Advanced

Rätten till en rättvis rättegång för fångarna på Guantánamo

Barath, Emilia LU (2011) MRSG20 20102
Human Rights Studies
Abstract
In the so called ‘war against terrorism’ the international humanitarian law was declared as non-applicable to ‘unlawful combatants’ by the Bush administration. The prisoners defined as such would therefore be given a different set of rights than would those who under the third Geneva Convention qualified as ‘prisoners of war’. By passing new national legislation, the president’s administration and the US Congress created special military commissions to try the prisoners. Laws were also passed to deny the prisoners the right to habeas corpus, to change the rules of evidence in the military commissions, and to limit or deny the prisoners’ right to appeal.

In my thesis, I study how the national US legislation between 2001 and 2008 relates... (More)
In the so called ‘war against terrorism’ the international humanitarian law was declared as non-applicable to ‘unlawful combatants’ by the Bush administration. The prisoners defined as such would therefore be given a different set of rights than would those who under the third Geneva Convention qualified as ‘prisoners of war’. By passing new national legislation, the president’s administration and the US Congress created special military commissions to try the prisoners. Laws were also passed to deny the prisoners the right to habeas corpus, to change the rules of evidence in the military commissions, and to limit or deny the prisoners’ right to appeal.

In my thesis, I study how the national US legislation between 2001 and 2008 relates to international human rights and international humanitarian laws in the so called war against terrorism. I do this by specifically looking at how the right to a fair trial, as stipulated in the 14th article of the International Convention on Cultural and Political Rights, was granted (or not granted) to the detainees held at the US military base at Guantánamo, Cuba. I ask; how did national US legislation and international law interrelate at this point in time, and how did it affect the fairness of the trials given the detainees at Guantánamo Bay?

I argue that the US through its national legislation broke both US national law (e.g. the US Constitution) and international laws by limiting the right to a fair trial for the detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The new national legislation, provided by president Bush’s administration and the Congress, consequently gave the prisoners on Guantánamo less fair trials than they would have been, had regular US national legislation or international humanitarian laws been correctly applied to their cases. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Barath, Emilia LU
supervisor
organization
course
MRSG20 20102
year
type
L2 - 2nd term paper (old degree order)
subject
keywords
Guantánamo Bay, right to a fair trial, international humanitarian law, international human rights
language
Swedish
id
1759604
date added to LUP
2011-01-31 12:27:20
date last changed
2014-09-04 08:27:55
@misc{1759604,
  abstract     = {In the so called ‘war against terrorism’ the international humanitarian law was declared as non-applicable to ‘unlawful combatants’ by the Bush administration. The prisoners defined as such would therefore be given a different set of rights than would those who under the third Geneva Convention qualified as ‘prisoners of war’. By passing new national legislation, the president’s administration and the US Congress created special military commissions to try the prisoners. Laws were also passed to deny the prisoners the right to habeas corpus, to change the rules of evidence in the military commissions, and to limit or deny the prisoners’ right to appeal.

In my thesis, I study how the national US legislation between 2001 and 2008 relates to international human rights and international humanitarian laws in the so called war against terrorism. I do this by specifically looking at how the right to a fair trial, as stipulated in the 14th article of the International Convention on Cultural and Political Rights, was granted (or not granted) to the detainees held at the US military base at Guantánamo, Cuba. I ask; how did national US legislation and international law interrelate at this point in time, and how did it affect the fairness of the trials given the detainees at Guantánamo Bay? 

I argue that the US through its national legislation broke both US national law (e.g. the US Constitution) and international laws by limiting the right to a fair trial for the detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The new national legislation, provided by president Bush’s administration and the Congress, consequently gave the prisoners on Guantánamo less fair trials than they would have been, had regular US national legislation or international humanitarian laws been correctly applied to their cases.},
  author       = {Barath, Emilia},
  keyword      = {Guantánamo Bay,right to a fair trial,international humanitarian law,international human rights},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rätten till en rättvis rättegång för fångarna på Guantánamo},
  year         = {2011},
}