Britain and the European Convention on Human Rights

23 March 2015
Next up in our Britain & Europe Series: Should we think of the ECHR as undermining decisions of democratically elected governments or as placing the sorts of limitations on governments required to protect human rights? Organised with the UCL Institute for Human Rights.

Speakers

• Andrea Coomber (Director of JUSTICE)
• Dr Simon Heffer (The Daily Mail)
• Professor Philippe Sands (UCL, Matrix)
• Chair: Joshua Rozenberg (legal commentator and journalist)

• The event will be introduced by Dr. Virginia Mantouvalou, co-director of the UCL Institute for Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has come under attack in recent years. Critics suggest that the Court has gone too far in the interpretation of human rights, in a way that shows disrespect for decisions of democratically elected governments. The Court has also been criticised for micromanaging situations that should be left to national authorities to decide.

Proponents of the European human rights system, on the other hand, argue that the Convention is a living instrument, and that the Court is correctly placing limitations to what a democratically elected government can do, and that the fact that the Court is not democratically accountable is a strength in the area of human rights protection.

In this public debate, we will address both aspects of the debate and assess the arguments advanced. We will also consider the question whether the UK needs its own British Bill of Rights.

• Image credit: Adrian Grycuk, licensed under CC