Law, politics, and the draft Brighton Declaration – Dr Mark Elliott

9 March 2012 by

The European Convention (via CoE)

This is the third in a series of posts analysing the UK’s draft “Brighton Declaration” on European Court of Human Rights reform.

Although not a “supreme law bill of rights”, the Human Rights Act 1998 is a significant constraint upon the political-legislative process. In this post, I argue that the extent of that constraint would likely diminish were the draft Brighton Declaration implemented in its present form.

At present, the Human Rights Act (HRA) serves two distinctive and important “bridging functions”. On the horizontal (national) plane, it operates as an interface between legal and political notions of constitutionalism: although the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is formally undisturbed, the HRA reduces the political scope for legislative interference with rights by making the ECHR a benchmark by reference to which legislation falls to be judicially assessed – and condemned, via a declaration of incompatibility, if found wanting.

Meanwhile, on the vertical plane, the HRA creates a site of interaction between national law and politics, on the one hand, and international law, in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), on the other. In this way, the Act brings into focus the tension between the binding nature of the Convention rights in international law and the legal freedom of the UK Parliament to override those rights as a matter of national law.

It is in the interaction of its horizontal and vertical bridging effects that the potency of the HRA lies: the political pressure exerted by a legal judgment that yields a declaration of incompatibility is attributable in part to the fact that, for all that such a declaration is non-binding in terms of national law, it identifies a breach by the UK of norms that are binding upon it in international law. This helps to explain why, for instance, declarations of incompatibility routinely result in remedial legislative action.

The HRA thus enables norms that are binding in international law to penetrate the domestic sphere, thereby eroding the distinction between the legal and political realms erected by the orthodox notion of legislative supremacy. But it follows that the potency of the HRA model is conditional upon the Convention rights possessing real bite – a condition that is satisfied through the capacity of the ECtHR, as ultimate and authoritative adjudicator upon the meaning of the ECHR, to imbue the Convention rights with a legal crispness and practical force that international human rights norms do not inevitably possess. Yet three interlocking features of the draft Brighton Declaration would, if implemented, reduce the Court’s ability to discharge such a role.

The draft Brighton Declaration

First, the draft Declaration refers to and emphasizes the notion of “subsidiary”, states’ “considerable” margin of appreciation, and the ECtHR’s secondary role of determining whether that margin has been exceeded. It therefore appears that cases that got as far as the Court would, under the Declaration, be less likely to result in a judgment adverse to the state party. In that sense, the Convention rights would be rendered less concrete, or less demanding.

Second, the Court would be enabled to deliver “advisory opinions”: “point[s] of interpretation” could be referred to it by national courts, the former’s role being to “give its opinion on the point of interpretation” while “leaving it to the national court to apply this to the facts of the case”. But such opinions would “not be binding”, and would be somewhat abstract: they would yield no concrete pronouncement about the compatibility of the relevant national law. And although the advisory opinion regime would not replace the right of individual petition, that right would not be exercisable by the individual concerned where the opinion had been “applied” by the national court.

Third, fewer cases would reach the court at all. Article 35 ECHR would be amended “to make clear that”, absent exceptional circumstances, an application is inadmissible “if it is the same in substance as a matter that has been examined by a national court taking into account the rights guaranteed by the Convention”. Exceptional circumstances would be those in which a national court had “clearly erred”, and those in which the case raised “a serious question”, concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention rights.

Possible implications for the UK

What would be the implications of these changes for domestic protection of human rights via the HRA? For one thing, the force of a declaration of incompatibility would probably be less than at present. If the declaration were issued in the wake of an ECtHR advisory opinion, it might be open to the Government to contend that that Court would not have concluded (had the matter reached it otherwise than via the advisory route) that domestic law or practice was not actually incompatible.

Moreover, the individual concerned would presumably be unable decisively to challenge that view because once the Strasbourg Court had issued an advisory opinion that had been applied in domestic legal proceedings, the Court’s door would be closed. Even if the proposed advisory jurisdiction were not in play, a declaration of incompatibility’s potency would potentially be diminished by the proposed revisions to the admissibility criteria: since the matter would already have been examined by a national court, an application to the ECtHR would, absent exceptional circumstances, be inadmissible. And underpinning all of this would be the renewed emphasis on the ECtHR’s subsidiary role and the “considerable” width of the margin of appreciation.

Taken together, these changes would result in Convention rights taking on a less obviously prescriptive character. Lighter-touch review by a harder-to-access Court some of whose judgments would become non-binding would render the content of the rights more contestable: the Convention regime’s capacity to imbue the HRA with real legal bite would be reduced, and it would be correspondingly easier for Government to argue that the ECtHR might not see things in the same way as the domestic court, while enjoying the luxury of a procedural regime that reduced the likelihood of the ECtHR actually pronouncing upon the concrete issue.

The Declaration, if implemented, would also supply greater scope for “reform” (by which its proponents often mean “dilution”) of the HRA, whether via its replacement with a “UK Bill of Rights” or otherwise. As I have argued (here and, with others, here), such scope is presently limited by the fact the Convention rights constitute a legal bottom line that no amount of reform on the domestic level can shift. However, the Brighton proposals, while not moving that bottom line as such, would make it a less practically rigid one.

As an interface between the domestic and ECHR legal systems, the HRA’s potency turns, to a large extent, on the nature of the Convention regime. And as a bridge between the realms of (human rights) law and (legislative) politics, the HRA’s capacity to facilitate the disruption of the latter by the former depends, in large part, upon the obligatory character of the transnational regime for which the Act serves as a conduit.

While the proposed reforms would have implications across Europe, they might have particular significance in the UK, where the Convention serves as the closest approximation there is to a constitutional bill of rights. Against that background, the Brighton process deserves the sort of scrutiny that would – in any country with a “normal” constitution – accompany a proposal to amend the constitution itself.

Mark Elliott is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Cambridge. A longer version of this post can be found on the UK Constitutional Law Group Blog.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more


  1. John D says:

    I think Mark Elliott has raised some important points, though there is one area he may not have had time to comment upon. I refer to the applicability of the ECHR to other countries, in particular, those countries wanting membership of various European bodies. I do not kid myself that these regimes experience a change of heart overnight but they are forced into behaving more humanely and decently if they wish to join the countries of Europe, as they will be expected to live up to the standards of the ECHR. Weaken the ECHR and we weaken not just the application of human rights to our own society but also – and probably much more seriously – we weaken the resolve of those countries seeking relationships with European countries, as well as weaken the strength of their own dissidents to insist upon ECHR standards in their own countries.

  2. mike farrell says:

    So basically what you are saying is that the government is carrying out an attack on the value if the convention on two fronts; firstly by way of the proposed replacement of the HRA with a bill of rights, and secondly by undermining the power of the ECtHR by way of the Brighton declaration to have oversight on interpretation by limiting the possibility of cases to actually get to the court. At the endof the day, this is what it is about; weakening the availability of convention rights to the people of the UK by way of twisted media driven false rhetoric and lies regarding the convention. IMO the government are taking an incredibly selfish and short sighted political line of attack on this (which is likely purposeful given that the conservatives have always disliked the idea of the law being enforced against the state) and we really need to address this issue not just from a UK perspective, but from one which takes into account the wider effect that these proposed changes could have throughout the European sector. Lets face it, despite the governments manouvering just now, we are still a country that largely upholds human rights to a very high standard. The same cannot however be said for all other Euro states and signatories to the convention who would ALL be affected by the proposed amendments, including for example Russia and the former USSR states who arguably require more international oversight than less. Clearly the Brighton proposals could have a more far reaching and damaging effect than simply the politically intended loosening of access to rights in the UK which is the true motivation behind them. I can only hope the Council does the right thing and says ‘no’.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: