Internationell straffrätt behandlar de svåraste överträdelserna av folkrätten. Dessa överträdelser utgör folkmord, brott mot mänskligheten, krigsförbrytelser och aggressionsbrott. Brotten regleras särskilt i Romstadgan. ICC lagför individer som bryter mot stadgans bestämmelser. Majoriteten av fall lagförs dock av stater som har ratificerat stadgan. ICC fungerar endast som ett komplement när de nationella rättsordningarna saknar vilja eller förmåga att ställa en individ till svars för internationell brottslighet. Sverige lagför många internationella brott jämfört med andra länder. Vid påföljdsfrågan hämtas ibland vägledning från internationella normer, främst i form av praxis från internationella domstolar. Syftet är uppnå en enhetlig rättstillämpning beträffande de internationella brotten. Detta är en förutsättning för att lagföringen ska uppfattas som rättvis och rättssäker. Lika fall ska behandlas lika och olika fall ska behandlas olika. De internationella brotten lagförs dock i olika rättssystem, varför det kan leda till olika bedömningar fastän det rör sig om brottslighet av samma slag. Att internationella normer tas i beaktande i nationell rätt kan därmed minska motsättningarna mellan olika rättssystem, men det kan samtidigt leda till att systemet i den nationella rätten rubbas. Om de internationella brotten särbehandlas i nationell rätt skapas en obalans i relation till de “vanliga” brotten. Det föreligger därför en konflikt mellan att uppnå enhetlighet på internationell nivå respektive nationell nivå.  Det finns argument som talar för båda hållen. Ett starkt argument mot att nationella rättsordningar ska ta hänsyn till internationella normer är att normerna är otydliga. Rättspraxis från ICC har inte ett högt rättskällevärde eftersom domstolen endast har meddelat påföljd i fyra fall. Viss vägledning kan hämtas från ICTY och ICTR, men rättstillämparen i Sverige har uttryckt återhållsamhet mot sådana sammanblandningar. Endast när det föreligger brister i nationell rätt har rätten tagit stöd från andra domstolar. Även om det finns ett behov av att uppnå en enhetlig rättstillämpning beträffande de internationella brotten förefaller det vara förenat med höga risker. I dagsläget finns det ingen tillfredsställande lösning på problemet eftersom det inte finns någon överstatlig straffrättslig aktör som kan binda alla länders straffsystem samman. Möjligen kan ICC åta sig den rollen inom en snar framtid. Under tiden bör enhetligheten i det nationella rättssystemet prioriteras.

Författaren utforskar möjligheterna att lagföra den ryska ledningen för aggressionsbrottet mot Ukraina. Främst analyseras de utmaningar som uppstår rörande jurisdiktion och immunitet vid lagföring av aggressionsbrottet. Utredningen grundar sig till stor del på redan etablerade internationella domstolar och tribunaler.

No description available.

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?

No description available.

The involvement of multinational corporations, international traders, transporters, processors, and retailers has a crucial significance in high-risk contexts there is a wide range of commercial activities that can make economic actors criminally responsible for gross violations of international humanitarian law and human rights: this includes the sale of weaponry, pillaging or commercial transactions unrelated to war. Allowing companies and their managers to shield themselves is harmful to the development of international law. Despite the fact that international criminal law does not foresee the criminal responsibility of legal entities, international criminal law does envisage the criminal responsibility of individuals, including those in charge of large-scale commercial activities. This thesis examines the manner in which international law regulates the complicity of business executives (in their capacity as company directors/officials) managing firms within the context of an armed conflict. Complicity is a subset of culpability that connects an accomplice to a primary actor's crime. This thesis examines the framework for evaluating complicity standards and suggests alternatives to normative prosecution of company leaders. I demonstrate that international criminal law regulates individual involvement in a comprehensive manner, employing the theories of incitement and aiding and abetting to inculpate complicit actors in international crimes, and these theories are differentiated by the extent of involvement in an unlawful complicitous activity, a threshold of knowledge of the fault needed of the accomplice, and a connection requirement between the accomplice's activities and the principal’s wrong. Similarly, it investigates the evolution of the concept of complicity in customary criminal law via tribunals and hybrid courts. It examines the evolution of complicity in light of social media, war sponsorship, and profit-motivated support provided to governments

<p>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 <em>non-refoulement</em>. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a <em>jus cogens</em> 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.</p><p>Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of <em>aut dedere aut judicare</em>, 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 <em>jus cogens</em>-rules should include or give rise to <em>erga omnes</em> 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 <em>jus cogens</em>-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.</p>

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.

No description available.