Member

As a former lawyer, I have always had sympathy for law which protects individuals in the pursuit of their legitimate activities, particularly when they are confronted with the might of the state. I am in no doubt that the architects of the ECHR were driven by honourable and noble motives because these rights and freedoms are very important. What was not anticipated was that, increasingly, the ECHR would obtain a status which challenged the right of sovereign states to conduct their affairs as democratically elected Governments might determine and that vital national activities, such as the operation of our military forces in a conflict situation, would come within the reach of the ECHR—hence the emergence of the term “lawfare”.