Nyhetsarkiv

On 17 April 2026, the Research Group for Human Rights and International organized an event titled ‘Who Owns Greenland? And Why It's Not for Sale’ to talk about the legal status of Greenland and how international law protects Greenlanders' right to self-determination.

The event was held at the Tromsø city library as part of the Internasjonalt Seminar popular science event series, which is an information and debate forum that facilitate discussions on global issues related to topics such as peace, conflict and climate change to a general audience.

Expert Panel Lead the Discussion

Associate Professor and leader of the research group, Gaiane Nuridzhanian, moderated the event. The panel consisted of three other law experts from UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Professor Sondre Torp Helmersen and Professor/Vice Dean for Research at the Faculty of Law at UiT Magne Frostad, both members of the research group for human rights and international law, and Research Fellow Apostolos Tsiouvalas from The Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea at UiT. They each presented on a topic and then had a panel discussion after.

International Law and Greenland’s Legal History

Professor Helmersen started the event by outlining how international law regulates ownership and transfer of territory between states generally. He explained the basis for Denmark’s title to Greenland specifically, which includes a treaty and a 1933 court decision from the Permanent Court International Justice.

Greenlanders' Right to Self-Determination

Research Fellow Tsiouvalas spoke about the Greenlanders right to self-determination. This constitutes a limitation on Denmark’s ability to transfer Greenland to another State. Such a transfer cannot be done against the will of the local population. Danish law provides a basis for the expression of this will through a referendum on independence, which will be held if the Greenlandic government requests it.

The Threat and Use of Force are Prohibited

Finally, Professor Frostad described the international law rules that prohibit the threat or use of force in addition to the prohibition of acquiring territory owned by another state through annexation. He discussed President Trump’s statements about Greenland which constitute threats to use force to acquire Greenland for the United States.

The speakers took questions from engaged audience members and joined in a debate on international law relating to Greenland and how the situation may develop in the future.

Professor Sondre Torp Helmersen har publisert en lovkommentar til lov om Norges økonomiske soneloven. 

Loven opprettet en økonomisk sone på 200 nautiske mil rundt Norges kyst, der det er forbudt for utenlandske fiskere å fiske eller utnytte andre levende ressurser. Loven opprettet også en fiskerisone rundt Jan Mayen og fiskevernsonen rundt Svalbard. Den ble vedtatt i 1976, og er dermed 50 år gammel i år. Den ble lagt frem for Stortinget av havrettsminister Jens Evensen, og lovforslaget bygget på Evensens erfaringer fra forhandlingene om FNs havrettskonvensjon, som ble vedtatt i 1982. Loven ble altså vedtatt før forhandlingene var ferdige, men Evensen forutså at økonomiske soner på 200 nautiske mil kom til å være del av den endelige konvensjonsteksten.

Boka gir detaljert forståelse

Lovkommentaren til Helmersen gir en detaljert behandling av lovens bestemmelser. Disse kan deles i tre kategorier: reglene som opprettet den økonomiske sonen, forbudet mot utenlandsk fiske og regler om straff for brudd på forbudet og fullmaktsregler som åpner for å tildele fiskekvoter til utenlandske fiskere.

En viktig lov for Norge

Økonomiske soneloven har vært en viktig lov i 50 år og har sikret Norge store inntekter fra fiskerinæringen. Loven bygger på FNs havrettskonvensjonen, som er en av de viktigste konvensjonene i folkeretten, og som fortsatt fungerer i en tid der folkeretten er under press.

  

Lovkommentar finnes digitalt på Juridika.

On 4 February, Associate Professor Gaiane Nuridzhanian and Postdoctoral Fellow Jessica Schechinger from the Faculty of Law at UiT The Arctic University of Norway participated in a meeting with a Latvian delegation led by Her Excellency Baiba Braže, Latvia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On 9 December 2025, Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian, Associate Professor and Leader of the Research Group for Human Rights and International Law at UiT Faculty of Law, participated in Oslo Peace Days 2025.

Oslo Peace Days is a forum for discussion about peace, freedom, democracy and human rights held every December in connection with awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Together with representatives from the United Nations, Council of Europe, Norwegian and Ukrainian Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Nuridzhanian spoke at an event dedicated to justice for international crimes and human rights violations during the war in Ukraine. This event was organized by the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights.

State Secretary Eivind Vad Petersson opened the event by emphasising that accountability for international crimes and human rights violations was important for just and lasting peace. Petersson added that justice does not happen automatically and requires action.

Appeal by Ukrainian Margaryta Shabanova in support of release of her husband Dmytro Shabanov imprisoned in Russia showed one of many personal tragedies inflicted by the war.

Erik Møse, Chair of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, spoke about the work of United Nations in Ukraine. Møse pointed out that the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine was a fact-finding body which collected evidence of atrocity crimes in Ukraine and prepared the ground for accountability. Since its establishment in March 2022, the Commission has found evidence of wilfull killings, unlawful attacks on civilians, torture and rape, enforced disappearances, forced deportation of the population and destruction of cultural property committed by Russia in Ukraine.

Various internarional and domestic justice mechanisms are involved in accountability for international crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine. Among them is the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, an ad hoc tribunal that is being established based on an agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe.

Mykola Yurlov from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine spoke about key legal features of the Special Tribunal such its jurisdiction and rules on immunity of state officials responsible for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Yurlov also commented on difficulties of involving many thousands of victims of aggression in the proceedings before the Special Tribunal and the need for other effective compensation mechanisms such as Claims Commission for Ukraine being set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe. This intervention was followed by a panel discussion on the Special Tribunal chaired by Professor emeritus Geir Ulfstein, University of Olso.

The panelists – Gaiane Nuridzhanian from UiT, Irene Suominen from the Council of Europe and Kristian Jervell from Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs – discussed challenges in negotiating and establishing the Special Tribunal, lessons that can be learned from other ad hoc criminal tribunals and the impact of the current peace proposals on the future functioning of the Special Tribunal.

On 20 November 2025 the research group for Human Rights and International Law at UiT organized an all-day seminar on ‘Developments In the Law of State Immunity’. Researchers from European institutions met in Tromsø to present and discuss their research on a hotly debated topic of international law.

The seminar was opened by Dr. Gaiane Nuridzhanian, associate professor at the Faculty of Law UiT who recently took over as head of the research group, and Magne Frostad, Vice Dean for Research at the Faculty of Law UiT.

The seminar began with a Keynote speech by Professor Roger O’Keefe from Bocconi University who discussed the ICC’s decision in the Al-Bashir case and its lack of basis in existing sources and practice, the status of non-member States vis-à-vis the ICC, and the distinction between substantive and procedural questions when analyzing the law of state immunity. He encouraged participants to ‘dig deeper’ by analyzing legal sources and practice in detail.

The keynote speech was followed by four panels.

The first panel dealt with International Law Commission’s (ILC) work on state official immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction.

Matyáš Dvořák from Masaryk University gave a presentation on the topic ‘The Erosion of Functional Immunity for International Crimes: Assessing Domestic Jurisprudence as Emerging Custom’. Dvořák analyzed the domestic judicial practice cited by the ILC and whether this practice supported the Commission’s conclusions.

The second presentation was given by Isabel Walther from Humboldt University Berlin, titled ‘Invocation and Non-Invocation of Functional Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction’. Walther discussed the legal effects of (non-)invocation of functional immunity in light of the ICJ’s decision in Djibouti v. France.

Dobrosława C. Budzianowska from the University of Wrocław presented the topic ‘Between Strategic Ambiguity and Legal Development: The “Without Prejudice” Clause and the Role of the ILC in the Law of State Official Immunity’. She noted the absence of a ‘without prejudice’ clause that had been present in earlier drafts of article 7 of the ILC’s work and discussed what could be inferred from this absence.

The second panel covered state official immunity before international criminal courts.

The first to present was Alan Amadio from the University of Trento who spoke on ‘Making sense of the “certain international criminal courts” exception to immunities through the lens of State responsibility’. Amadio interpreted the exception formulated by the ICJ in the Arrest Warrant case, focusing on what is an ‘international’ criminal court.

Next, Héloïse Guichardaz from the University of Glasgow gave a presentation on ‘Art. 98(1) of the Rome Statue, immunities, and jus cogens: the case of the arrest of Netanyahu in French airspace’. Guichardaz outlined France’s diverging reactions to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, respectively.

Closing the panel was Anna Facchinetti of the University of Pavia, talking about ‘Personal and functional immunity of State officials before the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine’. She focused on how to classify the new tribunal and legal consequences flowing from this.

After lunch break it was time for the third panel, on immunity, regime change and non-recognition.

Florian Sebastian Bayer from the Christian Albrecht University of Kiel opened the panel, giving a presentation on ‘Immunity without Legitimacy? Personal Immunity, Regime Change, and the Rule of Law’. He questioned whether state immunity could or should be tied to a government’s legitimacy.

Next, Sondre Torp Helmersen from UiT talked about ‘State Immunity for Unrecognized States and Governments in International Law’. Helmersen argued that states do not have a duty to grant immunity to states and government that they do not recognize, as state practice is inconsistent.

Finally, Marco Longobardo from the University of Westminster gave a presentation titled ‘The Interplay between Non-Recognition and Immunities of States and State Officials’ He presented scenarios where an obligation of non-recognition could be an obligation not to grant state immunity to other states.

The fourth and final panel was on the confiscation of Russian assets in light of rules on state immunity.

A presentation on ‘Sanctions and Punishment – Seizing Russian State Assets under the New EU Sanctions Violations Directive’ was given by Paul Gragl from the University of Graz. He outlined legal issues in the application of EU law to either freeze or seize Russian assets, and highlighted the need to balance effective foreign policy with rule of law standards.

The next presenter was Attila Novák of Catholic University of Louvain, giving a presentation entitled ‘Active management of frozen sovereign assets: (un)lawfulness and potential justifications under international law’. Novák discussed whether the use or management of a foreign State’s property without its consent is a measure of constraint that violates the law of state immunity.

Closing the final panel, Maruša T. Veber from the University of Ljubljana gave a presentation on ‘The confiscation of state property and the law of state immunities: interplay between primary, secondary and procedural rules of international law’. She discussed whether seizing Russian assets would violate the law of state immunity and, if so, whether this could be justified as countermeasures.

To conclude the seminar, Professor Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen from the University of Copenhagen gave an entertaining presentation using still frames and lines from movies directed by the Coen Brothers. Kjeldgaard-Pedersen reflected on the different methodological questions that the seminar has raised, including the relationship between law, morality, and politics, and the hierarchy of legal norms.

Oppdatering av San Remo manualen om folkerett for væpnede konflikter til sjøs.

I det pågående arbeidet med å oppdatere manualen om folkerett for væpnede konflikter til sjøs fra 1994 deltar to ansatte ved Det juridiske fakultet ved UiT Norges arktiske universitet: Seniorforsker (forsker 1183) Alexander Lott fra Norsk senter for havrett, og professor Magne Frostad. Disse representer henholdsvis Estland og Norge, hvor Norge i tillegg har to andre representanter i ekspertgruppen.

Manualen søker i all hovedsak å gi en oversikt over internasjonal sedvanerett på området for maritim krigføring.

Det finnes få internasjonale avtaler på dette området, og mange av dem er dessuten relativt gamle. Ettersom statene viser begrenset interesse for å inngå bindende avtaler om maritim krigføring, må regelverket utledes fra statenes praksis og såkalt opinio juris (rettslig overbevisning). Her spiller ekspertmanualer en viktig rolle for dem som søker klarhet og informasjon.

I september i år ble det arrangert et større ekspertmøte i Sanremo i Italia, hos International Institute for Humanitarian Law som eier rettighetene til manualprosjektet. På dette vellykkede møtet oppnådde man enighet om flere av reglene i manualen, likevel gjenstår det fortsatt betydelig arbeid.

I styringskomiteen for manualen deltar også International Committee of the Red Cross og Norges Røde Kors, og neste møte gjennomføres i 2026.

Tidligere er det avviklet et digitalt møte i København og i Canberra på grunn av pandemien, mens det ble avholdt fysisk møte 2022 i Tromsø og i Haugesund i 2024.

Hannah Bekkelund er på sitt andre år som stipendiat i rettsvitenskap ved Det juridiske fakultet, UiT. For ikke så lang tid tilbake returnerte hun til Tromsø etter å ha vært på et lengre gjesteforskeropphold i utlandet. Hennes faglige fordypningsområde, EØS-rett og menneskerettigheter, førte henne til Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights i Wien. 

Hannah visste alltid at hun ville reise på gjesteforskeropphold i utlandet. Hennes tilknytning til forskergruppen for menneskerettigheter og folkerett ved fakultetet ga henne et nettverk som åpnet opp muligheter for internasjonalisering og ledet henne til institusjonen hun til slutt landet på.  

Hvordan endte du opp med å dra på gjesteforskeropphold til Wien?

- Som stipendiat har man mulighet til å dra på et gjesteforskeropphold ved et universitet eller en forskningsinstitusjon i utlandet. Allerede da jeg søkte på stillingen, visste jeg at dette var en mulighet jeg ønsket å benytte meg av. Valget mitt falt på Ludwig Boltzmann-instituttet for menneskerettigheter i Wien. Gjennom kollegaer i forskergruppen her på fakultetet kom jeg i kontakt med en professor ved Universitetet i Wien, som igjen satte meg i kontakt med lederen av instituttet. Etter å ha presentert ph.d.-prosjektet og forskningsinteressene mine, fikk jeg en invitasjon til å være gjesteforsker der.

Hva var det som motiverte deg til å dra på gjesteforskeropphold?

- Det er mange fordeler med å reise på et utenlandsopphold som stipendiat. Ved å være borte over en lengre periode får man tid til å bli kjent med et nytt fagmiljø og få nye perspektiver på egen forskning. Jeg tenkte også at et miljøskifte – både ved å flytte til et nytt sted og bli del av et nytt forskningsmiljø – kunne gi meg ny inspirasjon til prosjektet mitt. I tillegg var det en motivasjon i seg selv å få muligheten til å bo i en ny by og bli kjent med en annen kultur. Utenlandsoppholdet som stipendiat er en unik mulighet, der universitetet støtter merutgifter som flyreise og leiekostnader.

Hvorfor valgte du å dra til Wien og Ludwig Boltzmann-instituttet spesifikt?

- Wien er en spennende by med rik historie og kultur, samtidig som det er en internasjonal og mangfoldig by. Wien ligger også veldig sentralt i Europa, og virket som et godt utgangspunkt for å bli bedre kjent med både Østerrike og andre land i nærheten. I løpet av oppholdet fikk jeg besøkt nabolandene Tyskland, Tsjekkia, Ungarn og Slovakia. Ludwig Boltzmann-instituttet virket som et spennende forskningsmiljø fordi de jobber på en annen måte enn jeg er vant til, mer prosjektbasert og mer rettet mot praksis. Jeg kjente ingen som hadde vært der før, så jeg visste ikke helt hva jeg gikk til, men det gjorde det også ekstra spennende.

Hvordan var hverdagen din som gjesteforsker ved instituttet?

- Hverdagen min i Wien var på mange måter lik den jeg er vant til her. Jeg hadde en kontorplass på instituttet hvor jeg jobbet som vanlig med avhandlingen min, og spiste lunsj med kollegaene på kontoret. På fredager hadde jeg ofte hjemmekontor. Da jobbet jeg fra ulike steder i byen, som biblioteker, universitetene eller Wiens mange kafeer.

- Arbeidsspråket på instituttet var engelsk, og de ansatte kom fra flere nasjonaliteter. Det var også flere ph.d.-kandidatesom skrev avhandlingene sine der. Kontoret var derfor et hyggelig og sosialt sted å være. Instituttet forventet ikke at jeg skulle bidra med noe inn i deres forskning, men inviterte meg likevel til å delta på det som var av arrangementer mens jeg var der. Jeg fikk også anledning til å presentere og diskutere ph.d.-prosjektet mitt med de andre på kontoret.

Hva slags erfaringer og nytte har du fått av utenlandsoppholdet?

- Det har vært både interessant og utfordrende å komme inn i et ukjent forskningsmiljø og oppleve at ting er litt annerledes, men samtidig ganske likt. Nå vet jeg mer om hva jeg kan forvente, og hvordan jeg kan håndtere det, hvis jeg drar på lignende opphold senere. Faglig sett har oppholdet gitt meg inspirasjon til min egen forskning og innblikk i andre måter å jobbe med menneskerettigheter på. Jeg fikk også diskutert prosjektet mitt med personer med en annen faglig og kulturell bakgrunn.

- I tillegg sitter jeg igjen med mange personlige erfaringer og opplevelser. Jeg har fått venner i Wien som jeg fortsatt holder kontakten med, gått fjellturer i alpene, reist til flere land og byer jeg aldri hadde besøkt før, og blitt kjent med en annen kultur. Wien føles nå som et sted jeg alltid vil ha en tilknytning til.

^{Intervju av Charlotte Buksrud/UiT.} 

Folkeretten er under stadig økende press i vår tid hvor krig og geopolitiske spenninger skaper utrygghet i verden. Kan vi fortsatt se til folkeretten når stater går til angrep på andre stater, eller når en stat begår folkemord? Kan vi forvente at folkeretten fremover vil ha effektivitet og kan spille en sentral rolle i opprettholdelsen av fred og stabilitet gjennom internasjonalt samarbeid?

Dette var noen av de sentrale spørsmålene som ble stilt under arrangementet «Global security and other reasons you should care about international law», organisert av Det juridiske fakultet, og et bidrag til Forskningsdagene 2025 ved UiT. Arrangementet var en panelsamtale mellom medlemmer av forskergruppa i menneskerettigheter og folkerett. Førsteamanuensis i rettsvitenskap Gaiane Nuridzhanian, ekspert på folkeretten, menneskerettigheter og internasjonal strafferett, modererte en samtale med seniorforsker ved Havrettssenteret, Alexander Lott, som blant annet er ekspert på internasjonal sikkerhetsrett og havrett, og prodekan for forskning ved Det juridiske fakultet, Magne Frostad, ekspert på statsrett og folkerett. Fokuset var på folkerettens posisjon, sett fra et historisk utviklingsperspektiv til dagens usikre geopolitiske landskap.

Internasjonalt samarbeid og krigsforbud

For et par århundre siden var vanlig praksis for stater å gå til angrep på andre stater, annektere og koloniserer territorier. Magne Frostad forklarte at intensjonen bak folkeretten var å sette en stopper for dette og fasilitere for konfliktløsning gjennom internasjonalt samarbeid.

- Siden 1945 har det vært et generelt forbud mot å gå til krig. Stater plikter seg til å løse konflikter på fredfullt vis.

Folkeretten omfatter lover som maktforbudet. Denne gir forbud mot å gi trusler om å bruke makt, eller å bruke militærmakt. Forskerne diskuterte hvordan spørsmålet om maktforbudet blir overholdt i ulike kontekster i dag. Alexander Lott trakk fram rekken av sabotasjer som har skjedd i Nord-Europa, der ubåter har kuttet over viktige undersjøiske rør og kabler.

- I Nord-Europa utgjør undersjøiske kabler sikkerhetsutfordringer. Det er flere eksempler på at undersjøiske kabler er blitt kuttet av ubåter. Vi kan stille spørsmålet om slike handlinger er brudd på maktforbudet.

FN og folkeretten

Andre tydelig eksempler på brudd på maktforbudet som ble diskutert var Russlands fullskala invasjon av Ukraina og Israels angrep på palestinerne på Gaza.

Diskusjonen gikk dypere inn på etableringen av en rekke internasjonale domstoler som opprettholder folkeretten, og på FNs rolle. Sistnevnte ble diskutert i sammenheng med at en FN-kommisjon nylig konkluderte med at Israel begår folkemord på den palestinske befolkningen, og hvilken rolle FN har i ivaretakelsen av global sikkerhet.

Alexander Lott understrekte at FN-konvensjonene gir verdenssamfunnet et sett med konkrete regler, men at vi likevel må være realistiske og erkjenne at disse reglene ikke alltid blir fulgt av medlemsland. Likevel har lovene en viktig funksjon ved å danne et felles juridisk rammeverk som stater kan rette seg etter.

- Dette er noe jeg tror det internasjonale samfunnet er enig i, at reglene hjelper å vurdere hvorvidt handlingene er legitime eller ikke.

Magne Frostad forklarte videre at FN understøtter folkeretten og er med å institusjonalisere den.

- Dersom de folkerettslige forpliktelsene ble fulgt, ville dette redusert risikoen for at stater gikk til krig med hverandre. FN har også mekanismer på plass dersom stater for eksempel skulle bryte maktforbudet, selv om i alle fall Sikkerhetsrådet i dag har et begrenset handlingsrom.

Statenes forpliktelser

Rettsforskerne diskuterte videre den utfordrende realiteten ved at konsekvensene ved brudd på folkeretten ikke medfører tilstrekkelige konsekvenser for de som bryter den.

- Folkeretten har ikke et verdenspoliti som kan sørge for å opprettholde lov og orden. Dette var intensjonen bak folkeretten fra begynnelsen, forklarte Magne, og nevner at Sikkerhetsrådet, hvis det fungerte, kunne ha vært til hjelp her.

Han utdypet videre at dette skaper utfordringer. Det er for eksempel utstedt en arrestsordre på både Putin og Netanyahu av den internasjonale straffedomstolen (ICC). Likevel ser man at de reiser utenlands uten at de blir arrestert i besøkslandene. Det er riktignok opp til hver stat selv å tolke egne forpliktelser i henhold til arrestordre på blant annet krigsforbrytere, men de som tar for lett på dette undergraver systemet til ICC.  

- Dersom den internasjonale straffedomstolen utsteder en arrestordre på enkeltindivider, er det opp til hver enkelt stat og opprettholde folkerettens legitimitet. Stater kan velge å ikke overholde forpliktelsene, noe som får forpliktelser for folkeretten som rettssystem.

Internasjonal mobilisering blir viktig

Rettsforskerne var samstemte i at det blir viktige å snakke om viktigheten av å overholde folkeretten for å synliggjøre dens funksjon i verdenssamfunnet.

- Om man følger folkeretten, gir man den gyldighet. Man får et moralsk fundament og ståsted. Det å være på den rette siden har en mobiliserende effekt, og stater kan gi hverandre støtte i det å være på den rette siden. Små stater kan sammen påvirke mellomstore til store stater, understrekte Frostad.

Gaiane Nuridzhanian diskuterte her Norges rolle som en viktig aktør i dette arbeidet.

- Norge har en prinsipiell posisjon i folkeretten. Det er viktig for små stater å ha dette, det bidrar til å styrke effektiviteten av folkeretten.

Alexander Lott understrekte at synliggjøringen av folkeretten er viktig for å øke bevisstheten rundt folkeretten, og at dette er noe vi alle kan bidra med.

- Vi kan videreføre folkerettens verdier. Vi kan snakke om folkeretten, være bevisst på folkerettens regler, og på maktforbudet.

The Faculty of Law at UiT – The Arctic University of Norway – recently had the pleasure of hosting a seminar with Professor Sarah Nouwen on the development of a legal framework for peacemaking.

1. International law as describing social practice
2. International law as a technique offered to peacemaking practitioners
3. International law as a set of principles and rules in accordance with which peace is to be made

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.