| 1. |
- Dawody, Hevi, 1990-
(författare)
-
Terrorism and Exclusion from Refugee Protection
- 2024
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this study is to provide further contributions to the field of international refugee law and exclusion from refugee protection, particularly concerning exclusion cases involving terrorism. The study establishes a framework relevant for interpreting Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention (also known as the exclusion provision) in accordance with international norms. The goal is to enable a clear and consistent approach to understanding the exclusion provision, especially in cases related to terrorism. The study delves into the evidentiary standard required for exclusion under Article 1F, discussing both the meaning of the standard ‘serious reasons for considering’ and its threshold. This examination aids an understanding of when exclusion from refugee protection is triggered, focusing in particular on cases involving membership of a terrorist organisation. One of the central conclusions highlighted in this study is that the exclusion provision is contained within an international treaty and therefore should be interpreted and applied in accordance with international law standards. Here, the language of international human rights law and international criminal law should mainly be used, with an emphasis on interpreting the objectives of the 1951 Refugee Convention in good faith for the purpose of avoiding vague and arbitrary interpretation of the exclusion provision. In this regard, this dissertation underscores a position that argues against the notion that mere membership in a terrorist organisation should automatically warrant exclusion from refugee protection. Lastly, the study suggests that achieving a coherent and consistent interpretation of the exclusion provision is essential for promoting legal certainty in exclusion cases, as much as for enhancing predictability and fairness in the decision-making process.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klamberg, Mark, 1975-
(författare)
-
Evidence in International Criminal Procedure : Confronting Legal Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events
- 2012
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This study examines the difficulties in establishing a universal code of procedural law governing international criminal trials and fact-finding. It covers five procedural systems: the military tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, the ad hoc tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. The basis for the comparison are specific procedural activities common to the five procedural systems, including evaluation, collection, disclosure, admissibility and presentation of evidence.Certain general principles of law are applicable to evidence. However, the judges tend to favour one type of legal system (either adversarial or inquisitorial) when they identify general principles of national law which run counter to the concept of this source of law. The practice of the modern two-tiered systems suggests that pre-trial and trial judges are bound or at least guided by decisions of the Appeals Chamber. In comparison with international law in general, international criminal procedure is thus a sui generis legal system as regards the status of legal precedents. The balance between crime control, fair trial, expeditious proceedings, state sovereignty, truth-seeking, victims’ participation and witnesses and victims protection may vary. No abstract procedural model (either adversarial or inquisitorial) can be applied in its entirety to an existing procedural framework. Instead, the proceedings are mixed and in relation to a specific procedural activity one model may be more relevant as a tool of analysis than another. The concept of “robustness” is used to discuss quantity in addition to concepts that deal with quality, including “probative value” and “weight”. Finally, the method involving exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is examined as one of several analytical steps that may contribute to the systematic evaluation of evidence.
|
|
