What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law?

The prime minister has said “we need to look again at the interpretation” by the UK courts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other international treaties in immigration cases. What might that involve?

The PM’s comments are the latest in a long-running debate about whether some provisions of international law are being interpreted too expansively to allow states to cope with the modern scale of migration. The debate has focussed particularly on Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR (which, respectively, prohibit torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and confer a right to respect for private and family life). But the PM says he wants to look at other international conventions too – such as the UN Refugee Convention, Torture Convention and Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The PM says he does not want to “tear down” human rights laws. It is the government’s policy to remain in the ECHR and there is no suggestion that it would withdraw from any of the other conventions (which would be a huge step). But how could it change the way they are interpreted?

Changing domestic law to influence the interpretation of the ECHR is possible

Any international treaty can be amended by agreement between all the parties. Changes have previously been made to the ECHR (though mostly to add or broaden rights, rather than remove or limit them). In May 2025, nine countries proposed changing the way the ECHR is applied to migrants. But getting agreement to detailed changes to the text of the ECHR (or any of the other international conventions) would be complex and could take many years.

Instead, Keir Starmer seems to have in mind changing domestic law to influence the way the ECHR and other treaties are interpreted by the UK courts. In principle that could be done. Parliament could pass a statute setting out how (say) Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are to be interpreted in immigration and asylum cases. Such legislation would bind Home Office decision makers and other officials, and would be given effect by the UK courts. The intention would no doubt be to rein in an over-broad interpretation of the relevant provisions. 

Given the government’s (and the attorney general’s) commitment to complying with international law, it is assumed that it would present any legislation as an attempt to interpret the ECHR or other treaties, and as being at least plausibly consistent with them, rather than as overriding or disapplying them.

So far the government has not said precisely how it proposes to do this in any legislation. The detail will be crucial. A statute might for example set out factors which are (or are not) to be taken into account in deciding whether Article 3 or 8 applies. They would have to be sufficiently specific to make a difference. For example (to address some notorious – though debunked – past cases) the Act might say that, for Article 8 purposes, no account is to be taken of an individual’s dietary preferences, or whether they have a pet in the UK.  

It is equally unclear how the government would try to cut back the scope of Article 3. Both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)  already apply a high threshold in Article 3 cases. It has long been interpreted as protecting against the removal of individuals to places where they face a risk of torture, or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The PM has said there is a difference between deporting someone to "summary execution" and sending them to somewhere with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions. But that is a false dichotomy. The ECtHR has indeed held that harsh medical conditions can in some circumstances amount to inhuman treatment within Article 3. And there has been focus on the case of a sex offender who resisted extradition to Brazil because of the risk that he would face ill-treatment in prison. But the fact that conditions would be lower than in the UK is not the legal test. In the medical case, an AIDS patient faced “a real risk of dying under the most distressing circumstances” if removed. In the Brazil case it seems there was evidence of extra-judicial killings in Brazilian prisons. So again it is not clear which type of cases the government would try and carve out of Article 3, or how.

It is still the government’s intention to remain in the ECHR

Given the government’s intention that the UK should remain in the ECHR, it would remain open to a claimant who lost in the UK courts to take their case to the ECtHR in Strasbourg. The ECtHR would not be bound by the UK statute and might reach a broader interpretation – which would be binding on the UK under international law. (The same risk does not arise under the various UN conventions because they do not provide for any equivalent right for individuals to take cases to a court.)

Nonetheless, carefully framed domestic legislation could be used as a legitimate attempt to nudge or shape the ECHR caselaw, if it were done as a good faith attempt to work within the Convention, rather than to breach or disregard it. The UK courts would apply such legislation. And the ECtHR does take account of what national legislatures and courts say. It might take time and several rounds of litigation in the UK and in Strasbourg. And, again, everything will depend on the detail.

Another important caveat. Changes to human rights laws, even if effective, will not alone solve the problem of small boats or prevent legal challenges, including successful ones. That will require wider policy changes along with improvements to the quality and speed of decision making by the UK authorities.