As European governments face growing pressure to curb irregular migration and increase deportations, a new declaration adopted by all 46 members of the Council of Europe is triggering alarm among human rights groups, which warn it could weaken long-standing protections for migrants and refugees.
Supporters say the Chisinau Declaration, adopted by foreign ministers in the Moldovan capital in May, merely clarifies how the European human rights system should operate in migration cases and reaffirms states' right to control their borders. Critics, however, argue it risks creating a two-tier system of rights and increasing political pressure on courts to interpret protections more narrowly.
The declaration comes amid a broader shift in European migration policy. Several governments have called for tougher deportation measures, while countries including Italy have experimented with controversial arrangements to process or return migrants outside their borders.
Supporters say the declaration seeks to clarify how migration policies should be applied nationally within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, the treaty underpinning the continent's human rights system.
Supporters say the move responds to increasingly complex migration challenges.
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot described the declaration as "a new political framework" that would help governments deport offenders while remaining faithful to the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights.
EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner similarly called it "an important step" toward a more coherent European migration policy, saying it reinforces a "fair and robust migration framework in Europe."
Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset said the declaration would help guide national authorities and domestic courts while preserving the integrity of the European human rights system.
"Crucially, we have been able to bring together countries across Europe, with different views and experiences, to agree a common position on how the system should work best, notably in the challenging context of migration," Berset said in a statement.
Human rights organizations have reacted very differently.
Adriana Tidona, a migration researcher at Amnesty International, described the declaration as "a really dark day for Europe."
She argued that it risks creating a two-tier system in which human rights protections could be applied differently to migrants and refugees than to other groups.
"It undermines the principle of non-discrimination and universal application of human rights to everyone, irrespective of nationality, irrespective of race, ethnicity and migration status," Tidona told Anadolu.
Judith Sunderland, senior associate director in the Refugees and Migrants Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, said the declaration reflected a broader effort by some governments to weaken safeguards for migrants.
"This is a deliberate attack on the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights by governments pushing for a politicized interpretation of the convention to justify harmful policies," Sunderland said.
Both organizations warned that introducing exceptions for migrants could eventually weaken rights protections more broadly.
A key point of contention concerns Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment without exception.
However, the declaration states that the threshold for treatment to qualify as inhuman or degrading should remain "high and constant," while avoiding what it describes as “unnecessary constraints on decisions to extradite or to expel foreign nationals.”
Human rights groups fear that language could make it easier for governments to deport people to countries where they face serious risks.
Tidona said the provision could undermine the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee law that prohibits returning people to places where they could face persecution, torture or other serious harm.
"It's equally absolute and shouldn't be breached, shouldn't be interfered with under any circumstances," she said.
The declaration has also drawn attention for its references to so-called instrumentalized migration, in which migrants are allegedly encouraged or facilitated by hostile states or other actors to cross borders for political purposes.
Tidona noted that the European Court of Human Rights is still considering cases related to the issue.
"By addressing instrumentalization while these cases are pending, the declaration risks again undermining or interfering unduly with the independent decision-making of the court," she said.
Critics have also raised concerns about references to return hubs – facilities in third countries where rejected asylum seekers or migrants can be sent while awaiting removal.
The concept gained prominence after Italy established migrant facilities in Albania, a model that some European governments have viewed with interest and that rights groups have strongly criticized.
Tidona said previous attempts to establish similar arrangements had faced serious operational and human rights concerns.
Legal experts and rights advocates stress that the declaration does not change the law.
Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights itself, the Chisinau Declaration is a political document and carries no binding legal force.
"No political attack or declaration can change the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights sets out clear human rights obligations and the court's jurisprudence is binding on member states," Sunderland said.
Tidona similarly emphasized that courts cannot use the declaration to override the convention.
"They can invoke it, but it wouldn't be decisive for them to achieve a more expansive interpretation of the convention," she said.
Even so, both warned that the declaration could influence future political debates and place indirect pressure on courts and policymakers.
"We have had several declarations in the past 20 years, including on migration. They are significant in that they inform the political discussion and they can inform policy decisions," Tidona said.
The dispute over the declaration reflects a broader political battle unfolding across Europe.
Migration has become one of the continent's most contentious issues, helping fuel support for anti-immigration and right-wing parties while prompting governments across the political spectrum to seek tougher border controls and faster deportations.
For human rights groups, however, the concern extends beyond migration policy itself.
"At a time when the rules-based order is under attack, European leaders should be shoring up European institutions that defend those rules, not trying to weaken them," Sunderland said.
Tidona argued that periods of instability are precisely when strong human rights protections are most needed.
"There is a very strong sense of insecurity, and these are really the times where we need human rights the most. We don't need to weaken human rights protection," she said.
Tidona also argued that there is an increasing tendency to portray human rights as an obstacle to public security measures.
“It is a very myopic approach to instead start limiting human rights, because we feel that security is something we need to prioritize at the expense of human rights,” she said.
She pointed to what she described as a recurring tendency to undermine the authority of the European Convention on Human Rights, including calls to abandon it or portray it as a mechanism that limits states’ powers.
“There is a broad threat to the rule of law, to the international human rights system, and we do hope that in the response and follow-up to this political declaration, states remember that and act accordingly,” Tidona said.
news_share_descriptionsubscription_contact
