Academic literature on the topic 'Internationell straffrätt'

In September this year the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague decided, in accordance with the universal principle of competence-competence, that it has jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh. The decision is based on the Court’s extensive interpretation of the crime deportation within the Rome Statute. Part I of this thesis aims to analyze and determine whether the interpretation is sufficiently founded in the Rome Statute, or if the Court, through its decision, has exceeded its mandate. Part II of this thesis aims to examine the duties of international organizations in general, and of the ICC in particular, when it comes to the rules of state sovereignty. Both questions are vital in answering of the question at large – has the ICC, through its decision, violated Myanmar’s right to state sovereginty?

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of non-refoulement. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a jus cogens rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state.

Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of jus cogens-rules should include or give rise to erga omnes rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain jus cogens-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.

The present paper is part of a project carried on by the Swedish Section of the International Commission of Jurists. Sweden has ratified several major international human rights instruments. Most of the rights are covered by national law, and only in exception is there a discrepancy between national and international law. Such a discrepancy is found in the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, in which the State parties agree on penalizing and prohibiting the founding of and participation in racist organizations. Sweden is not complying with this statute, despite the fact that the government has ratified the convention. The Swedish government states that national laws prohibit the activities of these organizations, and therefore it is not necessary to reform the legislation. The National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet) presents an annual report on hate crime in Sweden. Between the years 2005 and 2009 the number of reported hate crimes almost doubled. To some point the increase can be explained by a widened definition of hate crime, but the reports have increased in real terms as well. The Swedish government is combating human rights violations, and the long term objective is to ensure full respect for human rights. Critique raised against Sweden in international reviewing institutions indicates that Sweden has some ground to cover before reaching such an objective. Most of the presented critique concerns the non-existing ban of racist organizations, increased reports of hate crime as well as racist influences within Swedish politics and society as such. Prohibiting racist organizations constitutes limitations in the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. Ever since Sweden incorporated the European convention for the Protection of Human Rights, freedom of expression has been given a unique position within the national legal system. This position is strengthened even further through different judgments in the Swedish Supreme Court, in cases on agitation. The questions raised in this paper are consequently: Is it possible to ensure full respect for human rights, or can you only come near such an ensuring? Does Sweden live up to its international obligations? How does the Swedish government weigh the different rights against each other? Should the rights be differently balanced? The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to establish Sweden’s international obligations, to highlight the possibility of limitations in the freedom of expression and to look at the occurrence of and legislations against hate crime.
Uppsatsen utgör en del av projektet "Implementering av kritik i internationella organ mot Sverige och Rätten till kompensation" som drivs av Internationella Juristkommissionen - Svenska avdelningen.
Implementering av kritik i internationella organ mot Sverige och Rätten till kompensation

I Sverige har till dato endast en fällande dom för människohandel för tvångsarbete meddelats, trots att statistik och rapportering i media indikerar att problemet är omfattande. Av media och myndighetsrapporter framgår att de som utsätts för arbetskraftsexploatering ofta är personer som befinner sig i Sverige som asylsökande eller som helt saknar tillstånd att vistas och arbeta i landet. Detta är även en grupp som på grund av deras prekära migrationsstatus, bristande tillgång till myndighetsskydd och begränsade försörjningsmöjligheter identifierats som särskilt utsatt för människohandel. Trots detta har inget åtal för människohandel för tvångsarbete avsett exploatering av papperslösa eller asylsökande, och åtal har heller aldrig väckts för fall där migranten rekryterats i Sverige. I denna uppsats diskuteras och problematiseras den internationella och den svenska definitionen av människohandel ur ett rättighetsperspektiv, med särskild fokus på arbetskraftsexploatering av irreguljära migranter och skyddet för deras rättigheter. Det konstateras att eftersom definitionen av människohandel utformats inom ramen för ett brottsbekämpningsuppdrag har de utsattas rättigheter hamnat i skymundan. Staternas ovilja att garantera de irreguljära migranternas rättigheter har påverkat definitionens utformning och lett till att den exploatering denna grupp utsätts för hamnar utanför dess tillämpningsområde. Vidare visas att svenska domstolars tolkning och tillämpning av straffbestämmelsen har ytterligare begränsat dess tillämplighet i sammanhanget. Mot denna bakgrund anförs att människohandelsbestämmelsen inte på ett tillfredsställande sätt förmår förebygga och bekämpa den typ av människohandel som idag är av störst praktisk betydelse. Straffbestämmelsen misslyckas även med att beskydda de irreguljära migranternas rättigheter, en grupp som är särskilt utsatt för rättighetskränkningar av olika slag men som har en mycket begränsad tillgång till myndigheternas beskydd. Avslutningsvis diskuteras behovet av en mer ändamålsenlig rättstillämpning eller en reviderad straffbestämmelse. Såsom människohandel definierats av internationella organisationer avses den handelsprocess som leder till exploatering, och inte exploateringen i sig. Särskilt de irreguljära migranter som rekryteras i Sverige har sällan utsatts för en sådan handelsprocess. Det anförs därför att det ur ett svenskt perspektiv vore angeläget att istället anta en straffbestämmelse som möjliggör bestraffning av den fortgående exploateringen.