University of Leicester hosts landmark conference on ECHR amid calls for reform
Professor Katja Ziegler, Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Centre for European Law and Internationalisation (CELI) (Credit: University of Leicester)
The University of Leicester will cohost a high-level conference marking the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Partnering with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the University of Leicester's Centre for European Law and Internationalisation (CELI) will host ECHR and Venice Commission: Guarding Human Rights and the Rule of Law, and Facilitating Constitutional Resilience from 6 to 7 November 2025.
The conference takes place amid renewed debate over the future of the ECHR, following recent remarks by Secretary-General Alain Berset. His comments, made in response to political pressure from several European states, have sparked discussion about potential reforms to the Convention.
Professor Katja Ziegler, Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law and Co-Director of CELI, offered the following comments:
“Secretary-General Alain Berset’s recent remarks should be understood in the context of growing political pressures from several states across Europe, following the ‘letter of nine’ political leaders calling for an ‘open minded conversation’ about the scope of human rights protection in migration cases. For clear political reasons, he has to signal openness to discussion on possible reform of the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet, when examined closely, what ‘reform’ could actually mean is far from straightforward and carries considerable legal and political complexity and risk.”
She continued: “In practice, ‘reform’ could take several different forms:
-
“A political declaration, reaffirming commitment to the Convention while calling for further dialogue — largely symbolic, with little legal effect.
-
“A protocol to the Convention, which would require agreement and ratification by all Council of Europe member states to amend the ECHR. Such unanimity would be extremely difficult to achieve.
-
“Withdrawal by individual states, if there is no consensus for amendment. This would represent a serious rupture in Europe’s post-war legal order, triggering highly undesirable dynamics of fragmentation and regression in human rights protection to the detriment of all states and people within them.”
Professor Ziegler stressed the importance of recognising the Convention’s continued relevance:
“Against that background, one may argue that the ECHR is doing exactly what it was designed to do — holding governments to account under the rule of law and protecting individuals when national systems fall short. It is therefore unsurprising that states under domestic political pressure sometimes criticise it for performing its function effectively.
“It is also important to recognise that many calls for reform are being driven by a broader wave of populist and sovereigntist politics, often instrumentalising human rights as a target for domestic political gain.”
“The United Kingdom should not allow itself to be drawn into these dynamics or place itself ‘in front of that cart’. Rather, the UK should seek to mitigate the destabilising effects of such pressures and play a constructive role in preserving the integrity of the Convention system. The UK which was so instrumental in drafting the Convention should acknowledge the ECHR’s enduring importance in protecting our democracies in Europe and beyond — especially in times of crisis. That is precisely why the Convention was created: to protect democracy, the rule of law and human dignity when those principles are most under threat. That was its founding purpose, and it remains just as vital today. Domestically, it is crucial that the UK Government communicates clearly that the ECHR reflects core British values: democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance.
“While reflection on any law is always legitimate and crucial for progress, the UK should neither drive nor legitimise initiatives that risk weakening the Convention system. Instead, it should act as a stabilising and principled voice within Europe — helping to sustain a human rights framework that has, for seventy-five years, been central to protecting democracy and the rule of law across the continent.”