| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klamberg, Mark, 1975-
(författare)
-
Gränsdragningen mellan utlänningslagen och svensk straffrätt beträffande internationellabrott
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Juridisk Tidskrift. - Stockholm. - 1100-7761. ; :2, s. 286-293
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Utlänningslagen ger flyktingar, alternativt skyddsbehövande och övriga skyddsbehövande som befinner sig i Sverige rätt till uppehållstillstånd. Det finns en uteslutandebestämmelse som anger att en utlänning är utesluten från att anses som flykting om det finns synnerlig anledning att anta att han eller hon har gjort sig skyldig till brott mot freden, krigsförbrytelse, brott mot mänskligheten eller gjort sig skyldig till gärningar som strider mot Förenta Nationernas syften och grundsatser. Bestämmelserna i utlänningslagen kan skapa två gränsdragningsproblem mot såväl folkrätten som den svenska straffrätten. För det första, utlänningsrättens definition av väpnad konflikt vad avser alternativt och övriga skyddsbehövande överensstämmer inte i alla delar med den definition som används inom folkrätten och svensk straffrätt. För det andra, de brott som kan föranleda uteslutande enligt utlänningslagen återfinns endast delvis i svensk straffrätt. Denna text förklarar varför dessa gränsdragningsproblem uppkommit, möjliga utmaningar för berörda myndigheter och en rekommendation hur dessa utmaningar ska hanteras.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klamberg, Mark, 1975-, et al.
(författare)
-
The Chilling Effect of Counter-Terrorism Measures : A Comparative Analysis of Electronic Surveillance Laws in Europe and the USA
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Freedom of Expression. - Oisterwijk : Wolf Legal Publishers. - 9789058508836 ; , s. 463-481
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Electronic surveillance is an important tool for law enforcement and may contribute to counter-terrorism efforts. The present article examines, from a comparative privacy perspective, systems of electronic surveillance which involves the retention and/or access of large quantities of data and/or communication. This includes data retention of traffic data and signals intelligence, the latter occasionally described as mass surveillance or strategic monitoring. It is concluded that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution offers a greater protection than Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights (ECHR) to the extent that searches and seizures require probable cause and a warrant. This requires that the measure is covered by the notions “search” or “seizure”, which may explain why law enforcement agencies which use warrant-less surveillance tend to define the notions “search” or “seizure” narrowly. This has implications for the content/non-content distinction. The constitutional protection under the Fourth Amendment has an all-or-nothing character. In comparison, Article 8 of the ECHR does not require probable cause and warrant but it has a broader scope. Thus, there is no problem to expand the scope and protection of Article 8 to content as well as traffic data.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Klamberg, Mark, 1975-
(författare)
-
Unification or Fragmentation? : Structural Tendencies in International Criminal Procedure
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law. - Leiden, Boston : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. - 9789004214590 ; , s. 593-631
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- International criminal tribunals and courts all represent procedural hybrids with tensions between adversarial and inquisitorial influences. Any effort to establish a universal code of procedural law governing international trials is met with great difficulties. Part of the explanation is that international criminal procedure, as all other branches of law, is subject to competing objectives. The aim of this article is to examine tensions between objectives in international criminal procedure and suggest an approach that may guide courts in their adjudication of hard cases. A hard case concerns a concrete legal issue and is at hand when it is uncertain whether it should be subsumed by a legal rule.This article examines which appraisals of objectives can be made to arrive to certain solutions and whether a method of general applicability is available. Are the objectives the same for various procedural matters? Does the balance between different objectives differ between various procedural matters? Is it possible to justify different solutions with reference to one or several objectives? In other words, can we find a universally acceptable hierarchy of objectives? The aspiration is to outline a web of various objectives, reflected in legislation, case law and offer the practitioner a useful perspective when confronted with a procedural matter.
|
|
| 7. |
- Klamberg, Mark, 1975-
(författare)
-
Utomrättslig avrättning eller legitim krigföring? : Obama kan tvingas ompröva USA:s drönarstrategi
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Internationella Studier. - 0020-952X. ; :4, s. 49-51
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Artikeln diskuterar hur vi ska se på USA:s målinriktade dödande av individer i olika länder, bland annat genom drönare. Hur ser den folkrättsliga grunden för USA:s krig mot al-Qaida ut, hur kan målinriktat dödande klassificeras rättsligt och hur förhåller sig drönare till andra vapen? Bör målinriktat dödande jämställas med utomrättsliga avrättningar eller är det under vissa förutsättningar ett legitimt medel? Grundläggande för denna diskussion är om konflikten mellan USA och al-Qaida ska klassificeras som en väpnad konflikt, där krigets lagar styr, eller som brottsbekämpning i fred, vilken styrs av regelverket om mänskliga rättigheter.
|
|
