UK Backs Plan to Ease Deportation of Migrants

European countries including the United Kingdom have endorsed a declaration urging courts to reconsider how migration-related cases are judged, in an effort to make it easier for governments to deport people staying in their countries illegally.

Get today's headlines by email

The agreement was unveiled at a summit in Chisinau, Moldova, on Friday and was signed by all 46 member states of the Council of Europe. It calls on judges at the European Court of Human Rights to give greater weight to national governments when handling migration disputes.

Supporters say the initiative reflects growing pressure from irregular migration and people-smuggling networks, while critics warn the proposal could weaken existing human rights protections.

Push for greater national authority

The declaration encourages the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights to defer more migration decisions to national authorities. Governments argue they are better positioned to weigh public interest and security concerns when dealing with immigration enforcement.

Ahead of the summit, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper described the initiative as a “common-sense approach”. She said the goal was to ensure migration systems cannot be “unfairly gamed” through repeated legal challenges.

The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted after the Second World War to guarantee fundamental freedoms across Europe. It is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights and overseen politically by the Council of Europe.

Friday’s declaration does not amend the convention itself, a process that would require lengthy negotiations and formal legal changes. Instead, it represents a political signal from member states urging the court to take public interest and democratic considerations more fully into account in migration rulings.

The document notes that migration pressures facing European countries have evolved significantly since the convention was written, and in some cases were not anticipated at the time.

It also affirms that states have what it calls an “undeniable sovereign right” to establish immigration policies and remove foreign nationals where this serves the public interest.

Tackling people smuggling

The declaration highlights concerns about organised people-smuggling operations and migration flows that governments say may be encouraged or exploited by hostile states.

It warns that such activities could weaken public support for the European human rights system if governments are perceived as unable to manage migration effectively.

The document also suggests countries should be free to pursue agreements with other nations, including arrangements to process or accommodate rejected asylum seekers outside Europe through so-called “return hubs”.

Italy has already signed an agreement with Albania to house rejected migrants on its territory.

The UK has also explored similar arrangements with other countries, although no formal agreements have yet been reached.

Limits on legal challenges

Another section addresses the interpretation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

While reaffirming that this ban remains absolute, the declaration argues that deportation should not automatically be blocked simply because conditions in the destination country are worse than those in Europe.

It states that concerns about healthcare systems or social conditions in a receiving country should only prevent deportation in “very exceptional circumstances” where there is a genuine risk of inhuman treatment.

Governments backing the declaration hope this approach will reduce legal challenges that delay deportations.

Balancing family rights and public interest

The document also addresses cases involving the right to family life, another provision frequently cited in legal challenges against deportation.

It reiterates that this right does not automatically prevent authorities from removing someone from a country.

Instead, it says national courts should normally determine how to balance personal rights against broader public interests such as national security and public safety.

Critics of the declaration argue its language could weaken existing protections or ultimately have little practical impact if judges choose not to follow its guidance.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 16 May 2026