Ever since the 1998 Human Rights Act, the British Conservative Party has been trying to reform human rights legislation in the UK. A Bill of Rights was proposed in the 2010 election manifesto, but it was not until 22 June 2022 that such a bill was introduced in Parliament by then Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Raab. The progress of the bill was paused in September 2022 and, as of January 2023, no date has been given for it to be revived.

Among the motivations for the proposed legislation was that of protecting liberties « under the rule of law », a justification that was repeated by Raab in the parliamentary debate that ensued. In political discourse, therefore, the « rule of law » was opposed to current human rights protections, including the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights. In this context, this paper will attempt to define how the concept of the rule of law is framed with regards to human rights law reform in politicians’ speech, both in a parliamentary setting (through the study of the consultation documents and of parliamentary speeches) and in the media, using the tools of critical discourse analysis.

The different actors present the « rule of law » in competing ways: either to defend or to discredit current human rights legislation. The main issue becomes who holds the power to decide on the law, whether it is Parliament, the government, or the judges in a national or European framework.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has seen an increase in the number of cases on family reunification rights in the last five years, constituting what has now become a not insignificant body of case law on family members of EU citizens who are third-country nationals (TCNs), or who represent a less traditional form of nuclear family. This trend, its case law and its implications are the subject of this paper. The CJEU is not a human rights court by its own admission, and has drawn from jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the respect for private and family life under Art 8 ECHR. This paper considers recent ECtHR case law that has shown itself to be more rigid and less flexible than that of the CJEU, in light of the increasing numbers of families in Europe who do not fit the ‘traditional’ definition of family, as well as increased cross-border movement of family members into Europe from outside its borders. By comparing CJEU and ECtHR jurisprudence, this paper argues in favour of the CJEU paving the way for the ECtHR to embrace a broader definition of family, one that promotes a more inclusive understanding of who is part of the family, where they come from and what rights they should enjoy. In this way, the scope of the right to respect for private and family life can move with the times, to adapt to the shifting interpretations of what constitutes family life.

Over the years the European Parliament (EP) has earned a reputation as the most important human rights actor in the European Union (EU). Nevertheless, little research has been dedicated to the EP’s commitment to human rights. As a directly elected institution with limited competences, the EP seeks legitimacy vis-à-vis different audiences, such as citizens, other EU institutions and third countries. Due to the EP’s reputation as the democratic backbone and main human rights actor of the EU, I argue that human rights play a major role for the EP’s quest for legitimacy. But how does the EP use human rights legitimation to become a credible international actor? I expect that by engaging in human rights legitimation the EP contributes to the EU’s identity building both internally (directed at constituencies) and externally (directed at observers). To identify the human rights themes in the EP’s legitimation practices and their application inside Parliament, I conduct a qualitative content analysis of EP documents ranging from Plenary and Committee meetings to press releases, activity reports and legal texts. Based on interviews with Members of the EP, staff and relevant outside actors, I search evidence for the conditions on which the EP turns to human rights themes for legitimating purposes and their effects. I claim that the EP’s commitment to human rights critically influences the EU’s standing as a value-driven international actor in that it promotes cohesiveness of the political community based on common values and enhances external recognition as an institution that maintains peace and justice in Europe.