European countries, including the UK, have agreed to negotiate a new approach to the continent's main human rights treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with the goal of making it easier to deport illegal migrants. This move follows a meeting of justice ministers in Strasbourg and widespread calls from some nations to adapt the ECHR for modern challenges. The 46 nations party to the convention are now set to develop a "political declaration" on the matter, aiming for its adoption at a summit scheduled for next May.

This push comes amid significant political pressure, particularly from parties like the Conservatives and Reform UK in Britain, who advocate for a complete withdrawal from the ECHR. In contrast, Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government has rejected withdrawal, proposing instead changes to how the ECHR operates in practice, especially regarding its interpretation by British courts. Membership in the ECHR has become a central point of contention in debates surrounding small boat crossings in the English Channel, with critics arguing that a streamlined process for returning failed asylum seekers would deter irregular journeys. Ahead of the Strasbourg meeting, Sir Keir Starmer, in a joint article with Danish leader Mette Frederiksen, emphasized the urgent need for changes to counter "the forces of hate and division" across Europe.

Alain Berset, the head of the Council of Europe, which supervises the convention, clarified after the meeting that signatory countries are not currently seeking to rewrite the treaty itself. He described the discussions as the beginning of a consensus-based process, highlighting that previous political declarations had enabled countries to address common challenges effectively. The specifics of any agreement and its practical impact on migration cases across Europe will be crucial. Labour has already outlined plans to restrict asylum seekers' ability to use the ECHR's "right to family life" clause to avoid deportation from the UK. Critics assert the ECHR hinders the removal of illegal migrants, while supporters contend its role in migration cases is overstated. The Strasbourg talks focused on Article 8, which safeguards the right to family life, and Article 3, which prohibits inhumane treatment – articles critics argue complicate migrant deportations.

In a joint statement, 27 ECHR countries, including the UK, expressed their desire for the concept of inhumane treatment to be "constrained to the most serious issues." This would enable states to make "proportionate" decisions concerning the removal of foreign criminals. Furthermore, they aim to amend the right to family life so that foreign criminals' social, cultural, and family ties are given "less weight" during removal considerations. These discussions were prompted by calls for reform from nine Council of Europe members, led by Italy and Denmark, in a letter from May. Although the UK did not sign this open letter, it has been actively lobbying for reform talks behind the scenes. The contentious nature of ECHR membership in the UK has led both the Conservatives and Reform UK to pledge withdrawal if they win the next election, with Kemi Badenoch calling it a necessary step, though not a "silver bullet." Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey opposes such a move, arguing the convention " upholds our freedom" and its abandonment would fail to "stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system." Should a political declaration be achieved, it could mark one of the most significant reforms to human rights law application in the convention's 75-year history.

In parallel, the European Union has launched a renewed push against illegal migration, combining stricter asylum rules, easier deportations, and sanctions against smugglers. EU countries recently agreed upon three controversial laws designed to accelerate asylum procedures and increase returns, while the European Commission announced a new sanctions regime targeting people-smugglers. These actions reflect a bolder stance by the EU in recent years, aligning its policies with positions previously associated with far-right parties.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the development of a stringent new sanctions regime in coordination with G7 partners. The objective is to "bankrupt their businesses through all means available," including freezing smugglers’ assets and imposing travel bans. This announcement was made at the International Conference of the Global Alliance to Counter Migrant Smuggling in Brussels, attended by over 80 delegations. This initiative follows a commitment von der Leyen made during her State of the Union speech. The Commission is currently consulting EU member states to formulate concrete proposals for this sanctions regime, which aims to deprive smugglers and traffickers of their profits and restrict their movement. Concurrently, over 50 delegations endorsed a joint declaration built on three pillars: preventing migrant smuggling through stronger national frameworks and information exchange; developing alternatives to illegal migration; and intensifying financial investigations to trace, seize, and confiscate smuggling proceeds. EU Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner stressed the necessity of global cooperation to effectively combat smugglers.

The EU is also pursuing a clear strategy to complicate irregular migrants' entry into Europe and simplify their deportation. The EU Council recently agreed on three major legislative changes, pending negotiation with the European Parliament for final approval. The first is the return regulation, which would permit EU member states to establish "return hubs" in third non-EU countries. These hubs could house rejected asylum seekers or serve as "transit hubs" before migrants are returned to their countries of origin, a practice Italy is already implementing with centers in Albania. Such hubs could also become a "final destination" if the third country accepts non-nationals and adheres to human rights standards. While designed to expedite returns, critics warn these hubs could expose migrants to risks in countries with which they have no connections. Even asylum seekers could find themselves in unrelated countries under another new law.

A second legislative change involves an expansion of the "safe third country" concept, which would broaden the conditions under which an asylum application can be deemed inadmissible. This would enable EU states to deport asylum seekers to third countries with which they lack any direct link, provided those countries have an agreement with an EU state and uphold human rights standards. This framework would allow EU governments to implement schemes reminiscent of the UK's abandoned Rwanda deportation policy. The third law agreed by member states would create a list of "safe countries of origin" for asylum purposes, including Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, and Tunisia, alongside most current candidate countries for EU membership (excluding Ukraine). Nationals from these countries would retain the right to apply for asylum in EU member states, but their applications would be processed via fast-track procedures.

These new measures have drawn sharp criticism from leftist groups within the European Parliament and civil society organizations. Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum for Amnesty International, expressed concerns that ideas such as "return hubs" or offshore deportation centers could put individuals at risk of refoulement, torture, or arbitrary detention, noting that the European Commission itself voiced similar concerns in 2018. She questioned the Commission's current view that these ideas comply with EU law and human rights standards. According to data from Frontex, irregular crossings of EU borders fell by 22% in recent reporting periods, with significant declines observed on routes from Western African shores to the Canary Islands, in the Western Balkan area, and at the border with Belarus.