Politicians playing political football with European Court of Human Rights to gain anti-migrant votes

Victims of abuse by institutions and by the British Army have got justice in the Strasbourg court. Why is the Irish Government playing politics with it asks Andrew Forde

Thirty-eight applications were lodged against Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights (pictured) in 2025 and 22 in 2024, all of which were inadmissible or struck out.

Recently, the 46 member states of the Council of Europe (which is not the EU), met in Chişinău, Moldova, to discuss some of Europe’s most pressing human rights issues. 

These include the possible establishment of a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression to hold the Russian (and possibly Belarussian and North Korean) leadership accountable for the invasion of Ukraine, alongside steps to secure financial reparations. 

Ireland has been a steadfast supporter of these accountability efforts and formally signed up to an international claims commission to help compensate potentially millions of war victims in Ukraine.

States also issued a Declaration on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system in the context of migration. Some states, in particular the UK, Denmark and Italy, have argued that human rights laws limit states’ options in how to deal with migration, including the capacity to deport foreign criminals. Not so.

In reality, the European Court of Human Rights recognises states' responsibilities to manage their borders and to apply the ECHR in this context and grants states an expansive “margin of appreciation”. 

Though a tiny minority of specific cases have attracted attention elsewhere and are often misrepresented, Ireland is largely unaffected by the court except when it really matters to us.

Thirty-eight applications were lodged against Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights in 2025 and 22 in 2024, all of which were inadmissible or struck out. Currently, out of over 50,000 pending applications, four concern Ireland. 

Again, most if not all of these will fail. In fact, the Strasbourg court has never found Ireland in violation of the Convention regarding its migration or deportation policies.

But the ECHR has been a catalyst for hugely positive progress in Irish society over the years, from supporting justice for victims of institutional abuse, to equality and access to legal aid, not to mention serving as the backbone of the Good Friday Agreement and supporting Ireland’s efforts to prevent the UK from imposing blanket impunity for British state action in Northern Ireland during ‘the Troubles’. 

It seems irrational for Ireland to seek to weaken a system that has been objectively such a force for good for Irish society. Yet, Ireland joined 45 other states in calling on the court to keep its nose out of national policy, dressed up as a call for “guidance” from the court.

The politics of migration issues

So, if the court is not the problem, why did Ireland support the Chişinău Declaration? Something else is at play — politics.

The Government seems to be trying to appease the growing anti-migrant constituency, based on an ill-informed logic that showing action against migration will prevent a real right-wing party from developing. 

It may also feel that siding with the UK on this issue will reduce the risk of it leaving the ECHR altogether, which is now official policy of Reform UK and the Tories. 

Yet, empirical evidence shows that edging to the right doesn’t help achieve your policy objectives, it strengthens theirs.

Much like the childhood game where kids draw a character bit by bit in covered sections, the final declaration emerged as a fractured hodgepodge of lofty commitments, double speak and dangerous precedents. 

As a product of compromise, its contradictions are striking, offering the hollow comfort that states remain committed to Europe’s human rights system on the one hand, whilst at the same time conflating migration with threats to public safety, and apparently misrepresenting domestic public policy challenges as being of the court’s making.

The declaration is not legally binding, but it is likely to influence the European Court of Human Rights and guide national authorities’ application of the ECHR. 

Rising anti-migrant sentiment

An optimist would say it will have little practical impact, but this fails to appreciate its utility in shaping anti-migrant discourse and in reinforcing myths and prejudices against swathes of non-Irish nationals at a time of growing hostility in this country.

According to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 66% of non-white Irish experienced racism in a 12-month period. Street-level hostility is also demonstrably rising. 

Official Garda figures show a 12% annual spike in hate crimes, with race and nationality being the dominant drivers of these crimes. 

The increase in anti-migrant protests, violent attacks and suspected arson on people perceived as being non-Irish, reveals the insidious underbelly of some on the political right.

A formal intergovernmental declaration centred around reducing the rights of migrants, only adds further oxygen to this atmosphere of intolerance. Failing to appreciate these links, is an error of political judgment. 

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Playing along to those using the Strasbourg court as a convenient scapegoat for domestic policy challenges, is to accept rhetoric that actively erodes our social fabric, hollowing out the human rights values that have defined Irish foreign policy for decades, in a short-sighted bid to appease the right. 

And to what end?

In a world of increasing disorder, the last thing we need is to erode our legal frameworks from the inside for some sort of passing electoral advantage. 

The Chişinău Declaration may have been born of political compromise, but it is incumbent on us all to ensure its legacy isn’t the slow and steady surrender of our values.

• Andrew Forde is assistant professor in European Human Rights Law at Dublin City University.