I deplore the attempt to relativise inhuman treatment.
Across the continent and in the corridors of Chișinău, forty-six European nations — the United Kingdom among them — have signed a declaration asserting the sovereign right to process asylum claims beyond their own borders, reviving an old tension between state authority and the individual protections that postwar Europe built precisely to constrain it. The agreement, which envisions offshore 'third-country hubs' modeled on Italy's contested Albanian detention facilities, arrives as governments seek political shelter from public anxiety over irregular migration. Yet the declaration carries no binding legal force, and the protections it seeks to soften — particularly the absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment — are woven so deeply into international law that political statements alone may not move them. What is being negotiated, in essence, is not merely a border policy but the moral architecture of refuge itself.
- Forty-six Council of Europe governments, including the UK, have collectively endorsed offshore asylum processing, marking the most coordinated European shift away from onshore refugee protections in a generation.
- The declaration deliberately seeks to limit judicial intervention in deportations and to dilute what have long been considered absolute safeguards against sending people to places where they face torture or inhuman treatment.
- Human rights organizations and legal scholars warn that even a gradual reinterpretation of Article 3 protections could erode the foundational guarantees that vulnerable migrants depend upon when fleeing persecution.
- The UK, still bruised by the £715 million Rwanda scheme that collapsed without deporting a single person, is quietly negotiating with an unnamed third country while the EU circles a list of eleven potential partners including Libya, Rwanda, and Uzbekistan.
- Legal experts caution that a political declaration cannot override domestic and international case law, leaving the agreement's real-world impact deeply uncertain and its enforceability largely untested.
All 46 member states of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, have formally endorsed a political declaration paving the way for asylum claims to be processed outside European borders. Finalized at a high-level meeting in Chișinău, Moldova, the agreement asserts what signatories describe as an "undeniable sovereign right" to control borders and deter irregular migration. For the UK, the move signals a significant strategic pivot following the collapse of the Rwanda scheme, which cost £715 million by 2024 without removing a single person before the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful.
The declaration endorses so-called "third-country hubs" — processing centers beyond Europe where asylum seekers would have their claims assessed. Italy's existing detention facilities in Albania, initially designed for applicants from deemed-safe countries and later repurposed for those awaiting deportation, serve as the working model. The UK is understood to be seeking a similar arrangement with an as-yet-unnamed partner, while EU discussions have reportedly focused on eleven candidates including Libya, Rwanda, and Uzbekistan.
What makes the agreement especially contentious is its attempt to reshape human rights protections in practice. The declaration encourages "caution" when assessing whether deportations would violate prohibitions on torture and inhuman treatment — long considered absolute under international law — and seeks to limit courts' power to intervene in removal decisions. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the approach as a pragmatic middle path, while Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed the Home Office is in active negotiations with several countries.
Legal experts and rights groups remain deeply skeptical. Oxford's Migration Observatory director Madeleine Sumption questioned whether a political declaration could meaningfully influence judges whose rulings rest on established case law. Professor Eirik Bjørge of Bristol argued that Article 3's prohibition on torture is so fundamental it cannot be modified by political statements alone. Liberty's director Akiko Hart warned the declaration marks "a hugely significant moment" that risks opening the door to a gradual erosion of human rights protections.
No third-country hub agreements have been finalized, and several potential partners have denied involvement. Whether the declaration will reshape asylum law in practice or prove largely symbolic depends on whether courts choose to honor its political intent — a question that remains, for now, unanswered.
In a coordinated move across the continent, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe—including the United Kingdom—have now formally endorsed a political declaration that clears the way for processing asylum claims outside their borders. The agreement, finalized at a high-level meeting in Chişinău, Moldova, asserts what signatories call an "undeniable sovereign right" to control borders and to "address and potentially deter irregular migration." For the UK, this represents a significant shift in approach after the previous government's Rwanda scheme collapsed spectacularly, having cost £715 million by 2024 without sending a single person. The Supreme Court had ruled that plan unlawful because Rwanda could not be deemed a safe country.
The declaration opens the door to what officials are calling "third country hubs"—processing centers located outside Europe where asylum seekers would have their claims assessed. The model already exists in practice. Italy has established detention facilities in Albania, initially intended to hold people from countries deemed safe while their applications were reviewed. The Italian government under Giorgia Meloni has since repurposed these centers to hold people awaiting deportation after their claims were rejected. The UK is now understood to be seeking a similar arrangement with an unnamed third country, and discussions across the EU have reportedly centered on eleven potential partners: Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.
What makes this declaration particularly contentious is its attempt to reshape how human rights protections function in practice. The agreement encourages "caution" when assessing whether deporting someone to a non-European country would violate protections against torture and inhuman treatment—protections that have long been considered absolute under international law. It also seeks to limit the power of courts to intervene in deportation decisions. Home Office ministers have long argued that articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—safeguards against torture and the right to family life—have been weaponized to prevent the removal of people with no legal right to remain in the UK.
Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary who finalized the agreement, defended the approach as a middle path between two extremes. She rejected both the Conservative and Reform UK calls to withdraw entirely from international human rights law and the Green Party's position against border enforcement. "Labour is reforming the ECHR with partners from across the continent, because we know the relationships we build abroad make us stronger at home," she told the Guardian. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, revealed in November that the Home Office was in "active negotiations" with several countries, though no deals had been formally confirmed.
Yet legal experts and human rights organizations are skeptical about both the declaration's practical force and its implications. Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, questioned whether a political declaration would meaningfully alter how judges rule on asylum cases, given that their decisions are shaped by domestic and international case law that the declaration does not change. Professor Eirik Bjørge, a legal academic at the University of Bristol, went further, arguing that Article 3—the prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment—is so fundamental to the convention's purpose that it cannot be modified through political declarations alone. "I deplore the attempt to relativise the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment," he said.
Human rights organizations have sounded alarms. Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, called the Chişinău declaration "a hugely significant moment" and warned that changing how the ECHR is applied in UK courts "will open the door to a gradual weakening of human rights protections." The declaration has become the latest flashpoint in a broader political battle over the convention itself. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer backs reform efforts, the Conservatives and Reform UK have pledged to withdraw from the convention entirely—a position that would sever the UK from the legal framework that has governed European human rights law for over seventy years.
The practical consequences remain uncertain. No third-country hub agreements have been finalized. The EU has voted to allow the possibility of such hubs, with Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands engaged in preliminary talks. Montenegro has denied reports that it is considering housing rejected asylum seekers. What is clear is that the declaration represents a significant political statement: that European governments, acting collectively, believe they have the right to process asylum claims far from their own shores and to narrow the legal protections that have historically shielded vulnerable migrants from deportation to unsafe places. Whether courts will honor that intent, or whether the declaration will prove merely symbolic, remains to be seen.
Notable Quotes
It's not clear how much impact a political declaration makes given that judges' decisions are also driven by domestic and international case law, which this declaration does not change.— Madeleine Sumption, Migration Observatory at Oxford University
Article 3 is an embodiment of the very object and purpose of the convention and as such cannot be modified through political declarations.— Professor Eirik Bjørge, University of Bristol
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a political declaration matter if judges aren't bound by it?
It signals intent and creates political cover. When courts see 46 nations saying something, they're less likely to rule against it. It's not binding law, but it's a very loud message about what governments think the law should be.
So the Italy-Albania model—how is that actually working?
It's being used differently than originally planned. They said it was for people from safe countries while their claims were processed. Now it's holding people whose claims were already rejected, waiting for deportation. It's become a detention tool, not a processing tool.
What happens to someone sent to one of these hubs?
They'd have their asylum claim assessed outside the UK, in a country with potentially weaker legal protections. If rejected, they could be deported to their home country or another destination. The whole point is to remove the ability of UK courts to intervene and say "this country isn't safe."
Why are human rights lawyers so worried about Article 3?
Because it's the absolute floor—no torture, no inhuman treatment, full stop. There's no exception. If you start saying "well, maybe we should be cautious about applying it," you've opened the door to everything else being negotiable too.
The Rwanda scheme cost £715 million and sent zero people. Why try again?
Because the political pressure to stop small boat crossings is immense. Governments believe deterrence works. They're betting that if people know they'll be processed abroad, they won't attempt the journey. Whether that's true is a different question.
Could this actually be challenged in court?
Absolutely. The declaration isn't law. If the UK signs a hub agreement and someone challenges their deportation, courts will still apply the convention as written. The declaration is trying to shift the culture, but it can't rewrite the text.