Nyhetsarkiv

Earlier this month, the European Commission, the Council of Europe and an international coalition of 37 states, among which Norway, officially endorsed the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. In this interview, Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian explains what the crime of aggression is, why the Special Tribunal is created, and what its creation means for the future of international law. For an in-depth discussion of this topic, see Lawyering Peace podcast with Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian.

What is the crime of aggression and why is this new tribunal needed? 

The crime of aggression is the planning, preparing, initiating and executing of an act of aggression by one state against another. Essentially, the crime consists in starting and waging an unlawful war. This is the use of armed force by one state to attack another state in breach of international law rules prohibiting the use of force. The International Criminal Court (ICC), a permanent court based in The Hague, has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but the ICC can exercise this jurisdiction only if both the aggressor and victim states are parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty. Because Russia is not a state party, the ICC cannot prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russia’s leadership.  

Realistically speaking, how would the timeline look like in terms of establishing the Special Tribunal? 

The formal process of establishing the tribunal started this May and it is possible that the tribunal will start functioning already next year, in 2026. Other bodies created to collect evidence of crimes committed during the war in Ukraine and the harm caused by these crimes are already operational. These are the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression and the Register of Damage for Ukraine. Both institutions are likely to assist the work of the Special Tribunal.  

Why is this tribunal created under the auspices of the Council of Europe and not the UN? For instance, other international criminal tribunals such as tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created by the UN Security Council. Will a Special Tribunal created by Ukraine and the Council of Europe alone have as strong of a mandate as the other ad hoc tribunals created by the UNSC? 

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression of Ukraine is to be created based on a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe. One reason for this is Russia’s permanent membership and veto power in the UN Security Council which makes a special tribunal for Ukraine based on the UN SC decision a non-starter. Another reason is that Ukraine and the Council of Europe have a long history of cooperation in the area of human rights and the rule of law. Other institutions working towards justice in Ukraine, such as the Register of Damages caused by the Russia’s Aggression, are also established within the Council of Europe framework. As regards the mandate, a regional court based on a well-established regional organisation such as the Council of Europe is not less legitimate than a tribunal established with the UN involvement. In addition, the agreement on the functioning of the Special Tribunal will be open to European and non-European states. The possibility of states joining this agreement and the involvement of the Council of Europe in the creation of the Special Tribunal only strengthens its mandate and legitimacy. 

As to trials in absentia, how would the Special Tribunal enforce the eventual outcomes of any trials in absentia of the Russian leadership? 

In absentia trials before the Special Tribunal has been one of the most debated issues. In my view, the Special Tribunal should be able to hold trials in absentia where suspects have waived either explicitly or implicitly their right to appear before the tribunal. That said, the right to a fair trial demand that an absent defendant’s interests are properly represented.  

In the context of the Special Tribunal, what does justice entail for Ukraine and Ukrainians? 

The establishment of the Special Tribunal is crucial for bringing justice for Ukraine and millions of Ukrainians who have suffered from the war. But it is also an important global development. The creation of the Special Tribunal is a significant step in avoiding impunity for violations of international law rules that exist to protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Unlawful wars of territorial conquest and colonisation, such as Russia is waging in Ukraine, belong in the past and should not go unpunished.  

More on the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine - Lawyering Peace podcast with Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian:

Apple
Spotify
Youtube
Podbean 

_{Interview with Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian, interviewed by Charlotte Buksrud.}

Professor Sondre Torp Helmersen publiserte læreboken Folkerett i januar 2025. 10. April 2025 presenterte han denne boken i Utenriksdepartementets rettsavdeling, der han selv jobbet fra 2012 til 2013. 

Helmersen snakket blant om formålet med boken, som først og fremst skal være en lærebok for jusstudenter, men som også skal kunne brukes av praktikere. Utformingen av boken derfor henger sammen med grunnene til at jusstudenter lærer folkerett. Visse temaer, som folkerettslig metode, jurisdiksjon og immunitet, er viktig for alle norske jurister. Folkeretten har fått en gradvis viktigere plass i norsk rett de siste tiårene. Dessuten er det noen jurister som jobber med folkerett, noe som særlig gjelder de som havner i Utenriksdepartementets rettsavdeling. Å lære folkeretten gir dessuten et utenfra-perspektiv på det norske rettssystemet, og gir forståelse av hvordan det internasjonale samfunnet fungerer. 

On 4 April 2025 the Jurisconsult of the European Court of Human Rights, Anna Austin, visited the UiT Faculty of Law. The Jurisconsult is a leading position at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, responsible for assisting the Court in ensuring the quality and consistency of its case-law. Ms Austin gave a talk about the Court’s Knowledge Sharing platform, the use of research in the Court’s work, and the Court’s dialogue with national judicial systems and academic institutions.

ECHR Jurisconsult Anna Austin 

Anna Austin has worked at the Council of Europe for 30 years, first as a lawyer at the European Commission of Human Rights and later at the European Court of Human Rights. Ms Austin served as Deputy Jurisconsult from 2015 to 2020 when she was appointed Jurisconsult of the Court. As Jurisconsult, she worked to develop and launch in 2022 the Knowledge Sharing platform, which has revolutionised access to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Council of Europe standards.

What is the ECHR Knowledge Sharing Platform?

The ECHR Knowledge Sharing platform provides access to comprehensive and up-to-date information on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This information is supplemented by references to the relevant international and Council of Europe standards as well as academic publications. The Knowledge Sharing platform is a very useful tool for scholars and students doing research on European human rights law.

Tasks of the Directorate of the Jurisconsult

Among the other tasks of the directorate of the Jurisconsult are providing information on the case-law to members of the Court as well as external audiences, conducting research on ECHR case-law and on international and comparative law, facilitating dialogue with national courts and exchanges with the Council of Europe bodies and academic institutions.

Relevant Elective Law Courses at UiT

Are you interested in human rights? JUR-3615 European Human Rights is an elective subject at master degree level at UiT Faculty of Law. Other relevant elective subjects are JUR-3617 Barns menneskerettigheter (in Norwegian), JUR-3620 International law and armed conflict, and JUR-3626 International Criminal Law, Atrocity Crimes, and Transitional Justice.

Members of the Human Rights and International Law Research Group discuss the role of justice in achieving lasting peace in Ukraine.

Accountability is neccessary for lasting peace

Upholding international law is vital

Professor Sondre Torp Helmersen highlighted the fundamental nature of the international law rules prohibiting the unlawful use of force by one state against another. These rules exist to protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Professor Helmersen warned about the dangers of recognising any Ukrainian territories that Russia occupies by force as Russian. Such recognition would undermine the fundamental rules of international law and legitimise wars of territorial conquest.

Newly published article

To find out more, read the article on justice and accountability for the war in Ukraine ("Rettsoppgjøret i Ukraina: de største utfordringene") co-authored by Gaiane Nuridzhanian and Sondre Torp Helmersen (in Norwegian).

Professor i rettsvitenskap Sondre Torp Helmersen har nylig utgitt en oppdatert og utvidet lærerbok om den alminnelige folkeretten. 

 

Bokas innholdsfortegnelse

1. Kapittel - Innledning 
2. Kapittel - Rettskilder
3. Kapittel - Rettssubjekter
4. Kapittel - Jurisdiksjon 
5. Kapittel - Havrett
6. Kapittel - Immunitet og privilegier 
7. Kapittel - Forbudene mot intervensjon og maktmisbruk
8. Kapittel - Folkerettsbrudd
9. Kapittel - Tvisteløsning

For jusstudenter og praktikere

Folkerett er ment å være en del av pensumlitteraturen i folkerettsfaget, og retter seg dermed mot jusstudenter i Norge. Den vil likevel være nyttig for andre som arbeider med folkeretten. 

-Jeg håper at den også kan være til nytte for praktikere som skal løse folkerettslige problemstillinger, som advokater, dommere eller ansatte i departementene, forteller Helmersen. 

On 24 October 2024, the FAKENEWS project at UiT, in cooperation with the Constitutional Law Research Group at the UiT Faculty of Law, hosted a workshop on Law and Disinformation.

The workshop began with an address by the leader of the FAKENEWS project and the Grey Zone Research Group, Professor Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv. Gjørv highlighted the importance of the topic by referring to two major disinformation events in Nordic countries, the 2015 refugee crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, and discussed how disinformation is still a part of the debate on climate change even though the underlying scientific facts are not in doubt.

The workshop continued with a keynote speech by Professor Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading on the topic ‘State Lies as Violations of Human Rights’. Milanovic examined which human rights and in what circumstances may be violated when a State lies. Milanovic defined the ‘State’ as individuals whose statements can be attributed to the State under the international law of State responsibility. Moreover he distinguished between a State lying to its own people and to people in other States, both of which may human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Examples of rights that may be involved include the right to freedom of opinion and expression, right to respect for private life, the right to health, and the prohibition of propaganda for war. Possible scenarios include a State lying about political opponents as punishment for exercising their human rights, States systematically feeding a population lies, lying about information in the State’s possession, and lying during the investigation of crimes that violate the victim’s human rights. Milanovic also drew historical lines, back to Hugo Grotius, who argued that State could lie in order to achieve a common good, such as saving human lives or defeating an enemy. Whether lying can be justified and if so in which circumstances is also a major topic in moral philosophy. Milonavic made the point that some types of State lies are clearly allowed under international law, such as the use of undercover agents in law enforcement.

Research presentations during the workshop were organised into four panels touching on various aspects of law and disinformation.

The first panel was dedicated to international law and disinformation. Agata Kleczkowska from Polish Academy of Sciences, in a presentation entitled ‘Does disinformation violate international law?’, discussed disinformation from the perspective of such rules and principles of international law as State sovereignty, the prohibition of intervention, and self-determination. Cristina Lloyd from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, presented on ‘Due Diligence and Platform Regulation: do obligations of due diligence in international law compel states to regulate social media platforms?’, concluding that States do have an obligation to regulate such platforms and to perform due diligence. Ricardo Vasquez Dazarola from the University of Copenhagen spoke about ‘Regulating Disinformation in the XXI Century: Is the remedy worse than the disease?’, and discussed and compared domestic regulation in various States.

The second panel was titled ‘Disinformation in conflict and post-conflict context’. Onur Dur from the Social Sciences University of Ankara spoke about ‘Tackling Disinformation in Occupied Territories: Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights and Counter-terrorism’. He noted that both international humanitarian law and human rights law apply in occupied territories, and that disinformation may come from the occupier as well from the local population. Loïc Vandeput from the Royal Military Academy of Belgium gave a presentation titled ‘White lie or violation of IHL? A legal examination of the disinformation campaign against the White Helmets in Syria’. He examined whether the disinformation campaign against the White Helmets could violate international humanitarian law, concluding that it probably does not. Rigmor Argren from Örebro University spoke about ‘Disinformation and other Harmful Communication: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression while Harnessing Risk in the Post-truth Era’, arguing that the scope of the restrictiction of freedom of expression should depend on the potential harm of the targeted disinformation.

The third panel was called ‘Countering Disinformation and Cognitive Warfare’. The panel started with a presentation by Pontus Winther from the Swedish Defence Research Agency on ‘Legal Possibilities to Counter Foreign Election Interference – An Analysis of Sweden’s Position on the Application of International Law in Cyberspace’. He examined the international law prohibition of intervention, concluding that elections are within a State’s reserved domain for the purpose of this prohibition. States that spread disinformation may violate the prohibition against using their own territory to violate other States’ rights as well as a population’s right to vote and to be elected. Next Miguel João Costa from the University of Coimbra gave a presentation titled ‘On Quantitative and Qualitative Transformations: Discussing the Criminalisation of Deliberate Misinformation for Electoral Purposes’. Here the focus was on domestic criminal law and its potential to combat election disinformation. A presentation by Nikolas Sabján and Igor Hron from Comenius University in Bratislava was titled ‘From Disinformation to Cognitive Warfare: The Case of Slovak Republic’. They examined and compared legal responses to the phenomena of disinformation and ‘cognitive warfare’.

The fourth and final panel was dedicated to ‘Human rights and constitutional law perspectives on disinformation’. Annika Knauer from Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law presented on ‘Gendered Disinformation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’. She emphasised the need for legal protection of women against mysoginistic narratives and gendered disinformation. Kirill Koroteev from the International Network of Civil Liberties’ Organisations discussed the topic ‘Disinformation and Freedom of Speech: Comparative Constitutional Law in the Absence of Human Rights Standards’. He argued that laws providing for criminal reponsibility for spreading disinformation are, for various reasons, considered unconstitutional in many domestic jurisdicitons. Maike Middeler from Helmut-Schmidt-Universität spoke about ‘Truth, Power, and Disinformation: Human Rights Implications in the Creation of State Narratives’. She critiqued instrumentalisation of human rights languge in memory laws which contributed to deligimisation of alternative historical accounts.

Finally, Vice-Dean for Research the UiT Faculty of Law Professor Magne Frostad concluded the workshop. Frostad pointed that disinformation remains one of the major challenging facing the modern society, not least because it is willingly employed by many State and non-state actors. He noted that the law plays an important, albeit limited role in countering disinformation.

Sondre Torp Helmersen tar over stafettpinnen som ny forskergruppeleder.

Sondre er professor ved det juridiske fakultet på UiT, og forsker hovedsakelig på folkerettslige spørsmål. Herunder maktforbudet og humanitærretten, havretten og tvisteløsning, og forholdet mellom folkeretten og nasjonal rett, og videre har han skrevet doktorgrad om juridisk litteratur som rettskilde i folkeretten.

I det siste har han blant annet publisert artikler om utviklingen av det dualistiske prinsipp i norsk rett og synet på livet i havet i mellomstatlige tvister. Som forskergruppeleder vil han bygge videre på det gode arbeidet som har skjedd i gruppa under Magne Frostads kyndige ledelse.

- Magne har ledet gruppen med stødig hånd i en periode der vi har fått nye medlemmer og nye eksternfinansierte prosjekter, slår Sondre fast.

Hankan videre avsløre at forskergruppas nærmeste fremtid byr på både en markering av Russlands fullskalainvasjon av Ukraina i februar, en europatur i månedsskiftet april/mai og en workshop om falske nyheter inne utløpet av året.

Frostad er professor ved det juridiske fakultet og har statsrett og folkerett som sine spesifalfelt. Særlig reglene om når stater kan bruke militær makt (jus ad bellum) og hvilke regler som gjelder når de gjør dette (jus in bello), samt menneskerettigheter og havrett.