While the declaration reaffirms commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, it places much greater emphasis on how states expect rights to be applied in practice, particularly in migration cases.

This is reflected in how governments are presenting the declaration. The UK government has described it as creating what it calls an “updated interpretation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR” and said it will support “a more modern interpretation” to help courts ensure that people cannot “avoid deportation”. It has framed this as part of “reforming the way the ECHR is interpreted” and suggested the declaration will “help courts interpret how the ECHR is applied” in line with government priorities.

Kevin Hanratty, director of the Human Rights Consortium, said: “In Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is part of the foundation of our constitutional settlement. It is essential that courts remain independent and free from political pressure in how they apply those rights.

“Trying to influence how courts interpret those rights is like trying to intimidate a referee in a football match. The rules are clear, and the referee’s job is to apply them fairly and independently. Governments should leave the courts to do their job. This approach risks eroding the strength and resilience of the Convention system over time. The more governments seek to shape how rights are interpreted through political processes, the greater the pressure on a system that depends on independence to function effectively.”

Eilis Barry, chief executive of FLAC, said: “It is concerning that the declaration is seeking to influence the European Court of Human Rights on its interpretation in relation to the human rights of certain categories of people. This would appear to be a move away from the idea of universal human rights which is the foundation of the ECHR.

“The evidence simply does not support the narrative that human rights law is preventing deportations in any widespread way. When political processes begin to shape how those rights are understood, it undermines confidence in the European Court of Human Rights Court which is supposed to act  as a safeguard for individuals whose rights and freedoms are not secured at the national level.

“We suggest that if governments are serious about improving how national courts engage with Strasbourg, the Declaration itself points to a practical and principled route forward by encouraging states to consider ratifying Protocol No. 16 to the Convention. This mechanism enables courts to seek guidance on complex questions of human rights law, strengthening dialogue without compromising judicial independence. Political declarations that appear to signal preferred outcomes risk doing the opposite. We therefore urge the UK and Ireland to follow this recommendation, ratify Protocol No. 16, and embed it domestically as a constructive alternative.”