Guantanamo - ett rättsligt svart hål i kriget mot terrorn? - En utredning kring Bush-administrationens argument för att frånhålla de misstänkta terroristerna krigsfångestatus
(2020) LAGF03 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- President Bush förklarade krig mot terrorn efter att USA blivit utsatta för de värsta terroristattackerna hittills i historien. I den inledande konflikten var al-Qaida och talibanregimen i Afghanistan motståndarna. Flertalet misstänkta terrorister tillfångatogs och transporterades till fånglägret Guantanamo där de hölls utan de rättigheter som de borde ha fått åtnjuta under Genèvekonventionerna som krigsfångar. Då konflikten i Afghanistan kan ses som en internationell väpnad konflikt är Genèvekonventionerna tillämpliga och frågan om krigsfångestatus högaktuell.
En skillnad görs mellan talibanerna och al-Qaidamedlemmarna då talibanerna bör ses som den afghanska regeringens reguljära styrkor medan medlemmarna i al-Qaida inte uppfyller de... (More) - President Bush förklarade krig mot terrorn efter att USA blivit utsatta för de värsta terroristattackerna hittills i historien. I den inledande konflikten var al-Qaida och talibanregimen i Afghanistan motståndarna. Flertalet misstänkta terrorister tillfångatogs och transporterades till fånglägret Guantanamo där de hölls utan de rättigheter som de borde ha fått åtnjuta under Genèvekonventionerna som krigsfångar. Då konflikten i Afghanistan kan ses som en internationell väpnad konflikt är Genèvekonventionerna tillämpliga och frågan om krigsfångestatus högaktuell.
En skillnad görs mellan talibanerna och al-Qaidamedlemmarna då talibanerna bör ses som den afghanska regeringens reguljära styrkor medan medlemmarna i al-Qaida inte uppfyller de krav som stadgas i art. 4 GK III. Det lyfts dock i denna uppsats hur USA har misslyckats med att ge al-Qaidamedlemmarna de rättigheter de borde ha åtnjutit under GK IV och andra delar av genèvereglerna.
Uppsatsen avser att utreda de olika argument som USA framställer för att rättfärdiga situationen på Guantanamo och huruvida dessa är hållbara gentemot den internationella rätten. Internationell humanitär rätt är som all annan rätt en tolkningsfråga och i detta fall finns det två läger som tolkar Genèvekonventionerna olika. Ett av USA:s argument är att guantanamofångarna är s.k. illegala kombattanter och därför ska varken talibanerna eller al-Qaidamedlemmarna åtnjuta krigsfångestatus, emellertid menar USA att de kommer behandla alla fångar humant och i enlighet med de principer som kommer ur Genèvekonventionerna.
Bush-administrationen börjar snabbt efter krigets inledning att genomföra regelverk som skulle underlätta förhören av de misstänkta terroristerna. De tolkar den gällande rätten på ett sätt som passar deras syfte och mål vilket görs på bekostnad av fångarnas rättigheter.
Avslutningsvis kan det konstateras att Bush-administrationens argument håller sig svagt mot den internationella rätten och det kan föras en diskussion kring huruvida om USA har gjort rätt i sin statusklassificering av fångarna eller inte. (Less) - Abstract
- After suffering from the worst terror attacks in history, President Bush declares war on terror. In the initial conflict, the al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime constitute the opposition. A number of suspected terrorists are captured and transported to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, where they were held captives without the rights that should have been provided by the Geneva Convention as Prisoners of War. Due to the fact that the Afghanistan conflict can be classified as an international armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions should be applicable and the question regarding Prisoners of War status becomes highly relevant.
A difference between the Talibans and the members of the al-Qaeda has been made, as the Talibans should be classified... (More) - After suffering from the worst terror attacks in history, President Bush declares war on terror. In the initial conflict, the al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime constitute the opposition. A number of suspected terrorists are captured and transported to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, where they were held captives without the rights that should have been provided by the Geneva Convention as Prisoners of War. Due to the fact that the Afghanistan conflict can be classified as an international armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions should be applicable and the question regarding Prisoners of War status becomes highly relevant.
A difference between the Talibans and the members of the al-Qaeda has been made, as the Talibans should be classified as forces belonging to the afghani government, and the al-Qaeda members do not meet the requirements to be included in the third Geneva Convention from 1949. However, this paper illuminates the American failure to provide the members of the al-Qaeda with the minimum rights that should have been accessed through the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the different arguments by which the American government justifies the situation on Guantanamo and whether these can be opposed by international law. International humanitarian law is, like all other jurisdiction, a subject for interpretation. In this case two sides of the conflict exist, both interpreting the Geneva Convention differently. One of the arguments of the American government includes the construing that the prisoners of Guantanamo so called unlawful combatants and thus are not applicable for the status as Prisoners of War. Nonetheless, the American government intends to treat all prisoners humanely according to the principles arising from the Geneva Conventions.
After the initiation of the Afghanistan War, the Bush-administration quickly implements regulations to facilitate interrogation of the suspected terrorists. They interpret the international humanitarian law in a way that aids their purpose and objective, something that is accomplished on expense of the prisoners’ rights.
Lastly, it can be stated that the arguments of the Bush-administration should be considered weak in consideration with international law. A discussion regarding whether the American government were correct in their status classification of the prisoners or not can be made. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010789
- author
- Rikardsdotter, Hanna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt (en. public international law), internationell humanitär rätt, krigsfångestatus, illegal kombattant, Guantanamo
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010789
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-21 14:01:24
- date last changed
- 2020-09-21 14:01:24
@misc{9010789,
abstract = {{After suffering from the worst terror attacks in history, President Bush declares war on terror. In the initial conflict, the al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime constitute the opposition. A number of suspected terrorists are captured and transported to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, where they were held captives without the rights that should have been provided by the Geneva Convention as Prisoners of War. Due to the fact that the Afghanistan conflict can be classified as an international armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions should be applicable and the question regarding Prisoners of War status becomes highly relevant.
A difference between the Talibans and the members of the al-Qaeda has been made, as the Talibans should be classified as forces belonging to the afghani government, and the al-Qaeda members do not meet the requirements to be included in the third Geneva Convention from 1949. However, this paper illuminates the American failure to provide the members of the al-Qaeda with the minimum rights that should have been accessed through the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the different arguments by which the American government justifies the situation on Guantanamo and whether these can be opposed by international law. International humanitarian law is, like all other jurisdiction, a subject for interpretation. In this case two sides of the conflict exist, both interpreting the Geneva Convention differently. One of the arguments of the American government includes the construing that the prisoners of Guantanamo so called unlawful combatants and thus are not applicable for the status as Prisoners of War. Nonetheless, the American government intends to treat all prisoners humanely according to the principles arising from the Geneva Conventions.
After the initiation of the Afghanistan War, the Bush-administration quickly implements regulations to facilitate interrogation of the suspected terrorists. They interpret the international humanitarian law in a way that aids their purpose and objective, something that is accomplished on expense of the prisoners’ rights.
Lastly, it can be stated that the arguments of the Bush-administration should be considered weak in consideration with international law. A discussion regarding whether the American government were correct in their status classification of the prisoners or not can be made.}},
author = {{Rikardsdotter, Hanna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Guantanamo - ett rättsligt svart hål i kriget mot terrorn? - En utredning kring Bush-administrationens argument för att frånhålla de misstänkta terroristerna krigsfångestatus}},
year = {{2020}},
}