European Parliament’s Right-Wing Faction Joins Calls for Debate on Human Rights Convention’s Interpretation
The European Convention on Human Rights, a cornerstone of the European Union’s legal system, is facing a fresh wave of criticism and debate, with several European government leaders and a faction of the European Parliament’s right-wing group calling for a reevaluation of its interpretation.
Günter Krings, the deputy leader of the Christian Democratic Union’s (CDU) parliamentary group, said in an interview with the German newspaper Welt, “The European Convention on Human Rights is an essential element of our constitutional order. And precisely for that reason, it must be interpreted in a way that allows states to ensure their internal security and effectively protect their borders.”
Krings noted that the current case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) makes it, in some instances, practically impossible for states to control irregular migration in a lawful manner. He emphasized that the convention does not explicitly contain an asylum or refugee right and that it is essential for the signatory states to have the possibility of engaging in a dialogue with the organs of the Council of Europe.
Krings can understand why several EU member states want to initiate a discussion on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is about “returning the case law to the foundation of the treaty documents and thus to the original balance between individual freedom and state responsibility for protection.”
However, not all politicians share this view. Ralf Stegner, the chairman of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) parliamentary group in the foreign affairs committee, criticized the proposal, saying, “Politics must be oriented towards human rights, not the other way around. Human rights and fundamental rights always and for everyone are a fundamental pillar of our European community. This is not a matter of daily politics, but a fundamental question.”
Peter Boehringer, the European policy spokesperson of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group, said that the European Convention on Human Rights was not developed with the idea of mass immigration in mind, as the convention was signed in 1950, just after the Second World War and the Holocaust, which led to massive refugee and displacement movements. The AfD is open to a revision or reform of the convention, especially at this point, which is being discussed by nine EU member states. He emphasized that the judicial independence would not be affected by such a revision.
Max Lucks, the human rights and humanitarian aid spokesperson of the Green Party, sharply criticized the proposal, saying, “This proposal is an attack on the European Convention on Human Rights and that is undeniable. It is an attack on all European citizens. The proposal represents a scandalous shift in paradigms: because some member states do not uphold the law, they now want to change the law. First, on the backs of asylum seekers and ultimately, at the expense of the rule of law as a whole.