The Japan Times - Europe ministers meet on migration 'challenges' to rights convention

In May, nine EU states including Denmark, Italy and Poland urged a rethink over interpretation of the accord, echoing concerns long aired by non-EU member the United Kingdom.

The Council of Europe was set up in the wake of World War II as the guardian of human rights in Europe, with its member states -- who now number 46 -- signing up to its European Convention on Human Rights. Its implementation is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights, an instance of last resort.

But several states now argue that the convention and rulings of the court are acting as a brake in the fight against illegal migration and want the interpretation of the convention to be modernised.

Writing in Britain's Guardian daily Wednesday, UK premier Keir Starmer and Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen said the ministers meeting in Strasbourg would "push for a modernisation of the interpretation" of the convention so that it can "evolve to reflect the challenges of the 21st century".

- Court 'our bedrock' -

Speaking to the ministers, Council of Europe secretary general Alain Berset, who convened the meeting, described the convention as a "living instrument". He acknowledged that some states believed the court's interpretation "has limited their political discretion in certain situations".

The "challenges" posed by illegal migration are "real and legitimate", he said, while describing the court as "our bedrock" and saying the meeting was aimed at "strengthening the integrity of the convention system".

UK Justice Minister David Lammy, who is also Starmer's deputy, said "it is important that we work together and achieve consensus in the coming weeks on the interpretation as it relates to irregular migration, which is a concern right across the European family".

ECHR rulings on migration issues have irked several European governments in recent years, including emergency injunctions that on occasion blocked deportations at the last minute.

A particular concern of these member states is the interpretation of the convention article on right to a private and family life, and how this risks being used to prevent removal of individuals who these states say have no right to remain.

The court has issued multiple judgements against Italy over its treatment of migrants, while Britain under the previous Conservative government saw its scheme to deport migrants to Rwanda run afoul of the ECHR.

K.Yoshida--JT