This post is adapted from the concluding remarks the author delivered at the conference ‘European Convention on Human Rights at 75: Transnational Perspectives and Global Interaction’ (Berlin, 9 October 2025), convened by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and to the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law for convening this exchange marking the 75^th anniversary of the signing of the ECHR.

My own first encounter with the European Convention on Human Rights goes back to the late 1980s at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg (my then academic home). I vividly remember the blue brochures containing the judgments of the Court and decisions of the Commission that Professor Frowein and Professor Bernhardt brought back from Strasbourg, and a growing awareness that this remarkable system of rights and law was something unique. I then moved on to the Council of Europe where I spent more than thirty years of my professional life, including twelve years as a legal adviser, having seen the Convention’s promise tested, stretched, and reaffirmed.

But you have not come to hear my story. You have come for concluding remarks – a daunting task when everything has already been said, though not yet by everyone.

I stress that I speak today in my personal capacity only. 

A Promise Made – and Kept

Seventy-five years ago, Europe made a bold promise:

That the dignity of every individual would be safeguarded by law. And that an independent court would hold us to that promise.

Today, as we close our discussions, we face two truths:

First, the extraordinary resilience of that promise. And second, the magnitude of the challenges still before us.

The Convention’s strength lies in its dual nature.

It is, as has often been said, a constitutional instrument of European public order – binding together a pan-European community founded on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, contributing to the emergence of a European society (von Bogdandy).

Yet it is not a codified or harmonised legal order. It is, rather, a shared framework, a moral and legal compass – a space where 46 member states can navigate their differences through a common understanding of dignity and justice.

Shared Responsibility

 From the series of intergovernmental conferences between Interlaken (2010) and Copenhagen (2018), a clear message emerged: human rights protection is a shared responsibility between the European Court of Human Rights and the member states.

When the Court develops Convention standards, it strengthens legitimacy by showing respect for national margins of appreciation. But what must be resisted – as Pedro Cruz Villalón once warned – is the ‘spider’s web temptation’: the illusion of constructing, on the basis of the Convention, a complete and rigid legal system that leaves national or EU legal orders feeling trapped.

The challenge is not to create a hierarchy of norms, but to preserve harmony through dialogue, trust, and mutual respect.

That dialogue must be more than ritual.

It requires judges who take each other’s reasoning seriously.  Academics who offer sharp but constructive critique. And governments that see Strasbourg not as an imposition, but as part of their own institutional landscape. 

Harmony, Not Hierarchy

As our discussions have underlined, the Convention does not exist in a vacuum. It coexists with national constitutions, EU law, and international law.

In a single case – an asylum seeker in Greece, a suspect awaiting extradition, or a citizen whose data are intercepted – multiple legal systems may each claim authority.

As Piet Eeckhout observed, if the answer to a human rights claim depends solely on which court hears the case or which norm applies, the rule of law becomes relative, and the very idea of inalienable rights begins to erode.

That is why EU accession to the ECHR remains essential – to ensure coherence and comprehensive protection across the continent. I therefore welcome the European Commission’s decision to request a new opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Convention as a Democratic Instrument

The Convention system is not a straitjacket. It is a safeguard for democratic life. As Harold Koh said at the 2011 İzmir Conference:

“All courts face what some call ‘the counter majoritarian difficulty’, because judicial protection of human rights necessarily challenges electoral majorities and tests governmental outcomes against constitutional standards. But never let it be said that your work is antidemocratic. To the contrary, your work reinforces democracy and promotes the rule of law by guaranteeing free elections, clearing political space for the freedoms of association, expression and religion, combating discrimination, and clearing the channels for political change.”

The Court’s jurisprudence gives democracy its breathing space.

Implementation Begins at Home

“Effective protection begins and ends at home,” as former Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland reminded us. The swift and comprehensive execution of Strasbourg judgments is crucial. The ongoing imprisonment of Osman Kavala, despite two binding judgments from the Court, remains a painful reminder of how non-execution is a threat to the system’s credibility. It recalls Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde’s insight: that institutions of freedom depend on moral and legal commitments they cannot themselves guarantee. The Court’s authority ultimately rests on the rule-of-law culture of its member states.

A Global Voice

Our conversation has also looked beyond Europe. Strasbourg’s jurisprudence resonates globally – influencing the International Court of Justice, inspiring the African Charter, and informing debates on climate change, migration, and artificial intelligence.

In the migration context, as Alice Donald rightly noted, the number of relevant cases before the Court is small, and violations found are few. The Convention operates not in isolation but in concert with the Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture, and EU asylum law.

There is no precedent for a protocol that would permanently limit or derogate from rights – especially for a subset of states. Universality and equality before the law are the hallmarks of the Convention. They are not negotiable.

The Next 75 Years

If one lesson emerges from these discussions, it is this: Dialogue must be global and inclusive. The ECHR must not be seen as a ‘Fortress Europe’ project. It is part of a broader, planetary effort to uphold human dignity in times of crisis – environmental, political, and technological.

So, what is our task for the next 75 years?

• Deepen judicial dialogue – aiming for coherence without uniformity
• Defend democracy – remembering that giving up on human rights will not save it
• Strengthen implementation at home – for Strasbourg is only as strong as its domestic anchors
• Embrace global interaction – learning from others, contributing our experience.
• Prepare for new frontiers – climate change, migration, and artificial intelligence. 

Choosing Again

The Convention’s survival is no accident. It endures because each generation has chosen to make it real – in parliaments, in courts, in ministries, and in classrooms.

Our task is to choose again – with the seriousness of those who know both what is at stake and what can be lost.