It might seem odd, amid the domestic political crisis currently engulfing the Labour party, to turn one’s eyes to Chișinău, the capital of Moldova. Yet, today it will host the committee of ministers representing the 46 members of the Council of Europe (a different body to the EU) to discuss the future of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This pivotal two-day conference is aimed at adopting a political declaration concerning the future of the ECHR. It is focused on addressing challenges related to migration and asylum. Human rights lawyers and NGOs see the process as an attempt to erode universal human rights standards and have opposed it accordingly. Yet for the Labour government, the same conference may be its last realistic chance to deliver meaningful reform while keeping the UK inside the ECHR.

The current process began in May last year, when nine Council of Europe states, led by Denmark and Italy, wrote a letter asking for a discussion about ‘how the international conventions match the challenges that we face today’. They queried whether the European Court of Human Rights has ‘extended the scope of the Convention too far as compared with the original intentions behind’ it. The letter highlighted, amongst other things, the challenge of irregular migration and cases concerning the expulsion of foreign national offenders where:

Politicians across Europe have recognised that the issue of illegal migration resonates with voters

The interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states’ ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.

This initiative was subsequently seized upon by the Labour party in Britain. They have sought to convey it as a major opportunity to reform the ECHR, without having to re-write the convention or leave the system entirely.

In December, a unanimous decision was taken at the Council of Europe to prepare a political declaration which would take account of the ‘contemporary challenges posed both by irregular migration and by the situation of foreigners convicted of serious offences’. Keir Starmer produced a joint article with the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, stating that ‘we must protect our borders to defend our democracies’. At the same time, Justice Secretary David Lammy argued that European human rights rules cannot be ‘frozen in time’, and that the way that the ECHR was interpreted ‘must not stop’ states tackling the problem of illegal migration.

Politicians across Europe, from many different political traditions, have evidently recognised that the question of illegal migration now resonates seriously with voters. They understand that something must be done to reassure those who might otherwise turn to more populist parties advocating more radical solutions. The hope is that some form of ‘modernisation’ of how the ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights might ameliorate the problem.

Yet Labour is very much in the last chance saloon with this conference. Already, Reform and the Conservatives have announced that they will go into the next election advocating to leave the ECHR. The government is also struggling to sell Shabana Mahmood’s proposed domestic immigration law reforms to backbench Labour MPs. I’ve previously argued that this new approach is a risky gamble for Labour.

If ministers come away empty-handed, or perhaps even worse with a political declaration which is subsequently deemed to be a sleight of hand with no practical effect on immigration law, it could jeopardise support for the ECHR itself.

It is important to note, however, that while a political declaration might have some impact on the behaviour of the Strasbourg Court, it is not the same as amending the ECHR and changing the law. This would be far more challenging and take many years even if it had unanimous support.

It is also a fact that many officials in the Council of Europe, backed by lawyers, NGOs and academics, do not appear to share the view that significant change is needed at all. Following December’s decision to prepare a political declaration, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, warned against ‘weaponising’ the issue of the Strasbourg court. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, said that it was essential that:

All discourse and proposals do nothing to diminish the independence of the European Court of Human Rights’ and argued that concerns about these issues had been ‘amplified through manipulative political messaging as well as disinformation.

Some commentators, such as Professor Alice Donald and Andrew Forde (Commissioner at the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission), have argued that the proposed political declaration will be ‘largely performative’. Although one might pose the question – if it would have so little impact, why do they seem so hostile toward it?

For someone, such as myself, who has long argued for reform of the ECHR, rather than exit, these voices appear both naïve and complacent. But they reflect a stream of thought that human rights are universal and can only travel in one direction: an upward ratchet often mandated by the courts, rather than through democratic process and consent. This approach is problematic and doesn’t ensure popular support.

However, it is hard to see that the opponents of Mahmood’s proposed domestic immigration reforms will make peace with the idea of more far-reaching solutions, such as the external processing of irregular migrants or the automatic deportation of foreign national offenders. It is difficult to see significant progress being made.

There is a very real danger that Labour will come out of the conference this week in a worse position than it started. Persuading those calling for the UK to leave the ECHR that it can be meaningfully reformed seems increasingly like a lost cause.