Forty-six member states of the Council of Europe have signed a political declaration in Chișinău, Moldova, aimed at refining the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the deportation of foreign nationals.

歐洲委員會的 46 個成員國在摩爾多瓦的基希尼夫簽署了一份政治宣言，旨在完善《歐洲人權公約》(ECHR) 關於驅逐外籍人士的適用方式。

The declaration asserts the 'undeniable sovereign right' of states to regulate their borders and manage the residence of foreign nationals. This institutional positioning is predicated on the premise that contemporary migration pressures and the instrumentalization of migration by hostile actors may undermine public confidence in the ECHR framework if not addressed. Consequently, the document advocates for a more restrictive interpretation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Specifically, it suggests that the threshold for 'inhuman or degrading treatment' under Article 3 should be interpreted with greater caution, proposing that suboptimal healthcare or social conditions in a receiving state should only preclude extradition in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, it emphasizes that the right to family life under Article 8 must be balanced against the public interest, asserting that national authorities are best positioned to execute this balancing exercise.

該宣言主張國家擁有「不可否認的主權權利」來監管邊境並管理外籍人士的居留。這種制度定位是基於一個前提，即如果未加以處理，當代的移民壓力以及敵對勢力將移民工具化，可能會削弱公眾對 ECHR 框架的信心。因此，該文件主張對公約第 3 條和第 8 條採取更嚴格的解釋。具體而言，它建議對第 3 條下的「不人道或侮辱性對待」的門檻應更謹慎地解釋，並提出接收國的醫療或社會條件不佳，應僅在例外情況下才能阻止引渡。此外，它強調第 8 條下的家庭生活權必須與公共利益取得平衡，並主張國家權責機關最適合執行這種平衡衡量。

Central to the agreement is the endorsement of 'return hubs' in third countries as a mechanism to process asylum seekers and deter irregular migration. This approach follows the precedent established by the Italy-Albania agreement. The United Kingdom, having previously experienced the judicial failure of its Rwanda policy—which the Supreme Court deemed unlawful—is reportedly engaged in negotiations with unnamed third countries to establish similar hubs. While the European Union has signaled support for such measures, with several member states involved in discussions regarding eleven potential partner nations, the legal efficacy of the declaration remains a point of contention. Legal academics and migration specialists have noted that as a non-binding political signal, the declaration does not supersede domestic or international case law, though it may exert pressure on the European Court of Human Rights and national judiciaries to grant greater deference to state governments.

協議的核心在於支持在第三國建立「遣返中心」，作為處理尋 Asylum 者及遏止非法移民的機制。此做法遵循了義大利與阿爾巴尼亞協議所建立的先例。英國先前在盧安達政策上遭遇司法失敗——最高法院判定其違法——據報導目前正與未具名的第三國進行談判以建立類似中心。雖然歐盟已對此類措施表示支持，且數個成員國正就 11 個潛在合作夥伴國家進行討論，但該宣言的法律效力仍是一個爭議點。法律學者與移民專家指出，作為一個不具約束力的政治訊號，該宣言並不取代國內或國際的判例法，但可能會對歐洲人權法院及各國司法機關施壓，使其對主權政府給予更多尊重。

The agreement establishes a political framework for the expedited removal of migrants, though its practical impact on judicial outcomes remains uncertain.

該協議為加速驅逐移民建立了政治框架，但其對司法結果的實際影響仍不確定。