0
0
Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has told EU leaders to prepare for a first political debate on reforming the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the coming months in what would be a major step forward towards changing the international rules on migration.
She set out a plan to reform the ECHR so that it can meet modern-day challenges linked to illegal immigration, such as people-smuggling gangs.
Meloni announced a meeting in Brussels on Thursday, October 23rd, ahead of the European Council summit, to discuss issues ranging from the deportation of migrants convicted of crimes to other innovative solutions to illegal migration. The informal meeting was attended by leaders from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), part of the Council of Europe, was established to enforce the ECHR, which has been criticised for tying European governments’ hands on illegal immigration. For example, Meloni’s Albania Plan, under which migrants picked up in the Mediterranean would be processed in non-EU member Albania, has been mired in legal difficulties. Denmark also reached an agreement with Rwanda to process asylum seekers, but the deal remains on hold amid concerns over possible legal barriers, including the ECHR. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is preparing to send failed asylum seekers to Uganda in a plan also expected to face legal challenges.
Giorgia Meloni has previously stated that this is the right moment to review international conventions and ensure their implementation reflects today’s realities of illegal migration—challenges that were unimaginable when those conventions were written and signed by Italy.
In her recent speech to the UN General Assembly, Meloni pointed out that:
“These rules were established at a time when mass irregular migration did not exist and nor did human traffickers. … These conventions are no longer current in this context, and, when they are interpreted in an ideological and one-sided way by politicised judges, they end up trampling on the law rather than upholding it”.
