On December 10, 2025, the city of Strasbourg became the focal point for one of Europe’s most contentious and complex debates: how to balance the continent’s longstanding human rights commitments with the mounting political and social pressures of migration. Justice ministers and senior officials from all 46 member states of the Council of Europe gathered to take what many described as a crucial first step toward reforming the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—a document that, for 75 years, has stood as a bulwark for the protection of individual rights across the continent.
But times have changed, and so too have the challenges facing Europe. Migration, both legal and irregular, has surged in recent years, sparking fierce debate among governments and citizens alike about how best to manage borders while upholding the values enshrined in the ECHR. According to France24, several member states, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Italy, have argued that the convention, and particularly the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, are acting as a brake on efforts to combat illegal migration. Their core concern? That the current interpretation of the ECHR—especially Articles 3 and 8, which ban inhumane treatment and protect the right to family life—makes it too difficult to deport individuals who have no legal right to remain.
“This is really the starting of a process on a consensus basis. That’s the most important point for today,” Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset told reporters, as quoted by The Independent. He described the ECHR as a “living instrument” capable of adapting to new realities, while emphasizing that all 46 member states had reaffirmed their “deep and abiding commitment to both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.” Yet, Berset acknowledged that ministers had also expressed serious concerns about the unprecedented challenges posed by migration and the difficult questions governments face in maintaining societies that deliver for their citizens.
That tension—between upholding human rights and addressing migration—was palpable throughout the day. The UK’s Labour government, led by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has taken a nuanced stance. Rather than advocating for a full withdrawal from the ECHR, as called for by the Conservatives and Reform UK, Labour favors targeted reforms in how the convention is interpreted by British courts. Starmer, writing in The Guardian alongside Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, argued that the asylum framework “was created for another era,” and that “in a world with mass mobility, yesterday’s answers do not work.” He insisted, “We will always protect those fleeing war and terror – but the world has changed and asylum systems must change with it.”
The Labour government has already announced plans to restrict how asylum seekers can use the “right to family life” clause to avoid deportation. According to the BBC, the government intends to legislate so that this right carries less weight in removal decisions, particularly for foreign criminals. Similarly, 27 ECHR countries, including the UK, issued a joint statement seeking to “constrain the concept of inhumane treatment to the most serious issues” and to ensure that family and social ties are given “less weight” during deportation proceedings.
Not everyone agrees with this approach. Kemi Badenoch, a prominent Conservative, has argued that leaving the ECHR outright is necessary to “protect our borders, our veterans and our citizens.” Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, led by Sir Ed Davey, remain staunchly opposed to withdrawal, insisting that the convention “upholds our freedom” and warning that leaving would “do nothing to stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system.” This division underscores just how politically charged the issue has become in the UK, where small boat crossings of the English Channel and broader immigration concerns have become key electoral battlegrounds.
Across the Channel, other European leaders are grappling with similar pressures. In May 2025, nine EU states—including Denmark, Italy, and Poland—sent a letter urging a rethink of how the ECHR is interpreted, echoing concerns that have long been voiced by the UK. The Council of Europe, established in the aftermath of World War II to safeguard human rights, now finds itself at the crossroads of principle and pragmatism. As AFP reported, Secretary General Berset described the European Court of Human Rights as “our bedrock,” but acknowledged that some states feel the court’s interpretations “have limited their political discretion in certain situations.”
The Strasbourg meeting ended with a commitment to hammer out a new “political declaration” on migration and the ECHR, to be adopted at a summit in Moldova in May 2026. This declaration, ministers hope, will lay the groundwork for reforms that deter migrant smuggling “with full respect for human rights,” while also ensuring that governments retain the ability to protect national security and public order. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, representing the UK, emphasized the need for consensus, stating, “It is important that we work together and achieve consensus in the coming weeks on the interpretation as it relates to irregular migration, which is a concern right across the European family.”
Yet, unity remains elusive. In a stark display of dissent, Hungary announced on December 10 that it will reject the European Union’s migration solidarity mechanism and will not accept any migrants. Gergely Gulyas, head of Hungary’s Prime Minister’s Office, declared at a Budapest press conference, “We will not implement the migration pact,” citing a 2016 referendum in which Hungarian voters rejected what the government described as the EU’s forced resettlement of migrants. Hungary’s right-wing government, led by Viktor Orban, has consistently clashed with Brussels over migration policy, even facing a €200 million fine and a daily penalty from the European Court of Justice in 2024 for violations of EU asylum law.
Other countries, while not as defiant as Hungary, are nonetheless pushing for significant changes. Denmark, for instance, has influenced the UK’s recent hardline measures, with both governments arguing that the ECHR’s interpretation must evolve to reflect the realities of mass migration in the 21st century. As Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper put it during a separate meeting in Brussels, “To strengthen our borders at home, we need to increase cooperation with other countries on innovative solutions – including on prevention, law enforcement and returns.”
As the debate rages on, the stakes are high not only for migrants and refugees but for the future of human rights in Europe. The outcome of these negotiations—culminating in the Moldova summit—could mark the most significant reform to the ECHR since its inception. For now, all eyes remain on Europe’s leaders as they attempt to navigate the treacherous waters between compassion, security, and political reality.
What’s clear is that the conversation is far from over. With migration pressures unlikely to abate anytime soon, Europe’s struggle to reconcile its values with its borders will continue to shape the continent’s politics and identity for years to come.
