Demands are growing in Europe for a decisive confrontation with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the conventions criticized for impeding immigration policies. The debate questions whether problems can be resolved within existing frameworks or if complete withdrawal is necessary.

The discussion centers on who should determine Denmark’s immigration policy: elected politicians or international judges. Critics argue that the ECHR undermines national democracy by prioritizing judges’ interpretations over the will of the people.

Denmark recently joined eight other countries in a letter criticizing the court for overreach in interpreting the Convention on Human Rights. The core issue is whether convention fidelity can coexist with democracy, forcing a choice between the two.

The system is being questioned, even if Denmark has lost only a minority of expulsion cases. Critics argue that even one case where an international court overrules Denmark’s decision to expel a criminal foreigner is unacceptable.

The concern is not about individual cases, but about the system itself. The focus should be on re-establishing the rule of law as an expression of democracy, not as its replacement. The debate also touches on the broader issue of judicial activism, where courts are seen as driving integration projects and changing rules without a democratic mandate.

Some argue that allowing immigration policy to be governed without the population’s input undermines the people’s self-determination. The debate raises the fundamental question of whether Denmark should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.