As tensions rise outside Europe, nine European Union (EU) countries want to change Europe’s main human rights law to make it easier to deport foreign nationals.

Austria, Italy, and Denmark are leading the push, but critics warned that this could turn the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) into a political tool and weaken long-standing promises to protect asylum seekers and keep families together.

Austria declares EU asylum rules broken

Austria sparked the debate. New Chancellor Christian Stocker called the EU’s asylum rules “no longer fit for purpose” and blamed family reunification rights for youth crime and crowded schools.

“We all agree that the laws that we have now no longer correspond to their original intention,” Stocker said, insisting that the bloc must return to “the roots” of refugee law so it serves those in actual need.

His government has already pushed for stricter national laws to limit family reunification, accusing the EU of not understanding what’s happening on the ground.

The issue has fueled public frustration, especially as Austria’s foreign-born population grew to 1.73 million in 2023, about 19% of the country.

Nine countries unite to pressure Europe’s top court

Austria wasn’t alone. A few days later, Italy and Denmark joined seven other EU countries—Belgium, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Czech Republic—in signing an open letter to Europe’s human rights bodies.

The letter called for “a new and open-minded conversation” on how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied, especially when it comes to deporting foreign nationals convicted of crimes.

“We need more freedom to act,” the leaders wrote. “The world has changed fundamentally since many of our ideas were conceived. Migration happens on a completely different scale now.”

They argued that the ECHR in Strasbourg had moved away from the convention’s original intent. While they claimed to support democracy, they warned that strict legal interpretations were making it harder for national governments to keep public order.

Critics warn against politicizing human rights

The backlash was swift.

Council of Europe Secretary-General Alain Berset, whose office oversees the ECHR, warned the nine nations against “politicizing the Court.”

In a sharply worded statement, Berset said, “No judiciary should face political pressure… The court must not be weaponized—neither against governments, nor by them.”

Berset emphasized that all 46 Council of Europe member states, including the EU’s 27, had freely signed the Convention. Undermining its authority, he warned, could destabilize the foundation of Europe’s rule of law.

Legal scholars echoed this concern. “It’s not a legal way of participating in discussions,” said Basak Cali, a professor of international human rights law at Oxford.

She called the letter “more of a political act,” noting that courts cannot be told how to rule in advance.

What the Convention actually says

The European Convention on Human Rights, drafted after World War II, guarantees essential liberties: the right to life, freedom of expression, and a ban on torture, slavery, and discrimination.

All member states must follow their rulings, enforced by the ECHR.

However, the recent political push targets Article 8, the right to family life, which has long been central to rulings against forced deportations.

States like Denmark and Italy argued that this clause now prevents them from expelling individuals who pose security threats or have committed serious crimes.

Underlying causes, broader concerns

While irregular migration into Europe declined by 38% in 2024 compared to the previous year, political rhetoric remains sharp.

Germany, for example, has seen a drop in first-time asylum applications, yet border security and deportation continue to dominate political discourse.

Migration’s place in national debates is also strategic. Political analysts believed that these public demands aim to tap into voter fears ahead of upcoming elections.

“It’s a political message meant to resonate with constituents,” said Alberto-Horst Neidhardt of the European Policy Centre. “But in the longer term, it just keeps migration stuck in a polarized narrative.”

Legal roadblocks frustrate state policies

The ECHR has thwarted several national efforts in recent years. Italy’s proposal to house asylum seekers in Albania ran into legal challenges.

Denmark, too, was ordered to revise its restrictive family reunification policies. Meanwhile, the UK’s Rwanda deportation plan remains grounded after the court’s intervention.

Even critics of the court acknowledged the issue’s complexity.

“European law doesn’t block countries from expelling threats,” Neidhardt said. “The problem is fragmented cooperation—between EU states and with origin countries who won’t take back their citizens.”

Rising barriers for travelers, migrants

As Austria and eight other EU nations push for a reinterpretation of migration-related human rights protections, travelers and migrants may face growing uncertainty.

While short-term visitors under the upcoming European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) may not be directly impacted, long-term visitors and migrants could encounter stricter family reunification rules and heightened deportation risks.

These developments signal a harsher climate for those seeking to settle in the EU, potentially complicating visa renewals and residence permits under Schengen policies.

From humanitarian commitment to political calculus

The open letter by nine EU countries signals a broader shift in the bloc’s immigration philosophy—from one rooted in legal guarantees to a more discretionary, state-driven model.

This coordinated call to reinterpret the European Convention on Human Rights could erode the binding power of rulings from the Strasbourg court, paving the way for individualized national policies.

Critics warned that this politicization undermines judicial independence and risks fracturing EU-wide standards on asylum and deportation.

Human rights or national control?

As EU nations clash over the scope of migration laws, the debate is no longer just about policy but about the soul of European democracy itself.

While governments push for more leeway in expelling migrants, critics warned of a slippery slope that could erode the very rights the continent once vowed to uphold.

In the end, Europe’s reckoning may not lie in courts or conventions, but in the values its leaders choose to protect.