In late October 2025, Poland sparked a significant human rights debate after Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly hinted at the possibility of withdrawing from the European Human Rights Convention (ECHR). This statement immediately prompted widespread discussion both within Poland and across Europe regarding the country’s commitment to the protection of human rights amid escalating concerns over migration and national security. The government swiftly responded, officially denying any plans to exit the Convention. This analysis explores the context, implications, and reactions to these controversial remarks while situating Poland’s stance within broader European debates on human rights, migration, and sovereignty.
Context and the Prime Minister’s Statements
Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s remarks, made during an interview with The Sunday Times published on October 26, 2025, stirred controversy when he suggested that if the 46 signatories of the ECHR fail to agree on reform, it would be “a perfectly reasonable solution” for some member states, implicitly including Poland, to withdraw from the Convention. Tusk framed the debate largely through the lens of security and migration challenges facing Europe. He stated that migration is “the greatest threat facing the West and the European Union,” underscoring the difficulties in managing migration under the current human rights regime, which he views as overly restrictive.
According to him, these rules sometimes prioritize human rights over security, preventing countries from deporting foreign criminals, terrorists, and rapists. He further revealed discussions with other European leaders, including Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, focused on deportations of such criminals, remarking,
“In some countries, this is still impossible due to court rulings, according to which, human rights are much more important than security”.
This position reflects Poland’s call, alongside eight other EU countries, for a “conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights” aimed at allowing states more flexibility in deporting foreign criminals and countering migrant instrumentalization by hostile states.
Official Government Response and Clarifications
Following the immediate backlash to the Prime Minister’s remarks, the Polish government sought to clarify its position. Government spokesman Adam Szłapka repudiated any notion of an imminent withdrawal, emphasizing that “there are not any plans to withdraw Poland from the ECHR” and that Tusk’s comments were “a response to a question posed by British journalists concerning the ongoing discussion in the UK”, rather than a concrete policy announcement. Szłapka’s statement helped ease concerns among legal and diplomatic circles, reaffirming Poland’s continued commitment to the Council of Europe’s human rights framework while signaling the government’s alignment with ongoing European debates on reform.
Human Rights and Legal Community Responses
Human rights organizations in Poland quickly condemned Tusk’s assertions as dangerous and potentially damaging. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR), a leading domestic NGO, labeled the statements both “astonishing and concerning,” warning that such rhetoric could normalize extremist and populist arguments that historically called for exiting the Convention. They stressed that even political statements hinting at withdrawal might have serious negative repercussions, noting,
“They lead to the normalisation of arguments and slogans that have, until now, been associated with extremist and populist movements”.
This critique highlighted the risk of undermining Poland’s international human rights standing and domestic protections.
Monika Gąsiorowska, a Warsaw-based human rights lawyer, drew historical and legal comparisons to other states with problematic rights records. She urged Prime Minister Tusk to reconsider the significance of the Council of Europe and the ECHR, stating emphatically,
“I would advise the prime minister to familiarise himself with the values and goals of the founders of the Council of Europe and what the convention was intended to protect against.”
Gąsiorowska underscored that withdrawal would align Poland with countries like Russia, which left the Convention in 2022 amidst its invasion of Ukraine, marking a stark departure from democratic norms.
Migration and Security: The Nexus of Debate
The Polish government’s migration policy, proclaimed as one of the most restrictive in Europe, provides important context for understanding the ECHR debate. The government adopted a legal framework in 2024 that suspended asylum rights for migrants crossing irregularly at the Belarus border, an approach recently upheld by Polish courts. PM Tusk’s remarks echo the prevailing government position emphasizing national security and immigration control, asserting that “hostile states instrumentalising migrants” exploit the current ECHR framework to challenge deportations and increase security risks. This has led to demands for reforming human rights interpretations to prioritize security concerns more explicitly.
The migration debate underpins the broader European struggle balancing human rights with sovereignty and the rule of law amid rising populism and security fears — an issue Poland is deeply entwined with, given its geographic and political position.
Comparisons to Other International Treaty Withdrawals
Poland’s heated rhetoric on the ECHR cannot be fully understood without considering broader trends in Poland’s international treaty behavior. Earlier in 2025, Poland formally notified the United Nations of its intention to withdraw from the Mine Ban Treaty, a move heavily criticized by international humanitarian organizations for reversing commitment to civilian protection in conflict zones. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) decried the decision as “indefensible”, associating the withdrawal with a dangerous return to practices that indiscriminately harm civilians, comparing Poland’s stance with that of authoritarian or conflict-driven countries such as Russia and North Korea.
This parallel raises red flags about Poland’s increasingly assertive sovereignty posture in international affairs, where human rights obligations are seen as secondary to national security and defense concerns.
Regional and International Implications
The ECHR debate in Poland resonates widely across Europe. Many member states are navigating similar tensions between protecting human rights and asserting control over migration and security postures. Italy, France, and Denmark have joined Poland in pushing for reinterpretation or reform of the Convention to allow greater leeway on deporting criminals and safeguarding borders.
Poland’s potential withdrawal or weakening engagement with the ECHR could increase its diplomatic isolation, especially since the Convention is considered a bedrock human rights instrument binding 46 countries. Analysts fear that such moves might embolden populist governments and deepen divisions within the European human rights architecture, threatening the collective enforcement of fundamental freedoms and rule of law principles.
The controversy surrounding Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s recent remarks on the European Human Rights Convention has highlighted ongoing national and regional tensions about sovereignty, migration, and human rights protections. While Tusk voiced frustrations with the current migration regime and called for reform or even hinted at withdrawal, Poland’s government has promptly denied any immediate plans to exit the Convention. Nonetheless, the debate underscores a precarious balancing act faced by European states: upholding universal human rights while addressing the political realities of security and migration.
Human rights advocates view any talk of withdrawal as deeply problematic, warning it risks normalizing extremist rhetoric and breaking fundamental legal commitments. Poland thus finds itself at a crossroads between reinforcing its democratic values within Europe or pursuing a more insular path that prioritizes national sovereignty at significant human rights cost.