Introduction
Shamima Begum’s name is one that you’ve probably already heard of. In 2015, the schoolgirl made headlines after leaving the UK to join Islamic State. After being exposed to the extremism of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Ms Begum was considered a national security threat and was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019. Ms Begum applied for permission to enter the UK to appeal the decision. The case progressed through the UK’s judiciary, with the Supreme Court determining that the decision to strip her of her citizenship and refuse permission had been lawful. However, what seemed to be a national security case has come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), highlighting how complex such proceedings can be, especially at an international level.
ECtHR proceedings
On 10th April 2026, a third-party intervention argued that the UK had been in violation of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 4 imposes a positive obligation upon contracting parties to determine whether an individual is at risk of human trafficking. It is claimed that the UK failed to investigate this possibility, despite valid evidence that the then 15-year-old Ms Begum may have been trafficked. Article 4 is a non-derogable right; meaning it cannot be suspended or limited, even in a national emergency - in other words, it is afforded absolute protection. The UK’s duty to Ms Begum would not have been avoided by the national security concerns that the Supreme Court had affirmed. It is argued that the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship merely exploited her vulnerability and compromised her rights under Article 3 (freedom from inhumane treatment) and Article 8 (a right to family). The intervention argues that depriving Ms Begum of her citizenship was arbitrary and disproportionate, violating international law.
Why is this relevant?
While awaiting the ECtHR’s judgment, Ms Begum’s case highlights how one’s culpability does not dissolve the state's responsibility to safeguard certain rights. Two truths can exist simultaneously: Ms Begum could have posed a national security threat while also being a victim of human trafficking. The case reminds us of the fundamentality and universality of human rights, which international laws such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) seek to protect, alongside the tensions that can arise between domestic and international legislation in their enforcement.
However, international intervention has not been received positively. The ECtHR has on several occasions been accused of judicial activism, limiting Parliamentary sovereignty by legislating on matters of social policy. This opinion has been fuelled by exaggerated claims that the ECtHR has used the ECHR conventions to prevent the deportation of criminals, thus jeopardising UK national security interests. This narrative has been worsened by misleading media description of ECtHR judges as ‘unelected’.
Conclusion
Ms Begum’s case has provided insight into how the UK must be careful to ensure that it balances its international human rights obligations with domestic policy. However, where national security is concerned, many have regarded international courts as a foe rather than a friend on the matter. If the ECtHR were to rule in favour of Ms Begum, the judgment would surely add fuel to a fire that has demanded leaving the ECHR and accompanying foreign judicial scrutiny.