Council of Europe adopts Chișinău declaration amid migrant protection concerns
Rights groups warn the non-binding declaration could weaken safeguards for asylum seekers, while the UK government argues it is necessary to prevent system exploitation.
All 46 member states of the Council of Europe have endorsed the Chișinău declaration, a political statement published in the Moldovan capital aimed at clarifying aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights. While the document is not legally binding, it signals to the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts that asylum and immigration laws should be interpreted more restrictively. Critics argue the move undermines universal human rights principles by granting governments greater latitude to deport individuals, potentially to nations where they may face inhuman or degrading treatment.
The declaration explicitly permits states to consider measures such as "return hubs" to deter irregular migration and allows for a more stringent assessment of balancing factors, including prison conditions or healthcare standards in destination countries. Dr Jean-Pierre Gauci of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law stated the declaration sends a signal to interpret the convention in a way that addresses political priorities to make it easier to remove foreign nationals, even if there is a real risk of harm on return.
The UK government has welcomed the shift, stating the declaration will help "crack down on individuals exploiting the system to avoid deportation". This stance aligns with broader political debates within the UK, where both the Conservatives and Reform UK have previously pledged to leave the convention if elected. The Home Office already interprets human rights laws stringently when making decisions about individual deportations, and the declaration signals that greater deference should be paid to governments in these areas.
Confusion often exists between the Geneva Conventions, which enshrine rights for refugees, and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Asylum seekers primarily cite the Geneva Conventions when claiming asylum, whereas Articles 3 and 8 apply more often to migrants who have lived in the UK for a long time or have committed crimes. The new declaration allows for a stricter interpretation of these articles, particularly regarding the prohibition of torture and the right to respect for private and family life.
Despite the political push for stricter controls, practical outcomes have been mixed. Numbers of people crossing the Channel in small boats have remained high since the UK began forcibly removing asylum seekers to France last September. The previous UK government’s plans to use Rwanda for return hubs failed, yet other European countries, including the UK, are currently exploring similar measures. The European Court rarely interferes with deportation decisions, having done so in only 13 cases in the past 45 years, with UK judges mostly determining appeals against Home Office removal decisions.