I valet och kvalet – statssuveränitet eller internationell rättvisa? Internationella brottmålsdomstolens territoriella jurisdiktion över gränsöverskridande brott
(2020) LAGF03 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In a globalized world, the ICC faces difficult challenges in fulfilling its mission not to leave the most serious crimes of concern to the international community unpunished. States not parties to the Rome Statute have stated that the Court infringes on their sovereignty. Particularly the Court’s actions regarding the deportation of Uyghurs to the Chinese region of Xinjiang and the deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh have raised concerns over the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. This bachelor’s thesis aims to answer the question of how the ICC weighs the interest of state sovereignty against the interest of not leaving international crimes unpunished when determining the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes with... (More)
- In a globalized world, the ICC faces difficult challenges in fulfilling its mission not to leave the most serious crimes of concern to the international community unpunished. States not parties to the Rome Statute have stated that the Court infringes on their sovereignty. Particularly the Court’s actions regarding the deportation of Uyghurs to the Chinese region of Xinjiang and the deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh have raised concerns over the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. This bachelor’s thesis aims to answer the question of how the ICC weighs the interest of state sovereignty against the interest of not leaving international crimes unpunished when determining the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes with cross-boundary elements.
To answer the research question a legal dogmatic method has been used. Relevant legal sources, such as the Rome Statute and international customary law, has been examined. Concerning cross-boundary crimes, the Court’s decision in the Bangladesh/Myanmar-situation and the prosecutor’s decision in the Xinjiang-situation have been analyzed. The work of legal scholars has been used throughout the analysis.
The results show that state sovereignty and international justice both are of great importance in international criminal law. Further, the results demonstrate that state sovereignty weighs far less than the interest of international justice in the Court’s decision in the Bangladesh/Myanmar-situation. The prosecutor’s decision in the Xinjiang-situation was found difficult to interpret but seemed to have more political than legal characteristics.
The research implies that the Court is taking a difficult path when it tries to be both the policeman of the world and a political player. In the end, it will uphold neither state sovereignty nor international justice. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I en globaliserad värld står ICC inför svåra utmaningar i fullgörandet av sitt uppdrag att inte lämna de allvarligaste av brott, som angår det internationella samfundet, ostraffade. Stater som inte är parter i Romstadgan har uttalat att domstolen kränker deras statssuveränitet. Särskilt ICC:s agerande gällande deportationen av uigurer till Xinjiang och deportationen av rohingyer från Myanmar till Bangladesh har väckt oro över vidden av domstolens jurisdiktion. Denna kandidatuppsats syftar till att besvara frågan, hur intresset av statssuveränitet vägs mot intresset av att ej lämna internationella brott ostraffade vid bestämmandet av ICC:s jurisdiktion över brott med gränsöverskridande element.
För att besvara forskningsfrågan har en... (More) - I en globaliserad värld står ICC inför svåra utmaningar i fullgörandet av sitt uppdrag att inte lämna de allvarligaste av brott, som angår det internationella samfundet, ostraffade. Stater som inte är parter i Romstadgan har uttalat att domstolen kränker deras statssuveränitet. Särskilt ICC:s agerande gällande deportationen av uigurer till Xinjiang och deportationen av rohingyer från Myanmar till Bangladesh har väckt oro över vidden av domstolens jurisdiktion. Denna kandidatuppsats syftar till att besvara frågan, hur intresset av statssuveränitet vägs mot intresset av att ej lämna internationella brott ostraffade vid bestämmandet av ICC:s jurisdiktion över brott med gränsöverskridande element.
För att besvara forskningsfrågan har en rättsdogmatisk metod använts. Relevanta rättskällor, såsom Romstadgan och internationell sedvanerätt, har studerats. Vad gäller gränsöverskridande brott har framförallt ICC:s avgöranden i Bangladesh/Myanmar-situationen och åklagarens beslut i Xinjiang-situationen analyserats. Även rättsvetenskaplig litteratur har använts i analysen.
Uppsatsens resultat visar att både statssuveränitet och internationell rättvisa är av stor vikt i den internationella straffrätten. Vidare åskådliggör resultaten att intresset av internationell rättvisa väger tyngre än statssuveränitet i domstolens beslut i Bangladesh/Myanmar-situationen. Åklagarens beslut i Xinjiang-situationen visade sig vara svårtolkat, men beslutet verkar ha haft politiska förtecken.
Resultaten antyder att ICC valt en svår väg att vandra, när domstolen försöker att både vara världens polisman och en politisk spelare. I slutändan kommer ICC varken kunna upprätthålla statssuveränitet eller internationell rättvisa. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034104
- author
- Peterson, Hampus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt (en. public international law), rättsvetenskap (en. law), internationell straffrätt (en. international criminal law), Internationella brottmålsdomstolen (en. International Criminal Court), rohingya, deportation, uigurer
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9034104
- date added to LUP
- 2021-02-09 11:41:57
- date last changed
- 2021-02-09 11:41:57
@misc{9034104,
abstract = {{In a globalized world, the ICC faces difficult challenges in fulfilling its mission not to leave the most serious crimes of concern to the international community unpunished. States not parties to the Rome Statute have stated that the Court infringes on their sovereignty. Particularly the Court’s actions regarding the deportation of Uyghurs to the Chinese region of Xinjiang and the deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh have raised concerns over the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. This bachelor’s thesis aims to answer the question of how the ICC weighs the interest of state sovereignty against the interest of not leaving international crimes unpunished when determining the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes with cross-boundary elements.
To answer the research question a legal dogmatic method has been used. Relevant legal sources, such as the Rome Statute and international customary law, has been examined. Concerning cross-boundary crimes, the Court’s decision in the Bangladesh/Myanmar-situation and the prosecutor’s decision in the Xinjiang-situation have been analyzed. The work of legal scholars has been used throughout the analysis.
The results show that state sovereignty and international justice both are of great importance in international criminal law. Further, the results demonstrate that state sovereignty weighs far less than the interest of international justice in the Court’s decision in the Bangladesh/Myanmar-situation. The prosecutor’s decision in the Xinjiang-situation was found difficult to interpret but seemed to have more political than legal characteristics.
The research implies that the Court is taking a difficult path when it tries to be both the policeman of the world and a political player. In the end, it will uphold neither state sovereignty nor international justice.}},
author = {{Peterson, Hampus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{I valet och kvalet – statssuveränitet eller internationell rättvisa? Internationella brottmålsdomstolens territoriella jurisdiktion över gränsöverskridande brott}},
year = {{2020}},
}