Abstract The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in 1990 and thereafter Sweden also ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Swedish Parliament voted in 2018 on the Government's proposal regarding the incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child became law in Sweden since 1 January 2020. The purpose of the study has been to examine and analyze the transposition of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Swedish law. Furthermore, all changes, challenges and problems encountered during the process regarding the incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are analyzed. To achieve the purpose of the essay, I have used a rights theory by the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin who writes about legal rights.   The study clearly shows that the transposition of the Convention on the Rights of the Child acquires the status of Swedish law and this will help children to comply with children's rights in society, despite certain problems that remain. Children's rights are described on the basis of the articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the three optional additional protocols, where additional protocol (TP3) has not been ratified in Swedish law. (TP3) gave children the opportunity to challenge decisions when children’s rights have been violated under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child means also that children have no right to complain, because the courts have no direct obligation to use the articles and additional protocols of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Sveriges ratificering av CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, eller Kvinnokonventionen, är ett internationellt traktat framtaget av Förenta nationerna i syfte att stärka kvinnors mänskliga rättigheter. Som det första landet att ratificera konventionen har Sverige varken transformerat eller inkorporerat konventionen i svensk lagstiftning, då svensk rätt har ansetts redan vara i normharmoni med konventionen. Tvister som uppstår i en transnationell kontext kan emellertid orsaka att kvinnors rättigheter i skilda regelverk hamnar i kläm, och föranleder frågan hur detta förhåller sig till åtagandet av Kvinnokonventionen. Det internationellt privaträttsliga rättsområdet har utvecklats i syfte att underlätta för domstolar att hantera gränsöverskridande tvister. I en gränsöverskridande tvist är det emellertid risk för att rättigheter kan förgås när två regelverk ser olika ut och det ena regelverket blir tillämpligt framför det andra. Lagval som landat i svensk rätt och som exempelvis behandlat anspråk från kvinnor på typfrämmande rättsinstitut såsom mahr, och som inte har en motsvarighet i svensk rätt, har underkänts i Högsta domstolen. Kvinnan, som inrättat sig efter sitt i ursprungslandet ingångna äktenskapsavtal, står därmed plötsligt utan denna rättighet. Uppsatsen behandlar just denna komplexa relation som kan uppstå vid gränsöverskridande tvister mellan svenska rättsregler och förhållningssätt, och andra länders rättsregler, seder och bruk. Vidare testas om svensk rätt, när den inte erkänner ursprungslandets seder, uppfyller åtagandet som följer av Kvinnokonventionen i dessa avseenden. Tre rättsfall som behandlar det typfrämmande rättsinstitutet mahr, barnäktenskap respektive månggifte används för att illustrera den transnationella kontexten. Slutsatsen som kan dras är att Sverige i vissa avseenden inte uppfyller sitt åtagande och att den svenska rättspolitiken inte tillräckligt har beaktat de negativa konsekvenser som kan uppstå för kvinnor när deras ursprungliga rättigheter underkänns abrupt. Motargument mot denna slutsats som stödjer den svenska hållningen behandlas också för visa på det komplexa rättsläget som för närvarande råder. / Sweden’s ratification of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, is an international treaty developed by the United Nations with the aim of strengthening women’s human rights. However, as the first country to ratify the convention, Sweden has neither transformed nor incorporated the convention into Swedish legislation, as already existing Swedish law is considered to be in harmony with the convention. Disputes that arise in a transnational context can, however, lead to women’s rights not being fully considered when dealing with different regulations and raises the question if the commitment to comply with the Convention is being upheld. Private international law has been developed with the aim of enabling courts to deal with cross-border disputes by means of rules on how to determine the choice of law, which court has jurisdiction in the case, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. However, when deciding on these issues in a cross-border dispute, there is a risk that rights may be forfeited when two regulations are different and one of them becomes applicable over the other. Choice of law rules that has decided that Swedish law is applicable in cases that deal with claims from women regarding, for example, their right to mahr according to the law of their home country, and which has no equivalent in Swedish law, has been rejected by the Supreme Court in some instances. The woman has thus suddenly lost her right. This essay deals with the complex relationship that can arise in cross-border disputes between Swedish legal rules, and other countries’ legal rules and customs. Furthermore, it is tested whether Swedish law, when it does not recognize the customs of the foreign country, still meets the rules stipulated in the Convention in these respects. Three cases dealing with mahr, child marriage and polygamy are used to illustrate the transnational context. The conclusion drawn is that Sweden, in some respects, does not fulfill its commitment and that Swedish legal policy has not sufficiently considered the negative consequences that may arise for women when their rights, according to their home country, are abruptly rejected. Counterarguments against this conclusion, in line with the Swedish approach, are also dealt with to show the complexity of the legal situation that currently prevails.