(This is an archived page, from the Patterns of Power Edition 3 book. Current versions are at book contents).
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was agreed in 1950, and Britain signed it at that time. It commits the signatories to comply with the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Many of the participating countries (some of which are not members of the European Union) have had legislation referred to this court from time to time.
The ECHR was given legal status in the EU by the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) enforces adherence, because that is a condition of EU membership. British appeals on human rights now go first to the ECJ – although it is still possible to appeal at a higher level, to the ECtHR.
The ECHR was formally incorporated in British law as a set of legal principles, as described in the Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (section 3):
“So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.
Before the Act was passed in the UK it had been necessary to refer all human rights cases directly to the ECtHR.
European Human Rights have always been contentious, at least in the UK, as chronicled by Lord Dyson for example in a speech at Hertfordshire University on 3 November 2011: What is wrong with human rights? He listed several cases, broadly defending the ECtHR judgements – although he accepted that it sometimes failed to take enough account of national differences. He concluded by saying:
“Some of us may consider that we have no need at all for an international court, in effect, to oversee the way in which our domestic courts interpret the Convention. I do not accept this. It is a view born of the arrogant belief that we know best and have nothing to learn from foreigners.”
Changing the Convention would be possible but would require wider agreement in Europe.