Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Sveriges efterlevnad av art. 4(b) ICERD

Zolotov, Vincent LU (2020) LAGF03 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In 1971, Sweden ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Since the Conventions entry into force in 1972, Sweden has
been obliged to implement the conventions articles in order to combat racial discrimination.
Art. 4(b) states that the State Parties shall prohibit organizations that promote or encourage
racial discrimination. Art. 8 states that a committee for the abolition of racial discrimination
shall be established (CERD). CERD's task is, among other things, to review the State Parties
compliance with its convention commitments. The Committee has repeatedly criticized
Sweden on the grounds that a ban on racist organizations does not exist in national law.
Sweden... (More)
In 1971, Sweden ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Since the Conventions entry into force in 1972, Sweden has
been obliged to implement the conventions articles in order to combat racial discrimination.
Art. 4(b) states that the State Parties shall prohibit organizations that promote or encourage
racial discrimination. Art. 8 states that a committee for the abolition of racial discrimination
shall be established (CERD). CERD's task is, among other things, to review the State Parties
compliance with its convention commitments. The Committee has repeatedly criticized
Sweden on the grounds that a ban on racist organizations does not exist in national law.
Sweden claims its convention commitments are already fulfilled through existing legislation.
The essay examines the obligations that follow from art. 4(b) ICERD and how Sweden
justifies its statements about already complying with their convention commitments.
Furthermore, a critical analysis of the arguments Sweden put forward in support of this is
presented.
Sweden's point of view is that art. 4(b) ICERD shall be interpreted in the light of art. 2.1(d).
Art. 2.1(d) ICERD states that racial discrimination shall be combated by all appropriate
means, including such legislation as may be required by the circumstances. Sweden believes
the circumstances in the country are not such that a ban on racist organizations is required.
My conclusion is that art. 4 (b) ICERD stipulates an absolute obligation to ban racist
organizations and that Sweden has not fulfilled its convention commitments through existing
legislation. After an examination of the circumstances in the country and a critical analysis of
Sweden's claims, my conclusion is that the arguments made are inadequate. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Sverige ratificerade år 1971 FN:s internationella konvention om avskaffandet av alla former
av rasdiskriminering (ICERD). Sedan konventionens ikraftträdande 1972 har Sverige varit
förpliktigade att genomföra vad konventionen stadgar, i syfte att bekämpa rasdiskriminering.
I konventionens art. 4(b) framgår att konventionsstaterna skall förbjuda organisationer som
främjar eller uppmanar till rasdiskriminering. I konventionens art. 8 framgår att en kommitté
för avskaffandet av rasdiskriminering skall upprättas (CERD). CERD:s uppgift är bland annat
att granska medlemsstaternas efterlevnad av sina konventionsåtaganden. Kommittén har
åtskilliga gånger kritiserat Sverige med anledning av att ett förbud mot rasistiska
organisationer inte... (More)
Sverige ratificerade år 1971 FN:s internationella konvention om avskaffandet av alla former
av rasdiskriminering (ICERD). Sedan konventionens ikraftträdande 1972 har Sverige varit
förpliktigade att genomföra vad konventionen stadgar, i syfte att bekämpa rasdiskriminering.
I konventionens art. 4(b) framgår att konventionsstaterna skall förbjuda organisationer som
främjar eller uppmanar till rasdiskriminering. I konventionens art. 8 framgår att en kommitté
för avskaffandet av rasdiskriminering skall upprättas (CERD). CERD:s uppgift är bland annat
att granska medlemsstaternas efterlevnad av sina konventionsåtaganden. Kommittén har
åtskilliga gånger kritiserat Sverige med anledning av att ett förbud mot rasistiska
organisationer inte existerar i den nationella rätten. Sverige menar istället att man redan
uppfyller sina konventionsåtaganden genom befintlig lagstiftning, där bestämmelsen om
hets mot folkgrupp pekas ut som central i sammanhanget.
I uppsatsen undersöks vilka förpliktelser som följer av art. 4(b) ICERD samt hur Sverige
motiverar att dessa redan uppfylls av befintlig lagstiftning. Vidare presenteras även en kritisk
analys av de argument Sverige framför till stöd för att så är fallet.
Sverige argumenterar bl.a. för att art. 4(b) ICERD skall tolkas i ljuset av art 2.1(d) ICERD. Art.
2.1(d) ICERD stadgar att rasdiskriminering ska bekämpas med alla lämpliga medel, bland
annat genom sådan lagstiftning som påkallas av omständigheterna. Sverige menar att
omständigheterna i landet inte är sådana att ett förbud mot rasistiska organisationer krävs.
Min slutsats är att art. 4(b) ICERD stadgar en absolut förpliktelse att förbjuda rasistiska
organisationer och att Sverige inte redan uppfyller sina konventionsåtaganden genom
befintlig lagstiftning. Efter en undersökning av omständigheterna i landet och en kritisk
analys av Sveriges påståenden är min slutsats att den argumentation som förts är bristfällig. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Zolotov, Vincent LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20202
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Folkrätt
language
Swedish
id
9034254
date added to LUP
2021-02-09 10:19:18
date last changed
2021-02-09 10:19:18
@misc{9034254,
  abstract     = {{In 1971, Sweden ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Since the Conventions entry into force in 1972, Sweden has
been obliged to implement the conventions articles in order to combat racial discrimination.
Art. 4(b) states that the State Parties shall prohibit organizations that promote or encourage
racial discrimination. Art. 8 states that a committee for the abolition of racial discrimination
shall be established (CERD). CERD's task is, among other things, to review the State Parties
compliance with its convention commitments. The Committee has repeatedly criticized
Sweden on the grounds that a ban on racist organizations does not exist in national law.
Sweden claims its convention commitments are already fulfilled through existing legislation.
The essay examines the obligations that follow from art. 4(b) ICERD and how Sweden
justifies its statements about already complying with their convention commitments.
Furthermore, a critical analysis of the arguments Sweden put forward in support of this is
presented.
Sweden's point of view is that art. 4(b) ICERD shall be interpreted in the light of art. 2.1(d).
Art. 2.1(d) ICERD states that racial discrimination shall be combated by all appropriate
means, including such legislation as may be required by the circumstances. Sweden believes
the circumstances in the country are not such that a ban on racist organizations is required.
My conclusion is that art. 4 (b) ICERD stipulates an absolute obligation to ban racist
organizations and that Sweden has not fulfilled its convention commitments through existing
legislation. After an examination of the circumstances in the country and a critical analysis of
Sweden's claims, my conclusion is that the arguments made are inadequate.}},
  author       = {{Zolotov, Vincent}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Sveriges efterlevnad av art. 4(b) ICERD}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}