Reinforce, reform or rupture? The future of the European Convention on Human Rights

In May 2025, nine states led by Denmark and Italy issued a letter calling for an “open minded conversation” about whether the European Court of Human Rights has gone “too far” and protected the “wrong people” in its interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in migration cases. The initiative is widely viewed as an attempt to pressurise the Court to adopt ever-more conservative approaches and scapegoat it for domestic political discontents. In the UK, two parties, Reform and the Conservatives, have committed to withdraw from the Convention on the false prospectus that it would enable the suppression of irregular migration. Elsewhere in Europe, withdrawal has not reached the mainstream of politics, although the risk of contagion is ever present. Meanwhile, calls for “reform” are multiplying and, as we write, rumours are swirling about what the next intergovernmental initiative will be. Neither the group of nine nor other political leaders have elucidated what they seek to reform, how and why. What does seem clear is the intent to change something. This blog outlines the options – whether for reform or use of existing mechanisms – that have been mooted by commentators or in reporting of these so far secretive government manoeuvres. It does so in the spirit of evidence-based scrutiny that should underpin any discussion of reform of Europe’s 75-year-old human rights architecture.