Lagstiftningsåtgärder mot terrorism - Hur offensiva åtgärder förhåller sig till mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter
(2017) LAGF03 20171Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- There is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. In short, the Swedish legislation defines terrorism as certain types of crimes that could severely harm the state or an international organisation and which is committed with a certain intention to intimidate, compel, destabilise or demolish. This essay analyses two of the laws that the Swedish counter-terrorism legislation consists of. Both of them criminalise acts that in the future could lead to what is called an act of terrorism. Firstly, the laws are discussed from a legislative development perspective. Secondly, pre-emptive regulations are identified in order to clarify whether or not the legislation has resulted in an expansion of the area of criminal responsibility.... (More)
- There is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. In short, the Swedish legislation defines terrorism as certain types of crimes that could severely harm the state or an international organisation and which is committed with a certain intention to intimidate, compel, destabilise or demolish. This essay analyses two of the laws that the Swedish counter-terrorism legislation consists of. Both of them criminalise acts that in the future could lead to what is called an act of terrorism. Firstly, the laws are discussed from a legislative development perspective. Secondly, pre-emptive regulations are identified in order to clarify whether or not the legislation has resulted in an expansion of the area of criminal responsibility. Thirdly, the legislation is examined from a human rights and fundamental freedoms-perspective. The proportionality, necessity and legitimacy of the regulations are discussed and case law from Swedish courts are used to gather information on the effect carried out by the regulations.
The result of the assessment leads to the following conclusions: The area of criminal responsibility has expanded considerably since all acts that have been criminalised by the two laws in question are at a preparatory level but neither a risk for a completed crime, nor an intention to complete a crime is needed for criminal responsibility. Since the regulations are combined with different types of punishments, they are all identified as more or less pre-emptive. The sooner the regulation can be used in the chain of actions that could lead to an act of terrorism, the more pre-emptive it has been viewed. The case law shows that the regulations examined in this essay only have had little to no effect. As a result, the two laws can be strongly questioned with reference to necessity and legitimacy. The regulations that restrict human rights and fundamental freedoms can also not be said to be proportionate.
In conclusion, Sweden alongside other states and international organisations has big challenges ahead. Terrorism has to be combatted without negatively affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms at the same time. Legislation without any effect can hollow out the legitimacy of the legal system and measures against terrorism that limit rights and freedoms can lead to increased radicalisation as a result. If this happens, terrorism has reached its goal by damaging liberal democracies. Therefore, it is of greatest importance that the investigation appointed in the beginning of 2017 with the purpose to review the Swedish counter-terrorism legislation carries out a thorough analysis of how the legislation relates to human rights and fundamental freedoms. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Det finns ingen internationellt accepterad definition av terrorism. I korthet definieras terrorism i svensk rätt som vissa typer av brott som allvarligt kan skada en stat eller mellanstatlig organisation och som begås med intention att injaga allvarlig fruktan, otillbörligen tvinga eller allvarligt destabilisera eller förstöra. Uppsatsen behandlar Lag (2002:444) om straff för finansiering av särskilt allvarlig brottslighet i vissa fall samt Lag (2010:299) om straff för offentlig uppmaning, rekrytering och utbildning avseende terroristbrott och annan särskilt allvarlig brottslighet. De båda utgör en del av Sveriges straffrättsliga lagstiftning mot terrorism, men till skillnad från Lag (2003:148) om straff för terroristbrott kriminaliserar... (More)
- Det finns ingen internationellt accepterad definition av terrorism. I korthet definieras terrorism i svensk rätt som vissa typer av brott som allvarligt kan skada en stat eller mellanstatlig organisation och som begås med intention att injaga allvarlig fruktan, otillbörligen tvinga eller allvarligt destabilisera eller förstöra. Uppsatsen behandlar Lag (2002:444) om straff för finansiering av särskilt allvarlig brottslighet i vissa fall samt Lag (2010:299) om straff för offentlig uppmaning, rekrytering och utbildning avseende terroristbrott och annan särskilt allvarlig brottslighet. De båda utgör en del av Sveriges straffrättsliga lagstiftning mot terrorism, men till skillnad från Lag (2003:148) om straff för terroristbrott kriminaliserar de inte själva terroristbrottet utan istället handlingar som typiskt sett kan leda fram till ett sådant brott.
Inledningsvis diskuteras de två speciallagarna ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv. Sedan identifieras offensiva bestämmelser som en del av undersökningen av huruvida lagstiftningen resulterat i en utvidgning av det straffbara området. Efter detta undersöks hur regleringarna förhåller sig till mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter. Proportionalitet, nödvändighet och legitimitet diskuteras och rättspraxis från svenska domstolar används för att uppmäta bestämmelsernas effekt. Resultatet av undersökningen leder fram till följande slutsatser: Införandet av de två speciallagarna har resulterat i ett utökat straffansvar eftersom samtliga kriminaliseringar är på ett förberedande stadium, men varken fara för eller avsikt till fullbordat brott är nödvändigt för straffansvar. Eftersom bestämmelserna är förenade med bestraffande åtgärder har de bedömts vara mer eller mindre offensiva. Ju tidigare en bestämmelse kan tillämpas i den kedja av händelser som slutligen kan leda fram till ett fullbordat terroristbrott, desto mer offensiv har den bedömts vara. Rättspraxis visar att de regleringar som uppsatsen undersöker endast har haft liten till ingen effekt. Som ett resultat av detta kan de två speciallagarna starkt ifrågasättas utifrån nödvändighet och legitimitet. De bestämmelser som dessutom inskränker mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter kan inte heller sägas vara proportionerliga.
Avslutningsvis kan konstateras att Sverige, tillsammans med övriga stater och internationella organisationer, står inför en stor utmaning. Terrorism måste bekämpas utan att mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter hotas. Lagstiftning som inte har effekt riskerar nämligen att urholka rättssystemets legitimitet och åtgärder mot terrorism som inskränker fri- och rättigheter kan i värsta fall leda till ökad radikalisering. Om detta sker har terrorismen nått sitt mål, vilket är att skada liberala demokratier. Således är det av största vikt att utredningen, som tillsattes i början av 2017 med syfte att se över Sveriges straffrättsliga lagstiftning mot terrorism, genomför en grundlig analys av hur den föreslagna lagstiftningen förhåller sig till mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8909701
- author
- Holmgren, Nanna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Criminal law, Statsrätt, Constitutional law, Terrorism, Mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter, Human rights and fundamental freedoms, Pre-emption
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8909701
- date added to LUP
- 2017-09-18 10:37:39
- date last changed
- 2017-09-18 10:37:39
@misc{8909701,
abstract = {{There is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. In short, the Swedish legislation defines terrorism as certain types of crimes that could severely harm the state or an international organisation and which is committed with a certain intention to intimidate, compel, destabilise or demolish. This essay analyses two of the laws that the Swedish counter-terrorism legislation consists of. Both of them criminalise acts that in the future could lead to what is called an act of terrorism. Firstly, the laws are discussed from a legislative development perspective. Secondly, pre-emptive regulations are identified in order to clarify whether or not the legislation has resulted in an expansion of the area of criminal responsibility. Thirdly, the legislation is examined from a human rights and fundamental freedoms-perspective. The proportionality, necessity and legitimacy of the regulations are discussed and case law from Swedish courts are used to gather information on the effect carried out by the regulations.
The result of the assessment leads to the following conclusions: The area of criminal responsibility has expanded considerably since all acts that have been criminalised by the two laws in question are at a preparatory level but neither a risk for a completed crime, nor an intention to complete a crime is needed for criminal responsibility. Since the regulations are combined with different types of punishments, they are all identified as more or less pre-emptive. The sooner the regulation can be used in the chain of actions that could lead to an act of terrorism, the more pre-emptive it has been viewed. The case law shows that the regulations examined in this essay only have had little to no effect. As a result, the two laws can be strongly questioned with reference to necessity and legitimacy. The regulations that restrict human rights and fundamental freedoms can also not be said to be proportionate.
In conclusion, Sweden alongside other states and international organisations has big challenges ahead. Terrorism has to be combatted without negatively affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms at the same time. Legislation without any effect can hollow out the legitimacy of the legal system and measures against terrorism that limit rights and freedoms can lead to increased radicalisation as a result. If this happens, terrorism has reached its goal by damaging liberal democracies. Therefore, it is of greatest importance that the investigation appointed in the beginning of 2017 with the purpose to review the Swedish counter-terrorism legislation carries out a thorough analysis of how the legislation relates to human rights and fundamental freedoms.}},
author = {{Holmgren, Nanna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Lagstiftningsåtgärder mot terrorism - Hur offensiva åtgärder förhåller sig till mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggande friheter}},
year = {{2017}},
}