obliquely to Article 8 of the Convention, the right to respect for family life. Criminals facing deportation often argue that being separated from their families would breach this right, as interpreted by the Strasbourg court in past rulings.
HMG has also expressed concern about the interpretation of article 8. Hermer told Parliament’s Human Rights (Joint Committee) in March that the government should be robust in appealing decisions that it doesn’t like, and that there should be a common understanding as to the breadth of Article 8.
And in his RUSI speech, Hermer called for the renewed focus on subsidiarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, that "the primary responsibility for upholding human rights rests on national authorities, and that the role of the Court is a supervisory one which only need be invoked when the national system for protecting those rights has failed. That focus on subsidiarity, properly understood as a duty on states to implement, revives the importance of political discussion and debate about human rights which is so vital to preserving their democratic legitimacy. International law cannot and must not replace politics".
Despite Berset’s attempt to protect the human rights judges from political lobbying, they may well prove sensitive to the political realities facing the states from which they are drawn.
Concerning the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, all anyone can say reading it - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf - is that Ukraine was foolish in the extreme in signing it. There is not even a Chamberlain-like security guarantee, but there is permission given to use nuclear weapons, which in Ukraine's case was to be impossible because it would not have any!
Non-democratic states have further confounded the issue by adopting and adapting all of the forms and 'practices' of democratic states - I once analyzed the brand new "constitution" offered by Mobutu in Zaire/Congo back in the 1970s and demonstrated that if you followed its language closely all power remained in his hands even as a new parliament was elected and seated, etc.
It is precisely because international law has stopped working and the West has replaced this law with rules. When the United States and Europe provoked a coup in Ukraine, abolished the Russian language and the church, and launched a terrorist war against their own citizens, Russia was forced to intervene.
On ECHR, I don't think there's any disagreement between what you, the 9, and His Majesty's Government are saying.
The 9 were referring - https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Lettera_aperta_22052025.pdf -
obliquely to Article 8 of the Convention, the right to respect for family life. Criminals facing deportation often argue that being separated from their families would breach this right, as interpreted by the Strasbourg court in past rulings.
HMG has also expressed concern about the interpretation of article 8. Hermer told Parliament’s Human Rights (Joint Committee) in March that the government should be robust in appealing decisions that it doesn’t like, and that there should be a common understanding as to the breadth of Article 8.
In May, Yvette Cooper published a policy document that reflected the 9's concerns, to clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as 'exceptional' - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821f334ced319d02c906103/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-web-optimised.pdf
And in his RUSI speech, Hermer called for the renewed focus on subsidiarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, that "the primary responsibility for upholding human rights rests on national authorities, and that the role of the Court is a supervisory one which only need be invoked when the national system for protecting those rights has failed. That focus on subsidiarity, properly understood as a duty on states to implement, revives the importance of political discussion and debate about human rights which is so vital to preserving their democratic legitimacy. International law cannot and must not replace politics".
Despite Berset’s attempt to protect the human rights judges from political lobbying, they may well prove sensitive to the political realities facing the states from which they are drawn.
Concerning the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, all anyone can say reading it - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf - is that Ukraine was foolish in the extreme in signing it. There is not even a Chamberlain-like security guarantee, but there is permission given to use nuclear weapons, which in Ukraine's case was to be impossible because it would not have any!
Non-democratic states have further confounded the issue by adopting and adapting all of the forms and 'practices' of democratic states - I once analyzed the brand new "constitution" offered by Mobutu in Zaire/Congo back in the 1970s and demonstrated that if you followed its language closely all power remained in his hands even as a new parliament was elected and seated, etc.
It is precisely because international law has stopped working and the West has replaced this law with rules. When the United States and Europe provoked a coup in Ukraine, abolished the Russian language and the church, and launched a terrorist war against their own citizens, Russia was forced to intervene.