‘Disengaging’ from the ECHR: What a Future Conservative Government Could Mean for Human Rights in the UK
Ellie Hardcastle reports on Kemi Badenoch’s comment that the UK would “probably have to leave” the ECHR.
Image credit: Carl Court/ Getty Images
In her first major foreign policy speech today, Conservative party leader, Kemi Badenoch suggested the fact that the UK would “probably have to leave” the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if it continues to obstruct the government from acting in the national interest.
What is the ECHR?
Drafted in the aftermath of WWII to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities, the ECHR was the first legal framework implemented to guarantee fundamental human rights. Since the UK signed the Convention in 1951, it has safeguarded us from practices including torture, unlawful killing, and slavery, whilst simultaneously ensuring our rights to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy for example.
Referring to recent rulings – including the recognition of climate change as a human rights issue , Badenoch argued “if international bodies are taken over by activists or by autocratic regimes…we must use our influence to stop them and if that fails, we will need to disengage.”
A central argument in Badenoch’s speech was that the , ECHR rulings have shifted so dramatically over the past two decades, restricting the UK’s control over its own borders and consequently, its ability to engage in military action. “The ECHR should not stop us from doing what is right for the people of this country,” she asserted.
What would leaving the ECHR mean for Human Rights in the UK?
This is not the first time a Conservative Party leader advocated for the UK’s departure from the ECHR. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had previously suggested withdrawing from the Convention if the UK’s membership obstructed policies on illegal immigration or posed a threat to national security.
“…strengthening Britain must be the principal objective at the heart of everything we do…”
Withdrawal from the ECHR would likely have significant consequences for human rights in the UK. While a new Bill of Rights could potentially offer similar protections, the focal issue would be how these rights are enforced in practice. Without the ECHR, for example, individuals would lose the ability to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, and the UK would no longer be subject to the same international scrutiny of its human rights record.
While other international treaties might offer some protection, their enforcement mechanisms are typically much weaker and not directly enforceable in UK courts. Withdrawal could further strain international relations, particularly with the EU, Ireland, and the US, and undermine the UK’s role in upholding global human rights standards.
Badenoch acknowledged these complexities, stating: “What I have not agreed with is deciding we should leave without having a plan for what that looks like and how to do so in a way that makes sense.”
However, questions remain about what such a plan would entail and whether it would mark a fundamental shift in the UK’s commitment to human rights standards established over seven decades ago.
