Translation of an original Opinion article published in French on lemonde.fr on 25/06/2026
The ink on the Chișinău Political Declaration is barely dry and already the political spin has begun. We have emerged from a bruising few months for the protection of human rights - a period capped by negotiations that some are already attempting to mischaracterise. To cut through the noise, we need to restate some fundamentals.
The journey from the "Letter of 9" last May to the adoption of the Chișinău Declaration last Friday has been deeply concerning, with several European governments seeking to weaken the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg Court.
Admittedly, it is a relief that, 46 states reaffirmed their “deep and abiding” commitment to the Convention, the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, the integrity of the Convention system, and core principles like the universality of rights, non-discrimination, and the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. What is more, this text represents a political consensus alone; it is not, despite widespread and misleading reporting, a reinterpretation of the Convention itself—a function that remains the sole purview of the Court.
A risk now lies in how the Chișinău Declaration will be framed. States need to avoid casting a zero-sum conflict between the public interest - such as national security - and individual rights. This false polarity places the European Court of Human Rights under pressure. We already see it at work: disguised as a demand for legal certainty, states are claiming that the Court’s case law lacks clarity on thresholds for ill-treatment in expulsion and extradition cases, or that family rights are interpreted too broadly to halt removals. This is a thinly veiled attempt to compel the Court to lower standards and chip away at absolute protections.
Now that the Declaration has been adopted, we find ourselves at a pivotal crossroads. But do our governments truly grasp what is at stake? Moving from paper commitments to reality demands a shift in narrative and a firm, unwavering determination on three fronts.
First, states must demonstrate that they will not create a hierarchy of rights-holders, one in which a human being is assigned an inferior status because they migrated or sought protection. Human rights are not a reward for good behaviour, nor are they a zero-sum game in which one group's security requires another's deprivation. They are held co-equally by everyone, by virtue of our shared humanity alone.
Second, honouring the absolute prohibition of non-refoulement will require tangible changes to some states’ laws and practices. Preventing people from applying for asylum, or taking actions that expose them to pushbacks, is unlawful. Public security cannot be wielded as a blank cheque to push people back. This applies equally to "new approaches" seeking the externalisation of asylum and return procedures, including through offshore "return hubs". Where states engage in external cooperation, they must adopt a precautionary approach underpinned by legally binding safeguards, transparency, and independent monitoring. States must not use externalisation as a loophole to evade their obligations under international human rights law.
Third, political overreach must cease. National leaders should make clear that they stand by judicial independence - not just when a judgment suits them, but equally when it does not deliver the result they had hoped for. They must also reconsider legislative proposals that would constrain national judges from applying key human rights protections in asylum and migration cases.
We are frequently told that we must yield some human rights ground to stop populists in their tracks and prevent electoral votes from drifting to the extreme right. I question this logic. Citizens are not opposed to strong human rights protections; rather, their concerns stem from a sense of alienation and disadvantage, too often amplified by manipulative political messaging.
Respect for the human rights of everyone is precisely what guarantees a safe and secure society. What we need now is to rebuild trust and deliver better human rights protection for all. If we unpick the web of protections so painstakingly constructed after the horrors of the Second World War, we set a terrifying precedent. Today the focus is on migrants; tomorrow it will be another vulnerable minority; and then what group? Europe, wake up!
- Read the article on Le Monde (in French)