Bojo Calls For Referendum On Leaving ECHR

[Unlucky4Sum]

Lets give the others a chance to comment on the Convention before moving on to the Court.

[Borg Refinery]

No, it's perfection in textual form, except for all those issues surrounding its enforcement by the ECtHR that is

[Unlucky4Sum]

So no actual known flaws in the European Convention of Human Rights then

[Borg Refinery]

So no objection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECnHR) that Boris and co object to then.

Not sure one way or the other yet, there do seem to be flaws in the ECnHR but there are questions as to the impartiality of the enforcing judges at the ECtHR.

A convention is only as good as the judges who enforce it.

Have a gander at this list of pros and cons.

Edit: Better link

Weaknesses

1. Backlog and Delays
One of the significant challenges facing the ECtHR is the substantial backlog of cases. With thousands of applications submitted each year, the ECtHR struggles to process them in a timely manner, leading to significant delays. This backlog undermines the efficacy of the ECtHR, as justice delayed can often equate to justice denied. The prolonged wait times for a decision can be particularly burdensome for individuals seeking redress for serious human rights violations, leaving them without a timely resolution to their grievances.

2. Enforcement of Judgments
While the ECtHR can issue binding judgments, enforcing these decisions remains a complex issue. Compliance with the ECtHR's rulings depends largely on the political will of the member states. Some countries have been slow or reluctant to implement certain judgments, particularly those requiring substantial changes to national laws or practices. This lack of enforcement diminishes the ECtHR's authority and the overall impact of its decisions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the human rights protection system in Europe.

3. Resource Constraints
The ECtHR operates under significant resource constraints, which impact its ability to function optimally. Limited funding and staffing resources hamper the ECtHR's capacity to handle the growing number of cases efficiently. These constraints also affect the quality and speed of its operations, further exacerbating issues related to backlog and delays. Despite the critical role it plays in upholding human rights, the ECtHR often finds itself struggling to secure the necessary support and resources from member states to fulfil its mandate effectively.

4. Political Pressures
The ECtHR occasionally faces political pressures from member states, particularly those unhappy with its judgments. This can manifest in various forms, including attempts to undermine the ECtHR's authority or efforts to limit its jurisdiction. Such pressures pose a threat to the independence and impartiality of the ECtHR, which are essential for its credibility and effectiveness. Maintaining its autonomy in the face of political challenges is an ongoing struggle that the ECtHR must navigate to ensure it can continue to serve as an impartial arbiter of human rights issues in Europe.

5. Selective Compliance and Politicisation
Despite its authoritative judgments, the ECtHR often encounters selective compliance from member states. Some governments comply fully with favourable decisions but may delay or resist implementing rulings that require significant changes or are politically sensitive. This selective approach undermines the ECtHR's authority and can lead to inconsistencies in the protection of human rights across Europe. Additionally, politicisation of the ECtHR's decisions can erode public confidence and trust in its impartiality, potentially diminishing its effectiveness as a guardian of human rights.

6. Limited Accessibility for Individuals
While the ECtHR is designed to be accessible to all individuals under its jurisdiction, practical barriers can limit access. The process of bringing a case to the ECtHR can be complex, time-consuming, and costly, which may deter individuals from seeking justice. Furthermore, the requirement to exhaust all domestic remedies before applying to the ECtHR can be a significant hurdle for many, especially those in countries with inefficient or biased judicial systems. These accessibility issues can prevent the ECtHR from fulfilling its mandate to provide a remedy for all human rights violations effectively.

The ECtHR is a cornerstone institution for human rights protection in Europe, providing robust legal protections, fostering uniformity in human rights standards, and promoting social progress. However, it also faces significant challenges, including an overwhelming caseload, tensions with national sovereignty, variability in implementation, limited enforcement mechanisms, and accusations of judicial activism. Addressing these weaknesses while building on its strengths is essential for the ECHR to continue its critical work effectively.

Link

6. Con – distant interpretations
Critics believe that a lot of the Strasbourg-based court's rulings come down to interpretation and argue that with the judges sitting so far from the UK, that poses problems.

In an article on CapX, Conservative peer Daniel Hannan, then an MEP, said that ECHR judges "frequently rule on the basis of what they think the law ought to say rather than what it says". He added that "the more remote the interpretation of rights becomes, the harder it is to do anything about it when that interpretation loses contact with the plain meaning of the words".

[Borg Refinery]

You're substituting ECtHR (the court) for ECnHR (convention) that I asked about and which your OP talks about.

Please can we focus on the Canvention and I ask again who here that object to our adherence to it say which articles they object to.

Noting of course that the ECnHR is neither the same as nor invokes the Refugee Conventions

We're talking about 'foreign courts' and whether they have good or bad effects on countries.

A fact that can't be avoided is that the judges at the ECtHR enforce the ECnHR so whether the justices are impartial or not is completely relevant, for me, in my thread.

You are free to appeal to the moderators, cromwell and Nick, to have my posts altered or even removed, or me sanctioned/told off if you believe they are off topic/otherwise rule breaking and/or breaking the ethos/ and/or spirit of the forum. That is your right.

[Unlucky4Sum]

So no objection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECnHR) that Boris and co object to then.

[Borg Refinery]

That same pro-ECHR blog singles out Yonko once again here, including a case involving the United Kingdom and George Soros's Open Society Foundations.

Link

It is obvious that such a lawyer has a strong experience with the human rights system. But a problem arises when one observes that, once elected judge, he adjudicated in cases introduced in 2014 and 2015 by the Helsinki Committee of Bulgaria (see D.L. c. Bulgarie, n° 7472/14, 19 May 2016. Aneva and Others v. Bulgaria, n° 66997/13, 77760/14 et 50240/15, 6 April 2017). There is no doubt that such situation raises an issue of impartiality and that the judge should have withdrawn. In another case, still pending, he sat while the Open Society Justice Initiative intervened as a third party in the case (see the proceedings before the Grand Chamber of Big Brother Watch and Others v. United-Kingdom, n° 58170/13).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Unlucky4Sum]

You're substituting ECtHR (the court) for ECnHR (convention) that I asked about and which your OP talks about.

Please can we focus on the Canvention and I ask again who here that object to our adherence to it say which articles they object to.

Noting of course that the ECnHR is neither the same as nor invokes the Refugee Conventions

[Borg Refinery]

No objection to the ECHR?

Are the judges not the main arbiters of what goes and what doesn't?

Here is a good criticism of that question I just linked; a question which was asked by Robert Roos - a Eurosceptic Dutch MEP - link, it points out that the ECLJ (a conservative org started by Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow - for full transparency) has some real bias itself (the ECLJ is in the footnote of Robert Roos' question, it's his source for his claims).

This is their study (the ECLJ's) which was in the footnote:

Link

The (pro-ECHR) guy critiquing the ECLJ points to this justice in particular:

Yonko Grozev

There's clear conflicts of interest there, even Wiki moderators have picked up on it and shone a torchlight on it.

Obviously, the ECHR has its flaws as with any institution, whether that merits withdrawing from it I have yet to decide, but it obviously has conflicts of interest with its judges. Even its defenders acknowledge issues with the court. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Unlucky4Sum]

So no objection to the ECnHR then?

It seems the objection of the likes of Boris, Jenrick and the wider Tory membership is they want to be able to break the rule of law when it's politically convenient to do so. 

[Borg Refinery]

Reading text is all well and good, but it's only as good as the judges who uphold it and a quick scan found me this:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-001484_EN.html#:~:text=Recent%20research%5B1%5D%20by%20the,with%20nongovernmental%20organisations%20(NGOs).

Recent research[1] by the European Centre for Law and Justice has shown that at least 22 of the 100 judges who served at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) between 2009 and 2019 had strong links with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). They were former officers or staff of seven NGOs which are very active in cases before the Court. The NGOs Open Society Foundation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., are parties to cases before the Court. In more than 80 cases, judges failed to recuse themselves in cases brought by their previous employers or in which those employers were representing parties.

This a very serious situation, because it calls into question the independence of the rule of law and the impartiality of judges. Moreover, it contravenes the rules that the ECHR itself imposes on States in this regard.

1.   We can conclude that judges at the ECHR have conflicts of interest. What view does the Council take of this?
2.   The EU intends to accede to the ECHR. In this context, what will the Council do to guarantee the independence of judges and safeguard the rule of law?

Now I personally don't necessarily want to withdraw from the ECHR, it's not something I've ever looked into much before, but I am starting to see reasons others could use to justify their opposition to it.

If judges aren't even recusing themselves from cases where they have obvious COIs, that undermines the impartiality of the judiciary very bigly

[Unlucky4Sum]

I wonder if any of those opposed to us being signed up to the ECnHR could actually say which articles they object to being part of UK law.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG

[Borg Refinery]

Good point, it may be even more flawed than the Rwanda scheme, so it's incomparable.

The European Commission can no longer ignore mounting evidence of the gross human rights violations against migrants and refugees in Tunisia, say MEPs and activists.

The EU has given millions of pounds to Tunisia to reduce migration from north Africa into Europe in a deal that pledges "respect for human rights" and piqued the interest of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer.

But a Guardian investigation this week reported on allegations of widespread abuses committed by EU-funded security forces in Tunisia, including sexual violence against vulnerable women.

There is now growing pressure on the commission to reveal how long it has been aware of reports of these violent practices, what it is doing to "remedy the situation" and whether more EU money will be sent to Tunisia.

"How is that reduction achieved? People are incarcerated, women are raped, and children are dumped and left to die in the desert; this is happening on a daily basis," said David Yambio, spokesperson for the NGO Refugees in Libya.

"Each agreement made with the Tunisian and Libyan regime is a death sentence for migrants and refugees," he added.

Catherine Woollard, director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, said: "These abuses are the horrifying yet entirely predictable violations that always result from these kinds of deals.

"Civil society organisations both in Tunisia and the EU are taking every possible step to defend the rights of those affected, including through direct assistance and support, litigation, monitoring and documenting abuses. Unfortunately, civil society is itself also being repressed."

Guardian

[Unlucky4Sum]

No the EU does not, we already did that.

[Borg Refinery]

As seven people awaited deportation to Rwanda in June of 2022, the ECHR intervened and issued injunctions stopping the migrants' removal and pausing the controversial policy.

Link

One will recall that the EU also has its own Rwanda-style policies - link