Oliver Dean: The government could easily ignore the ECHR. Venezuela proves it

Oliver Dean is a political commentator with Young Voices UK. He studies History and Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he is the President of the LSE Hayek Society. 

On the 3rd January, President Trump confirmed that American Special Forces had captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro.

Almost immediately, legal objections followed. Intervening to kidnap the leader of a sovereign state sits, at best, uncomfortably with international law. Yet, the episode exposed an uncomfortable question. If international law exists to constrain state behaviour, what happens when a powerful country simply decides to do away with international law? And for critics of the ECHR here in the UK, such a question could not have come soon enough.

Defenders of the international order insist that treaties, conventions and courts offer an effective means to restrain states. They wholeheartedly believe that if everyone plays by the rules, then everyone wins. But when tested against reality, this ill-founded idealism collapses. Following the actions of the United States at the weekend, the world’s police officers have been remarkably silent. Keir Starmer danced to the tune of the White House, and other European leaders have done nothing but sit on their hands and call for “caution.” In other words – the world’s most powerful states have done nothing.

What this proves, beyond a doubt, is that international law and the institutions that uphold it are viewed by powerful states as elements of a bygone century. They are but a formality. A set of decorative documents and agreements designed to produce a sense of moral righteousness. Legislation that can be tossed aside when necessary.

Such institutions rely on voluntary compliance. Once that compliance becomes inconvenient, rules are bent, ignored or set aside entirely – as the case with the United States proved.

Yet, the consequences of this military operation, and the subsequent lack of international action in response has far reaching consequences. Consequences that extend far beyond the limits of South America. It sends a clear message to other states. That they can do away with international agreements, and suffer nothing as a result. Indeed, for the Euroskeptics here in the UK, such a revelation is welcoming – particularly when it comes to the debate on the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and immigration.

For years now, debate has raged across Britain over the power of the ECHR. Since 2016, the British people were promised that they would ‘take back control’ of their borders. Yet, those on the right repeatedly blame the ECHR as a roadblock in achieving this. Repeatedly, deportations and removals are halted through appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

Take, for instance, the issuing of an interim measure in June 2022 that “prevented the removal of a person to Rwanda as part of the UK-Rwanda asylum transfer agreement.” Yet, in the face of this judgement, the British government stood down. It accepted the judgement as a matter of fact and followed international law to the letter. In the government’s mind, the conclusion reached by European judges was set in stone. It could not be challenged nor ignored.

This is perhaps what makes Trump’s actions so striking.

It gives a green light to hardliners in Britain that they could quite easily ignore the ECHR and likely suffer little as a result. Besides a handful of condemnations and warnings, what else would the international order do? Indeed, the notion that Britain is uniquely shackled by legal commitments, whilst larger states operate freely outside them, is becoming increasingly difficult to defend as a premise. If the government chose to test the reach of international legislation, it may well discover that the ECHR has become nothing more than a piece of paper that bears no real world significance.

This does not mean international law is worthless in principle, nor does this article aim to encourage actors to defy the ECHR. As a strong believer in the international order, and indeed the ECHR, it pains me to see such institutions reduced to nothing more than glorified debating societies which are all bark and no bite. But the advocates of international law routinely exaggerate its strength. This episode of reality may well have changed their attitudes.

For sceptics of the ECHR, this episode will likely be welcomed.

They now have sufficient ammunition to argue that Britain should not pretend it operates within a rules-based system that fails to bind its most powerful members. Trump’s decision did not just upend Venezuela. It exposed a deeper truth: international law endures only so long as it suits those strong enough to ignore it. Those in Britain who are keen to secure our borders would be foolish not to take notice.