Key points
→ No democratic state has ever left the European Convention and the Council of Europe.
→ Withdrawing from the ECHR would almost certainly lead to the UK having to leave the Council of Europe, whether voluntarily or through expulsion.
→ Leaving the ECHR would weaken human rights protection for people in the UK. The common law does not provide equal or equivalent protection to that offered by the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights.
→ If the UK left the Council of Europe and removed the application of the ECHR to Northern Ireland, it would violate the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the Windsor Framework which governs post-Brexit arrangements in Northern Ireland.
→ If the UK gives notice of its intention to withdraw from the ECHR, this would give the EU a legal basis to terminate or suspend within 15 days Part Three of the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which governs criminal law cooperation, data exchange, extradition of criminal suspects and mutual legal assistance.
→ The ECHR underpins multilateral cooperation to control irregular migration. Existing agreements with Council of Europe member states to return people who have no legal right to be in the UK require mutual adherence to the ECHR. If the UK left the ECHR, future returns agreements would be likely to be more complex and difficult to negotiate.
→ The agreement that allows for the free flow of data between the EU and the UK is conditional on the UK being a party to the ECHR and accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. If the UK left the ECHR, the EU could end arrangements facilitating data transfers, which would jeopardise cooperation on law enforcement and trade.
Has any state left the ECHR before?
The only state to have voluntarily withdrawn from the ECHR and left the Council of Europe is Greece. Greece announced its intention to pull out in 1969, to avoid expulsion due to serious human rights abuses committed under military rule. Greece was readmitted to the Council of Europe in 1974 once democracy was restored.
Russia, Belarus and Kosovo are the only European states outside the Council of Europe. Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Belarus has never been a member and the Council of Europe suspended cooperation with it in 2022 because of its involvement in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Kosovo has applied to join.
Could the UK leave the ECHR and remain a member of the Council of Europe?
Withdrawing from the ECHR would almost certainly lead to the UK having to leave the Council of Europe, whether voluntarily or through expulsion.
It is a condition of Council of Europe membership that states ratify (agree to be bound by) the ECHR. If the UK withdrew from the ECHR, the three statutory bodies of the Council of Europe – the Secretary General, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly – would have to give their opinion on whether the UK could remain a member of the Council of Europe and it would be for the Committee (made up of government representatives) to decide what to do.
The Committee of Ministers could encourage the UK to withdraw from the Council of Europe voluntarily. If the UK declined to do so, expulsion would be very likely based on Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, which gives expression to the values of the rule of law and universal enjoyment of human rights.
Could the UK leave the ECHR without the approval of Parliament?
It is highly likely that parliamentary approval would be needed to leave the ECHR.
The UK government normally exercises prerogative powers (executive power that may be used without parliamentary consent) in foreign affairs; for example, to create or enter into international treaties or to withdraw from them.
However, following the Brexit process, the government is unlikely to be able to use a prerogative power to leave the ECHR (and the Council of Europe) without parliamentary approval.
There is now a clear UK Supreme Court precedent that the government cannot use its prerogative powers in relation to foreign affairs to change domestic law or to “frustrate the purpose of any statute, suspend its operation, or remove statutory rights”.
As the Human Rights Act gives effect to ECHR rights within the UK, leaving the ECHR without repealing the HRA would have the effect of “frustrating” the operation of the Act.
It is therefore most likely that Parliament would have to legislate to repeal the HRA, which would also provide parliamentary approval for withdrawal from the ECHR.
Could the UK leave the ECHR but keep the Human Rights Act as it is?
No. The Human Rights Act incorporates ECHR rights into UK law and provides mechanisms that govern how UK courts and other public authorities must apply Convention rights. It cannot operate separately from the ECHR without replacing references to the ECHR with some other set of rights.
Could the UK leave the ECHR but keep the Human Rights Act as it is?
No. The Human Rights Act incorporates ECHR rights into UK law and provides mechanisms that govern how UK courts and other public authorities must apply Convention rights. It cannot operate separately from the ECHR without removing references to the ECHR.
Could a Bill of Rights replace the HRA?
There have been several proposals in the past 20 years for the HRA to be reformed or replaced with a Bill of Rights. None of these proposals involved plans for the UK to leave the ECHR.
The vast majority of respondents to the two most recent government consultations in 2021 and 2022, were in favour of keeping the HRA and not introducing a Bill of Rights.
In 2022, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Dominic Raab, introduced a Bill of Rights Bill which aimed to repeal and replace the HRA. The Bill would have significantly changed the means by which human rights are protected in the UK, making it harder for people to bring claims. The Bill was withdrawn by the Government following Dominic Raab’s resignation.
If the UK leaves the ECHR, would human rights still be protected by the common law?
The common law is the body of law made by the judiciary, based on custom and precedent, as distinct from laws passed by Parliament or regulations adopted by the executive.
Certain rights, such as the rights to liberty, to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, are protected both by the common law and the ECHR. Significant human rights cases have relied on the common law; for example, on the prohibition of evidence obtained by torture.
However, the common law protection for human rights is less extensive than that guaranteed by the ECHR. The ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and by UK courts under the Human Rights Act, protects a broader range of rights than the common law. For example, the ECHR alone offers redress to victims of crime who have been failed by state investigations or whom the state has failed to protect from harm, like the bereaved families of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of the “black cab” rapist, John Worboys. The common law did not protect children subject to corporal punishment or gay people facing discrimination who, prior to the HRA, had to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.
In addition, the common law’s protection of human rights is much weaker than that provided by the HRA, which offers several forms of legal protection that do not feature in the common law. For instance, it imposes a legally enforceable duty on all public authorities to act compatibly with ECHR rights. It also allows higher UK courts to issue declarations of incompatibility when they find that a law breaches ECHR rights. Such declarations signal to ministers and Parliament that the law needs to be revised.
Further, the HRA contains provisions aimed at preventing human rights violations, e.g. by requiring Ministers to certify that a Bill is compatible with Convention rights, and requiring public authorities to respect Convention rights in their everyday actions and decisions, while the common law focuses more narrowly on the courts as the principal means of protecting rights by providing remedies following violations.
Another significant difference is that the HRA/ECHR system creates obligations under international law (for example, to amend laws that breach rights), while the common law does not.
What would be the consequences for devolution if the UK leaves the ECHR?
Protection of ECHR rights through the Human Rights Act is embedded within the statutes through which devolved powers are exercised in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the HRA was amended or repealed and/or a Bill of Rights was enacted covering the devolved nations, the devolution statutes would need to be amended.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that, given the significant impact on the devolved settlements, the government should not pursue reform of the HRA without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Evidence submitted to Parliament suggests that such consent is unlikely to be given.
What would be the consequences for the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement if the UK leaves the ECHR?
The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement comprises an inter-state agreement between the UK and Irish governments and, annexed to it, a Multi-Party Agreement. Both are binding under international law on the UK and Ireland.
It is a legal requirement of the UK government under the treaty for the ECHR to apply to Northern Ireland. The Multi-Party Agreement states that: “The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights … with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention.”
If the UK left the Council of Europe and removed the application of the ECHR to Northern Ireland, it would violate the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The Agreement would be breached even if a new UK Bill of Rights was introduced which covered Northern Ireland and contained rights that were similarly or identically worded to ECHR rights. This is because the Agreement stipulates that it is the incorporation of the ECHR, as a treaty interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, not simply ECHR-equivalent rights, that must be law in Northern Ireland.
The Windsor Framework, an agreement between the UK and the EU on post-Brexit trade across the Irish Sea, reinforced the ECHR in Northern Ireland. The UK committed to “no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”, as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement which, again, explicitly requires the full protection of ECHR rights.
What would be the consequences for relations with the EU if the UK leaves the ECHR?
The UK’s membership of the ECHR is fundamental to its post-Brexit relationship with the EU.
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and its Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR is now the only common European standard of human rights protection which is equally applicable both in the UK and in the EU member states.
Crucially, withdrawal would impact the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The TCA commits both the UK and EU explicitly to the ECHR and notes that the UK and EU’s shared commitment to human rights treaties is an “essential element of the partnership”.
Leaving the ECHR could therefore be considered a breach of an “essential element” of the TCA, and would enable the EU to “terminate or suspend the operation of this Agreement … in whole or in part”.
Withdrawal from the ECHR would, in particular, give the EU a legal basis to terminate or suspend within 15 days Part Three of the TCA, which governs criminal law cooperation, data exchange, extradition of criminal suspects and mutual legal assistance.
The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has said that termination or suspension of Part Three of the TCA would have “extremely serious consequences for UK-EU security cooperation, curtailing our ability to combat cross-border criminal activity”.
Potential termination or suspension of Part Three of the TCA would also undermine cooperation between the UK and the EU for the purpose of controlling irregular migration. For example, the TCA allows the UK to continue taking part in joint investigations with EU member states through Europol and Eurojust, bodies which help national authorities coordinate on law enforcement and investigations and prosecutions for serious cross-border and organised crime. This includes joint investigations against cross-Channel people traffickers.
What would be the consequences for migration agreements with other Council of Europe states if the UK leaves the ECHR?
The UK has made several migration agreements with Council of Europe member states, both formal and informal, to facilitate returns of people who do not have the legal right to stay. Where formal agreements exist – for example, with Albania, Georgia, Moldova and Switzerland - they require mutual adherence to the ECHR and/or to other international human rights treaties.
For example, the 2021 readmissions agreement with Albania is subject to both countries’ obligations under the UN Refugee Convention, extradition agreements and “any international agreements on human rights”. The 2022 joint communique aimed at fast-tracking the removal of Albanians arriving without authorisation refers several times to mutual commitments under the ECHR and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Returns to Albania increased sharply following the communique, accounting for around 75% of all returns of people who had arrived on small boats. In May 2024, the UK Government said that nearly 6,000 Albanians had been returned to Albania under the UK-Albania returns agreement in the previous 12 months.
UK membership of the ECHR, including the right of individuals to apply to the European Court of Human Rights, ensures that the UK has a common framework of standards with other countries. If the UK ceased to be a party to the ECHR, future returns agreements would be likely to be more complex and difficult to negotiate.
What would be the consequences for data sharing with the EU if the UK leaves the ECHR?
UK membership of the ECHR underpins data sharing with the EU. Currently, there is a free flow of data between the EU and the UK for law enforcement purposes and general data sharing. This flow of data is also fundamental to the UK’s trade with the EU.
The EU’s data adequacy decision for the UK, renewed in December 2025, explicitly states that it is conditional on the UK being a party to the ECHR and its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, in order to ensure equivalent protection of personal data to EU law.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in the European Parliament has warned the UK Parliament that if the UK leaves the ECHR, the EU might decide that the UK does not ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the UK and end arrangements facilitating data transfers.
This could, in turn, jeopardise co-operation with the EU on matters related to extradition and mutual legal assistance, exchanges of DNA information and criminal records, transfer of passenger name records, and joint investigation of transnational crime. Non-renewal of the data adequacy decision would also impair UK law enforcement processes and efforts against money-laundering and cybercrime.
There is evidence that the loss of the free flow of personal data from the EU to the UK would increase administrative costs for trade and some estimates suggest this could cost UK business up to £1.6 billion. The House of Lords European Affairs Committee has warned that losing data adequacy status would make the UK a less attractive place for investment, hamper digital growth, and create difficulties in operating international payments systems.
About the project
This explainer is part of the project “Human Rights: Informing the UK Debate”, a collaboration between the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (University of Oxford), the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights (University of Oxford), and Middlesex University.
The project aims to improve the quality of public discourse on human rights by providing expert content grounded in robust evidence and rigorous analysis. It seeks to identify and respond to inaccurate or misleading reporting or commentary about human rights. It also explores what human rights mean for ordinary people in their everyday lives, and for the values they care about such as security, dignity, accountability, democracy and national sovereignty. The project is funded by a gift from the Sigrid Rausing Trust.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily of the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, the University of Oxford or their funders.
