Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
Churchill and the European Court of Human Rights
- By RICHARD M. LANGWORTH
- | December 29, 2022
- Category: Churchill and Europe Q & A
Q: Did Churchill support the European Court of Human Rights?
I recently heard a pundit on UK television state that Winston Churchill supported the European Court of Human Rights. Since the ECHR is viewed by many here as a stumbling block to refusing entry to illegal aliens who are not refugees, this seemed to me extraordinary. Is it true? —D.J., Halifax, West Yorkshire
A: Yes, in principle; in modern practice, perhaps not
This is a new and interesting question. For answers we scoured our digital files of Churchill’s 20 million published words and 60 million about him. The evidence is that he twice spoke in favor of a European Court of Human Rights. It is also reasonable to assert that the ECHR of today has grown out of all proportion to Churchill’s concept. It is therefore questionable to cite Churchill as a supporter of the European Court of Human Rights as currently constituted. But judge his words for yourself…
Brussels, 26 February 1949
The European Assembly is now on the point of being achieved. The responsible governments of all our countries have reached their agreements. We have now to take the second step forward and try to establish, as the practical result of our meeting here, the setting up of a European Court of Human Rights. Such a court in no way challenges the authority of a world court, but it may well be that the principles laid down by the United Nations will be better and more effectively interpreted by courts in the more limited and homogeneous area of regional units: Let Europe judge Europe…..
It must not be possible that, within the boundaries of United Europe, such a legal atrocity could be perpetrated as that which has confronted us all in the case of Cardinal Mindszenty.* Here you have the crime of religious persecution committed on an innocent man under the direct orders of Moscow, and carried through with all those features of police government with which we are familiar in trials under the Soviets. There must be means by which such events in any of the countries with which we can consort can be brought to the test of impartial justice.1
______
*József Mindszenty was a Catholic cardinal and Archbishop of Esztergom in Hungary who opposed both the Nazis and the Communists. As Churchill spoke, he was the victim of a a show trial. Convicted, he was imprisoned and tortured by the Communist government. Freed during the Hungarian revolt of 1956, he took refuge in the U.S. Embassy. There he lived for 15 years before being allowed to leave Hungary in 1971. He died in exile in Vienna in 1975.
“The Europe we seek to unite”
Churchill’s next words in Brussels in 1949 explained how he viewed Britain with relation to what he often called “United Europe.” What he sought above all was an end to East-West divisions:
The task of our Movement is to foster, encourage and develop the sense of being Europeans, a pride in Europe and what she has stood for, and confidence in the greatness of our common mission in the future. These sentiments can only be brought about by Europeans in different countries learning to know each other better. In all this work the new European Assembly can play a vital part. By its discussions, which will be reported in the Press and on the radio, it can create and express a European public opinion, a common European point of view, and the sense of all that we have in common….
Great Britain is herself the centre of a free and worldwide Commonwealth of States. We are sure in our country that a satisfactory solution can be found whereby we can develop our new association with Europe without in the slightest degree weakening the sacred ties which unite Britain with her daughter States across the oceans.
Churchill was consistent. He saw Britain as part of what he called “Three Majestic Circles.” They comprised the Commonwealth, the English-speaking peoples including America, and Britain’s “friendly association” with “United Europe.”2
London, 23 July 1951
Churchill’s second reference to the European Court of Human Rights came two years later in London, where he elaborated on his Brussels theme. The essential requirement of the United Europe movement, he said, was amity between the two great antagonists, France and Germany. There must be no further wars of aggression such as Germany had unleashed five times from 1864 to 1939:
There can be no Europe unless it be based upon a solid foundation of trust and comradeship between the French and German peoples. Within the wider framework of the UNO [United Nations Organization] a Council of Europe has been set up. A European Army is beginning to take shape, and a European Court of Human Rights is shortly to be established. In the economic field practical measures are being taken to reduce barriers and stimulate the flow of European trade. These are important and much-needed gains because the international situation has deteriorated, and the need for uniting and strengthening Europe has become ever more urgent.
I have long believed in the idea of a United Europe. In the turbulent year 1943 I said… “We must try to make this Council of Europe into a really effective league with a High Court to adjust disputes and with armed forces, national or international or both, held ready to enforce its decisions and to prevent renewed aggression. This Council must eventually embrace the whole of Europe.”3
Churchill then again added what he saw as Britain’s associated but unintegrated role: “[T]here are forces at work in Britain which will enable our island and our Empire and Commonwealth to play their full part.”4
The European Court today
The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 by the Council of Europe. The Council (currently 46 states) is often confused with the European Union (27 states). The Council of Europe cannot make laws, although it can enforce agreements. The EU is entirely separate, has greater regulatory authority and its own Court of Justice.
Britain has long been one of the most welcoming countries to refugees, most recently from Ukraine. It is also currently experiencing about 50,000 undocumented arrivals a year on its Channel shores. Many of these are not refugees, some are criminals and traffickers. It is asserted that the European Court of Human Rights forbids Britain from taking action to refuse entry to anyone claiming to be a refugee.
Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the ECHR enforces, includes the right “to freely move within a country once lawfully there; and to enter a country of one’s own nationality.” It prohibits “the collective expulsion of foreigners.” Concerned that this might nullify national laws, the UK and other countries have never ratified Protocol 4. Whether the European Court can prevent Britain from collective expulsion of foreigners is a question beyond this writer’s expertise.
“Ally and friend”
How would Churchill view the jurisdiction of today’s European Court over British immigration law? We cannot judge, since he is not here to ask, though we may draw our individual conclusions. How he felt with regard to integration with United Europe is however on record:
Our attitude towards further economic developments on the Schuman lines [European Coal and Steel Community] resembles that which we adopt about the European Army. We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character. Our first object is the unity and consolidation of the British Commonwealth…. Our second, “the fraternal association” of the English-speaking world; and third, United Europe, to which we are a separate closely—and specially-related ally and friend.5
Further reading
Andrew Roberts, review of “Churchill on Europe” by Felix Klos, 2016.
Richard M. Langworth, “EU and Churchill’s Views,” 2015.
Endnotes
1 Winston S. Churchill (hereinafter WSC), “Council of the European Movement,” Salle des Beaux Arts, Brussels, 26 February 1949, In the Balance (London: Cassell, 1951), 28-29.
2 See Patrick Garrity, “Churchill, Britain and European Unity,” Hillsdale College Churchill Project, 2016.
3 WSC, “United Europe,” Mansion House, London, 23 July 1951, Stemming the Tide (London: Cassell, 1953), 100.
4 Ibid.
5 WSC, Cabinet Memo, 29 November 1951, National Archives, CAB129/48C(51)32.