"Inga rasister på våra gator!" – Eller? - En studie av Sveriges åtagande enligt art. 4(b) rasdiskrimineringskonventionen
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I media har diskussioner angående förbud mot rasistiska organisationer väckts i samband med att Nordiska motståndsrörelsen (NMR) kandiderar till riksdagsvalet i Sverige, samtidigt som organisationen förbjudits i Finland då den anses sprida hatretorik och legitimera våld. Förespråkare av ett sådant förbud argumenterar att Sverige genom FN:s Internationella konvention om avskaffandet av alla former av rasdiskriminering (ICERD) förbundit sig att förbjuda rasistiska organisationer. Sverige har sedan 1972 varit bunden av ICERD och enligt art. 4(b) ska konventionsstaterna förbjuda organisationer som främjar eller uppmanar till rasdiskriminering. FN:s rasdiskrimineringskommitté (CERD) har riktat kritik mot Sverige då ett sådant förbud inte... (More)
- I media har diskussioner angående förbud mot rasistiska organisationer väckts i samband med att Nordiska motståndsrörelsen (NMR) kandiderar till riksdagsvalet i Sverige, samtidigt som organisationen förbjudits i Finland då den anses sprida hatretorik och legitimera våld. Förespråkare av ett sådant förbud argumenterar att Sverige genom FN:s Internationella konvention om avskaffandet av alla former av rasdiskriminering (ICERD) förbundit sig att förbjuda rasistiska organisationer. Sverige har sedan 1972 varit bunden av ICERD och enligt art. 4(b) ska konventionsstaterna förbjuda organisationer som främjar eller uppmanar till rasdiskriminering. FN:s rasdiskrimineringskommitté (CERD) har riktat kritik mot Sverige då ett sådant förbud inte existerar i svensk lagstiftning. Sverige hävdar å andra sidan att nuvarande lagstiftning är tillräcklig.
Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka i vilken utsträckning Sverige lever upp till sina konventionsåtaganden enligt art. 4(b) ICERD. I enlighet med syftet undersöks vilka förpliktelser som följer av art. 4(b) samt hur Sverige argumenterat för att förpliktelserna uppfylls och om dessa argument ur ett kritiskt perspektiv är hållbara och väl underbyggda.
I undersökningen framkommer att Sverige tolkat art. 4(b) i ljuset av art. 2.1(d) ICERD vilket lett Sverige till slutsatsen att art. 4(b) inte ställer ett ovillkorligt krav på lagstiftning mot rasistiska organisationer. Vidare framgår det att Sverige huvudsakligen använder sig av två argument för att inte införa ett organisationsförbud. För det första anses omständigheterna i landet inte vara sådana att lagstiftning påkallas och för det andra anses brottet hets mot folkgrupp i 16 kap. 8 § Brottsbalken (BrB) vara tillräckligt för att leva upp till konventionsåtagandet i art. 4(b).
Mina slutsatser är att art. 4(b) rent folkrättsligt inte kan tolkas på annat sätt än att det ställs ett krav på ett förbud mot rasistiska organisationer. Inte heller kan Sveriges argument anses rimliga och hållbara. Hets mot folkgrupp fyller inte samma funktion som ett förbud mot rasistiska organisationer och situationen i Sverige kan inte sägas vara sådan att lagstiftning inte påkallas när organisationer som NMR får stå som kandidater i riksdagsval och brott med rasistiska motiv ökar. (Less) - Abstract
- In the media, discussions about banning racist organizations have been raised in connection with the Nordic resistance movement (NMR) standing as a candidate in the Swedish parliamentary elections, while at the same time the organization has been banned in Finland because it is considered to spread hate and legitimize violence. Advocates of a ban argue that Sweden through the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) has undertaken to ban racist organizations. Sweden is since 1972 bound by ICERD and according to art. 4(b), states parties to the treaty shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of... (More)
- In the media, discussions about banning racist organizations have been raised in connection with the Nordic resistance movement (NMR) standing as a candidate in the Swedish parliamentary elections, while at the same time the organization has been banned in Finland because it is considered to spread hate and legitimize violence. Advocates of a ban argue that Sweden through the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) has undertaken to ban racist organizations. Sweden is since 1972 bound by ICERD and according to art. 4(b), states parties to the treaty shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has criticized Sweden for the non-existence of such a ban in its national legislation. Sweden on the other hand claims that the current legislation is sufficient.
The aim of this thesis is to examine to what extent Sweden lives up to its commitments according to art. 4(b) ICERD. In the thesis, it is therefore examined which obligations derive from art. 4(b) as well as how Sweden has argued that the obligations are met and if these arguments from a critical perspective are valid and well substantiated.
The investigation shows that Sweden interprets art. 4(b) in the light of art. 2.2(d) ICERD, which has led Sweden to the conclusion that art. 4(b) does not impose an unconditional requirement for legislation against racist organizations. Furthermore, it appears that Sweden mainly uses two arguments for not introducing an organizational ban. Firstly, the circumstances in the country are not considered as such that legislation is called for. Secondly, the regulation of hate speech in chapter 16, section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code argues to be sufficient to live up to the commitments in art. 4(b) ICERD.
My conclusions are that art. 4(b) in respect of public international law, cannot be interpreted in other ways that requiring a ban on racist organizations. Nor can the Swedish arguments be considered valid and well substantiated. The legislation against hate speech does not fill the same function as an explicit organization ban and the situation in Sweden can be said to call for legislation, especially since the number of hate crimes is rising and organizations such as NMR can stand as candidates in parliamentary elections. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8941411
- author
- Andersson, Catharina LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Nilsson LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt, rasdiskrimineringskonventionen, ICERD
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8941411
- date added to LUP
- 2018-07-15 13:40:41
- date last changed
- 2018-07-15 13:40:41
@misc{8941411,
abstract = {{In the media, discussions about banning racist organizations have been raised in connection with the Nordic resistance movement (NMR) standing as a candidate in the Swedish parliamentary elections, while at the same time the organization has been banned in Finland because it is considered to spread hate and legitimize violence. Advocates of a ban argue that Sweden through the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) has undertaken to ban racist organizations. Sweden is since 1972 bound by ICERD and according to art. 4(b), states parties to the treaty shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has criticized Sweden for the non-existence of such a ban in its national legislation. Sweden on the other hand claims that the current legislation is sufficient.
The aim of this thesis is to examine to what extent Sweden lives up to its commitments according to art. 4(b) ICERD. In the thesis, it is therefore examined which obligations derive from art. 4(b) as well as how Sweden has argued that the obligations are met and if these arguments from a critical perspective are valid and well substantiated.
The investigation shows that Sweden interprets art. 4(b) in the light of art. 2.2(d) ICERD, which has led Sweden to the conclusion that art. 4(b) does not impose an unconditional requirement for legislation against racist organizations. Furthermore, it appears that Sweden mainly uses two arguments for not introducing an organizational ban. Firstly, the circumstances in the country are not considered as such that legislation is called for. Secondly, the regulation of hate speech in chapter 16, section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code argues to be sufficient to live up to the commitments in art. 4(b) ICERD.
My conclusions are that art. 4(b) in respect of public international law, cannot be interpreted in other ways that requiring a ban on racist organizations. Nor can the Swedish arguments be considered valid and well substantiated. The legislation against hate speech does not fill the same function as an explicit organization ban and the situation in Sweden can be said to call for legislation, especially since the number of hate crimes is rising and organizations such as NMR can stand as candidates in parliamentary elections.}},
author = {{Andersson, Catharina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{"Inga rasister på våra gator!" – Eller? - En studie av Sveriges åtagande enligt art. 4(b) rasdiskrimineringskonventionen}},
year = {{2018}},
}