Talk:Human rights in Sweden

Human rights in Sweden received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Sweden High‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Could anyone elaborate on the great Swede Dag Hammarskjölds contributions on human rights?, cant find any particular or mentioned constribution on his wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennanochsvärdet (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ECHR signatures

Two links: https://www.regeringen.se/4a9b03/contentassets/c2fc9f2915394fd6841e46fce2be16bb/regeringens-strategi-for-det-nationella-arbetet-med-manskliga-rattigheter-skr.-20161729 p 45-46 about why Sweden hasn't signed protocol 12 and 16.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/chartSignature/3 is on often updated page with signatures and ratification.

This sources that Sweden indeed didn't sign those protocols. I'm not sure if it's WP:DUE in the article, so comments are welcome. Sjö (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö: My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this is relevant and should be mentioned - if the conventions still are not ratified. In both cases, but especially for protocol 16, the motivation was related to temporal aspects, namely, that the conventions not had been in force for long enough to be able to decide the precise effects of a ratification. Three years have passed since these motivations were published, whence now there should be markedly improved possibilities to evaluate their effects in practise.

I'm particulary surprised about the motivation for (for now) rejecting protocol 16:

... avvakta hur protokollet tillämpas i praktiken och vilken effekt protokollet har på domstolens arbetsbörda....

If I correctly understand this, the Swedish Government claims that it is concerned that granting this extended right for the various kinds of national superior courts to ask for the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights risks to create too much work for that court. Sjö, do you read the motivation the same way as I did? If really this is the government's main concern, then it should indeed be possible by now to find out if there has been an unproportional increase of work load (due to cases remitted to the court from the countries who already have ratified the protocol). Moreover, if there indeed were such an increase, then I think that other remedies than not ratifying the protocol should be the primary options - such as giving the court better resources for handling the increased work load. Moreover, when ratifying, Sweden also should provide a list of the supreme courts given the right to ask for such opinions; and the government could avoid making that list too long.

I also think that mentioning other conventions not ratified is WP:DUE; in particular, the ILO Convention 169 (which has been in force since 1991, and where the government claims that there is an ongoing work since then preparing for a ratification). If I understand the goverment position correctly, they claim that accepting the convention would grant the Samic population in Sweden increased rights, especially as regards land owning, and that therefore the convention cannot be ratified before ordinary Swedish legislation already has certified such increased rights. On the other hand, they do not state that such rights should not be granted. Sjö, do you agree with my reading? If so, I find their position curious, to put it mildly.

There are also other points worth to mention. I think that the fact that Sweden has made several reservations in its ratification of some of the central conventions is interesting enough, without enumerating all the specific points (and their pro's and contra's). (Possibly, our - and the other Nordic countries' - refusal to illegalise war propaganda could be mentioned, since the argumentation for and against may have bearing on the recent legislation against IS propaganda. However, I've not seen this connection mentioned anywhere. If it hasn't been mentioned in 'reliable sourcres', doing it here probably should be WP:OR.) There also seems to be some discrepancy in various documents concerning whether or not Sweden has a Commission for the Human Rights; and this might be worth mentioning. JoergenB (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]