The Foundational Role of the United Kingdom in Drafting the European Convention on Human Rights and the Subsequent Shift in Political Sentiment

The United Kingdom's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights has escalated into a major political controversy, particularly within the Conservative Party, becoming a "hot potato" central to debates on sovereignty, immigration, and the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary. Though Britain played a foundational role in drafting the ECHR in the aftermath of World War II to safeguard human rights across Europe, the relationship has grown increasingly fraught since the turn of the millennium, driven largely by the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. The current intensity of the debate marks a departure from the UK's historical position as a champion of the Convention, and now threatens to lead to the UK's unprecedented voluntary withdrawal.

The Convention's role has expanded over time due to the "living instrument" doctrine, allowing the ECtHR to interpret its articles in light of contemporary social norms and conditions. This has led to rulings that certain UK politicians and media outlets view as overreaching or an infringement on parliamentary sovereignty. Key contentious issues have included the blanket ban on prisoner voting and, more recently and critically, interventions on immigration and deportation policy. The ECtHR’s ability to issue interim measures, such as the one that grounded the first planned flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, has deeply angered right wing politicians who argue the Convention is frustrating the government's ability to control its borders and implement its own policies.

Political reaction to the ECHR has increasingly centered on the argument that the Convention, and its incorporation into domestic law via the Human Rights Act, subverts the will of the UK Parliament. Conservative politicians in particular have repeatedly floated the idea of either reforming the Human Rights Act to curb the influence of the ECtHR or, more drastically, denouncing the ECHR entirely. This push is strongly linked to the political desire to be seen as taking firm control of immigration policy in the post Brexit era. Proponents of leaving argue that it is the only way to fully implement tough measures on deportation and border control without external judicial interference.

However, the consequences of withdrawal are viewed as profound and risky by opponents. Leaving the ECHR would make the UK one of only two European countries not signed up, alongside Russia and Belarus, severely undermining its credibility in criticising human rights abuses abroad and diminishing its "soft power" influence. Crucially, the Convention is also a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, meaning withdrawal could potentially destabilize the delicate peace agreement and jeopardise cooperation with the European Union on vital areas like security and criminal justice, which are governed by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The debate is therefore not just about human rights law, but is intertwined with the UK's entire constitutional settlement and its geopolitical standing.

The political battle is now a test of ideological commitment, with leaving the ECHR becoming a signal of intent for those on the political right who prioritise sovereignty and hard line immigration control over international treaty obligations and the existing human rights framework. The ongoing tension between domestic policy goals and international legal commitments ensures that the ECHR remains a central and divisive feature of the British political landscape with an uncertain future.