Umeå University's logo

State officials report practical needs to put migrant minors in detention, and the European Convention on Human Rights sets legal limits on this practice. This article defines the scope of circumstances under which migrating minors may be detained by analyzing The European Court of Human Rights case law, using judgments in which the detention of migrant minors has been alleged a violation of Articles 3, 5.1, or 8. It also explores states’ needs for detaining such children, using data from 19 interviews with Swedish police officers, and compares these views with the case law. Police interviewees primarily describe two needs to detain children: to make deportations of children smooth and dignified, and to prevent minors from committing crimes. The investigation finds that migrant minor detentions are rarely permissible according to the Convention—especially under Article 3—and that the permissible scope is too small to meet the expressed practical needs. The actors involved in the issue of detaining migrant minors might have different perspectives on the issue, but they must not lose sight of the fact that these children are categorized as some of the most vulnerable in society and that their rights must be protected.

In the multi-layered system of international human rights law, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) uses not only its own case-law but also external instruments (EI s) when interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article explores the horizontal judicial borrowing practice of the Court until 2020. The landscape includes a wide range of different sources, but with a clear preference for Council of Europe instruments and secondly United Nations sources. Bridging what EIs are cited with how they are used, a case-study is performed investigating the functions that the EIs serve under Article 3 ECHR. Although it is uncommon, explicitly relying on EI s suggests that the Court views it to be legitimate. Yet, it is not uncontroversial. The Court’s motivations in citing EI s can be understood as justified from a universal human rights perspective, and susceptible to criticism from the perspective that it could undermine State sovereignty.

Universell jurisdiktion tillåter nationella domstolar att lagföra gärningsmän för särskilt allvarliga brott oaktat var i världen brotten ägt rum och vilken nationalitet förövaren och/eller målsäganden har. Jurisdiktionen grundar sig på gärningen i sig. Gärningen anses skada universell moral och det är således i världssamfundets intresse att dessa brott straffas. Frågan är emellertid kontroversiell. Kritiker anser att det ”nns en påtaglig risk att universell jurisdiktion kan komma att användas som ett politiskt verktyg, hämma fredsprocesser och skapa juridiskt kaos. Samtidigt är denna form av jurisdiktion inte något nytt. Genom historien har sjörövare iklätts begreppet mänsklighetens ”ende och lagförts baserat på tankar om universell jurisdiktion, särskilt under piraternas guldålder 1650–1730. I artikeln redogörs för framväxten av universell jurisdiktion genom att belysa lagföringen av sjörövare och hur denna historiska bakgrund hjälper till att tillhandahålla en djupare förståelse för dagens diskussion om universell jurisdiktion.