solutions. The Danish government, for instance, prefers to exert political pressure on the court to adopt a less activist approach. Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister is exploring how other countries interpret Article 8, seeking solutions within the existing framework.

The debate extends beyond legal technicalities to fundamental questions about national sovereignty and the balance between human rights and immigration control. Lord Sumption argues that democratic nations are capable of upholding human rights through their own legislative processes. He maintains that the current system allows an external body to dictate laws that contradict the will of democratically elected assemblies.