As the ECHR marks 75 years, calls to leave divide politicians and campaigners
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) marks its 75th anniversary today, as Britain’s continued membership in the treaty becomes a defining point of political debate for the first time since it was signed.
The milestone commemorates the moment when 12 European nations, including the United Kingdom, signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on 4 November 1950. The agreement remains one of the most significant legal instruments shaping modern human rights protection across Europe.
To mark the anniversary, Liberty issued a joint statement with nearly 300 organisations, including several law firms and advocacy groups such as the End Violence Against Women Coalition, celebrating “the many ways the convention has helped ordinary people”.
Sam Grant, Liberty’s director of external relations, said the Convention’s legacy was central to preserving fundamental freedoms in everyday life.
Embed from Getty Images
“For decades our human rights laws have underpinned all of our daily lives by giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want, and live in peace,” he said. “These rights were hard-won and we must not allow governments now or in the future to take them away.”
The anniversary has also reignited discussion about the UK’s long-term commitment to the Convention, which is incorporated into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
During his inaugural ‘Justice for All’ lecture at London’s Central Criminal Court, former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury praised the Convention as a turning point in global justice.
“It was the first instrument to give effect to certain rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and make them binding,” he said.
Lord Neuberger emphasised that judges play a crucial role in upholding human rights protections by interpreting the Convention independently of government influence.
“Judges have to be involved in deciding the contents of the human rights and whether the human right has been infringed,” he said. “No good giving people rights if they can’t enforce them — and the only effective way rights can be interpreted and enforced is by independent tribunals.”
He warned that allowing the government to determine outcomes in such cases would undermine judicial independence.
“It would be a travesty if the government decided such cases because most human rights cases are against the government,” he said. “If politicians do not like the way judges are developing the law, they can change the law through Parliament.”
Turning to the prospect of leaving the Convention, Lord Neuberger said such a move would isolate the UK from most of Europe.
“It may be a cheap point, but I would suggest much is revealed about you by the company that you keep — and if we left the ECHR we would be joining Russia and Belarus, which are currently the only two European countries not party to the convention.”
The issue of withdrawal resurfaced in the House of Commons last week during a heated debate between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey. Introducing the European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) Bill under the ten-minute rule, Farage said that leaving the treaty would “restore the power of this Parliament”.
Davey rejected the proposal, warning that “leaving the convention would be another nail in the coffin of Britain’s unique soft power”.
The bill was ultimately defeated by 154 votes to 96, but the debate reflected how the question of the UK’s ECHR membership has moved into mainstream political discourse.
Writing in The Spectator, Professor Andrew Tettenborn of Swansea University noted that the vote represented a significant shift.
“Human rights lawyers may not like it, but there is now no going back to the days of passive acceptance of the ECHR as a fact of life,” he wrote.
As the ECHR enters its 76th year, its future within the UK legal framework remains uncertain — caught between its historic legacy and a growing political challenge to its place in British law.