On the independent review of the Human Rights Act (HRA), you report that: “The government’s approach is shifting towards looking at how the act operates rather than mounting a full-frontal attack on its existence” (Former appeal court judge to lead UK review of Human Rights Act, 7 December).
It is undermining by stealth that is happening here. The HRA has long been a target of the Eurosceptic right. But the Conservatives’ position has, in recent years, mutated from direct political aggression to creating ambiguity and chipping away at its democratic legitimacy.
The UK’s effort to diminish the influence of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) brings to light an ahistorical, counterintuitive approach to international law; Winston Churchill played an influential role in the creation of the convention, while British lawyers were central to its drafting. To this well-known historic paradox, we can add two serious contemporary inconsistencies inherent in the announcement of this review.
First, its terms of reference frame the review against a politically polarised backdrop – concerning how it allows the judiciary to usurp the power of the executive for instance – but fail to ask the cardinal question of whether the HRA has effectively protected individual rights in the UK (which it has). Second, the review is out of tune with the need to commit to the ECHR as an essential element in any future partnership with the EU.
Michel Barnier has previously said that non-commitment to the ECHR was a “grave” concern for the EU. Will he take notice of this new threat to the convention?
Prof Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos
Head of Department of Law, Goldsmiths, University of London
