Response to interpellations 2024/25:298 and 303 on Sweden's cooperation with the ICC

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Håkan Svenneling has asked whether I and the government intend to act to follow the International Criminal Court, ICC, and arrest Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in the event that either of them visits Sweden, as well as whether I and the government intend to act to facilitate for other states to arrest them.

Morgan Johansson has also asked me whether I consider that Sweden, if it becomes relevant, is obliged to arrest and extradite Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others against whom the ICC has issued an arrest warrant. Morgan Johansson has also asked in what way I intend to clarify Sweden's obligations in this matter towards the ICC.

Finally, Morgan Johansson asks in what other ways I intend to work to strengthen the ICC's position. Håkan Svenneling also asks if I intend to work towards Israel, the USA, and other countries joining the ICC.

Finally, Håkan Svenneling has asked if I mean that international law applies to all states, including Israel, and if I intend to act for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

I want to start with the question of international law. The government has consistently emphasized our support for international law, with the UN Charter as the foundation. International law applies to all countries. That international law is respected is a core Swedish interest.

I want to emphasize that Sweden and the rest of the EU support the International Criminal Court's important work against impunity for the most serious international crimes. We safeguard its independence and integrity. The EU has jointly supported the court since its inception and continuously highlights and promotes the court's important role.

All parties to the ICC's statute, the Rome Statute, including Sweden, are obliged to cooperate with the court, including when it comes to the execution of arrest warrants.

The issuance of arrest warrants means that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant should be arrested if they travel to any of the 125 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute.

Swedish law applies. According to the Act on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, Swedish judicial authorities decide on the deprivation of liberty of a person who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the ICC if the person is on Swedish territory. It is the government that then decides on a request for extradition to the ICC.

Sweden has been very clear in its dialogue with the court's representatives regarding its support for the court's integrity and independence as well as the importance of cooperation, including the execution of outstanding arrest warrants. This was most recently presented during the ICC's assembly meeting in December 2024 in The Hague.

The very idea behind the Rome Statute is its universal applicability, and this is something that Sweden and the EU promote continuously. Every year, a number of countries are selected in which the EU jointly conducts outreach regarding accession to and implementation of the Rome Statute. Just in the last two years, two new State Parties have been added, Armenia and Ukraine, which we welcome.

The USA and Israel have since the Rome Statute was negotiated been clear that they do not support certain central provisions in the statute. This does not exclude that they and other non-state parties can nevertheless cooperate with the court, which the USA, among others, has done in relation to the court's investigations in, among others, Ukraine, Sudan and Uganda.

As I have said before, Sweden and the EU stand behind Israel's right to defend itself, but as I and the government have constantly said, this right must be exercised in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law.

It is very welcome that an agreement on a ceasefire in Gaza has been reached. It is important that the agreement is now implemented, that the hostages are released and that humanitarian access increases significantly. A ceasefire is a prerequisite for a negotiated two-state solution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! In November, the International Criminal Court, ICC, announced that it had issued an arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the then Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as they are suspected of crimes against humanity and war crimes because they have deliberately triggered a famine catastrophe in Gaza as part of conducting war.

In connection with the court's decision, Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard gave the following written comments to the media and TT: "The International Criminal Court's issued arrest warrant is the court's independent decision. Sweden and the EU support the court's important work and safeguard its independence and integrity."

The statement came at the same time as her party comrades and partners in Tidögänget, as well as the USA and Israel, were raging against the court's decision. Compared to the statements from the foreign ministers in many other states that have signed the Rome Statute and are thus part of the International Criminal Court, ICC, the foreign minister's statement was weak and unclear.

What did independence actually mean in this context? Was it that Sweden did not stand behind the decision? I therefore felt compelled to submit this interpellation to the Swedish Riksdag. I believed that Sweden was a country that stood up for international law and for the ICC.

Today I have received a response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs where she, unlike what was the case in her previous written comments to the media, is clear that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, if they travel to Sweden, shall be arrested according to the court's arrest warrant. It is an important legal order to uphold international law, and it obviously also applies to all other arrest warrants that the ICC has issued - for example against Omar al-Bashir, Gaddafi's son and Vladimir Putin.

In addition to the risk of being arrested itself, the arrest warrant in itself makes it more difficult for the person under investigation to travel and thereby act as a politician, which we have seen in the case of Vladimir Putin.

I hope, therefore, that in the future we will see clearer statements from the Foreign Minister than we saw in November regarding international law. If this is a Swedish core interest, one also needs to demonstrate it in those moments when there is a strong interest in hearing Sweden's position on the issue of international law.

This also applies to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister's boss, who in a number of statements has wavered on the target of who is responsible for the devastation in Gaza - this in clear contrast to the plain speaking we hear the Prime Minister use when it concerns Russia's responsibility for the war in Ukraine. It is this type of statement that in the rest of the world creates the perception that Sweden has double standards.

To not clearly express support for the ICC or the ICJ is to undermine international law. It means that we must provide the courts with political support in a politically sensitive time, because around the corner there are likely sanctions against the ICC from Donald Trump in the USA. The USA is not a member of the court, and the last time Trump was president, sanctions were introduced against the ICC's chief judge and her family. Now rumors are circulating that the sanctions could become even more extensive.

Sweden, the EU and the ICC must therefore prepare to support and protect the ICC. The Dutch parliament has this week made an important decision to support the ICC given that the court is based in The Hague in the Netherlands.

The EU must review the possibility of using the blocking clause in order to protect the court in that way.

Sweden can also do more, for example by supporting the court financially - something that we in Vänsterpartiet proposed in our budget motion last autumn.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer!

As Håkan Svenneling said, this question arose in connection with the fact that the Foreign Minister was perceived as wavering on whether Sweden would be obliged to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant if they were to come to Sweden. Both of them are suspected of crimes against humanity and serious war crimes.

An example of that type of war crime we saw as recently as today, when we received reports of a bombing of an apartment building in Lebanon in September. Israel bombed this house and killed 73 people, of whom 62 were civilians and 23 were children. The youngest child was only a few months old. Entire families were wiped out.

This is just one example of everything that exists when it comes to investigating war crimes. In Gaza, there are almost 50,000 dead. It is estimated that 10,000 lie under the rubble and that 70 percent are women and children. We have seen how children have starved to death and frozen to death in Gaza. It is that type of war crime that has been committed - by Hamas, naturally, but obviously also by Israel. That is what Netanyahu is suspected of, and that is why the International Criminal Court has issued the arrest warrant that it has issued.

According to Article 89 of the Rome Statute, all ICC countries are obliged to cooperate with the ICC and either prosecute persons suspected of war crimes or extradite them to the ICC. There is no room for negotiation or bargaining in this. It is our duty to do so, period.

That is why it was noteworthy when the Foreign Minister did not answer that question clearly when she received it shortly before Christmas. Now she answers in this interpellation response. There she is clearer, as Håkan Svenneling has noted. There she says the following: "Sweden has in its dialogue with the court's representatives been very clear about its support for the court's integrity and independence as well as the importance of cooperation, including the execution of outstanding arrest warrants." It is precisely that clarification we were looking for.

Regarding this, I can only say that what you have said in dialogue with the court, you must also say outwardly, in the media, when you are asked questions about this. You cannot waver then, because statements about this are in themselves law-forming in international law. If states that are members of the ICC suddenly start to waver on such central issues, it actually forms international law, and it undermines the International Criminal Court. No one would be happier about that than all the world's war criminals, for example Putin.

It is important that everyone is treated equally, regardless of whether the suspect is named Vladimir Putin or whether the suspect is named Benjamin Netanyahu. That is why we established the International Criminal Court 25 years ago: to ensure that those who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity do not go unpunished.

This is also the beginning of an even larger struggle, because we see that the American president Trump will most likely attack the ICC and direct sanctions against the ICC. In that case, it is important that Europe offers resistance. It is no longer enough to refer to international law. We must fight for international law.

The Foreign Minister does not actually answer my question at all regarding how we should strengthen the ICC ahead of the conflict that may now occur, but I see, for example, that Holland has now submitted proposals that the EU should be able to block all effects of any American sanctions against the ICC. That can be done according to the existing regulatory framework.

My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is whether Sweden will support such an initiative to block all effects of sanctions against the ICC.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Håkan Svenneling and Morgan Johansson, for initiating this interpellation debate! It is a very important debate.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the clarification in the answer she has given to the interpellation. I am very pleased; I think it is a great step forward that the government has taken. It is wonderful that the government shows such clarity.

At the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there is consensus in the government on this issue. We know that there are party representatives, for example from the Kristdemokraterna, who have been out and said that the arrest warrant against Netanyahu is scandalous. It has been called political. It has been said that it undermines the ICC's legitimacy. I know that it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is responsible for foreign policy, but this type of decision – if it were to come to an extradition order, for example – is, among other things, about whether there is consensus in the government. I just want to ensure that the entire government stands behind the statement that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has now made.

That is why I intended to focus on the ICC's future. It has been mentioned previously that the USA has imposed sanctions. Trump has threatened to impose even stronger sanctions against the ICC. There is already a bill in Congress against the ICC. It is directed at specific individuals within the ICC and not against the ICC as an institution, but we do not know what will come.

The proposed sanctions could actually mean that certain American companies, for example Microsoft, which cooperate with or assist certain prosecutors within the ICC, feel forced to end their involvement. This would probably leave the ICC paralyzed, as they are completely dependent on, among other things, Microsoft's cloud services. I wonder in what way the Foreign Minister plans to put pressure on the new American administration to not proceed with these sanctions, which can undermine the ICC's work.

I would also like to see the Swedish government take the initiative to gather the 125 state parties to the Rome Statute and issue some kind of statement against the Americans' planned legislation and sanctions. I would simply like to see a bit more action regarding strengthening the ICC's mandate.

Finally, I want to highlight what we heard shortly before Christmas in Sveriges Radios program Konflikt. There, it was reported that Mossad, that is, Israel's intelligence service, has carried out pressure against the ICC.

It is well known that intelligence services around the world try to act against different states, and it is something that has always been ongoing. But that one goes about in this way against an independent judicial instance is very worrying.

What I would very much like to see regarding this issue is that one even calls the Israeli ambassador and asks questions about this. How can one allow an intelligence service to attack an independent judicial instance in that manner?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to both Håkan Svenneling and Morgan Johansson for important interpellations!

We are all, of course, pleased with the ceasefire that is finally coming to fruition in Gaza, but the outcome of the war is catastrophic. The needs for assistance are enormous and difficult to overlook and comprehend: over 45,000 dead, of whom a majority are women and children, as well as thousands injured - many fighting for their lives. Thousands of children have been traumatized. Houses, schools and hospitals have been laid in ruins.

It is obvious that Israel's massive attacks against civilians violate international law. Israel has also used starvation as a weapon and prevented food and water from being brought to the isolated and starving population. To attack hospitals and schools and to kill healthcare workers and aid workers is also a war crime, as is the forced displacement of people.

We also clearly see that Hamas has committed war crimes in connection with the October 7 attack.

The International Criminal Court ICC issued an arrest warrant on November 21, 2024, against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country's former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The court also issued an arrest warrant against Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, despite reports that Deif was killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza this summer.

The background is war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Several international organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, confirm the picture of genocide and crimes against humanity. The Swedish government has unfortunately been remarkably reticent when it comes to criticizing Israel's crimes.

By issuing these arrest warrants, the ICC finally gives real hope of justice to countless victims of crimes against international law and restores some confidence in the universal value of international legal instruments and justice.

The International Court of Justice is an important part of international law, the international regulatory framework that the world's countries agreed upon after the Second World War. However, the Court has been subjected to attacks aimed at undermining its legitimacy and ability to dispense justice, says Chief Justice Akane, for example. This is very serious.

The USA, which like Russia and China has not ratified the Rome Statute, threatens to act against the ICC. Sweden and the EU need to plan to protect the court's integrity and work. Will the minister work for this?

If the principles of international law are to be upheld, it is central that democratic states such as Sweden act when war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed. It is central that those responsible are held accountable. There must be no sanctuary for those who commit war crimes.

I think the minister is now giving a fairly good answer compared to previous, more vague statements. She now says that all parties to the ICC's Rome Statute - including Sweden - are obliged to cooperate with the court even when it comes to the execution of arrest warrants, and that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant should be arrested if they travel to any of the 125 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute.

I interpret it as that Netanyahu and Gallant will be arrested if they set foot in Sweden.

I want clear, plain language on that issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It would be good if the Minister answered frankly the question of whether these two persons will be arrested if they visit Sweden and said a straight yes. Then the question would finally be clarified.

Regarding the background, and if one looks at the situation in Gaza now, we have 46,913 dead, of whom 17,841 are children and 12,298 are women. There are 110,750 injured and 11,200 missing, and the majority of them are children. Regarding healthcare personnel, there are 1,068 dead, we have 80 destroyed healthcare facilities and 136 destroyed ambulances.

It is 1,930,000 people who have lost their homes and 1,600,000 who are today designated as living as refugees. Among them are people who have been forced to move up to ten times. Of the infrastructure in Gaza, 80 percent is destroyed.

In international law and justice, there is something called the principle of proportionality. Of course, I distance myself from what happened with the kibbutzim and from Hamas's horrific attack, but as I have now enumerated this, I wonder if the minister considers that the principle of proportionality applies. Has Israel exercised an authority that stands in relation to international law and justice? I do not think it is particularly difficult to see that is not the case. Therefore, what the International Criminal Court has done is also very justified.

The Foreign Minister also says that a negotiated two-state solution is seen as the basis for how this is to be resolved. Now there is an Israeli decision in the Knesset from July last year that a two-state solution is absolutely not feasible. We have an American ambassador, who is to serve in Israel, who speaks of Judea and Samaria as some kind of biblical areas in the West Bank. He does not speak of occupied territories. In occupied territories, for example, one is not allowed to build settlements, which they have done since 1967. We see an increasingly fragmented Palestinian society, and there is therefore an incredibly strong reluctance towards a two-state solution.

What does the government's strategy look like for working towards a two-state solution in practice, more than general declarations in a line in different types of speeches?

We have built international law, and it has been about guarding the sovereignty of individual nations. With the same clarity as one condemns the Russian war in Ukraine, we can also take a stand against the crimes occurring in the Middle East against international law and international law and which have occurred consistently for a long time in the form of the settlement policy on the West Bank.

It is, as said, important that we safeguard the institutions we have created for accountability. The ICC is a central such institution, so say yes to the question I posed initially.

I look forward to an answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The decision on 21 November to issue arrest warrants against the Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the then Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is the court's independent decision. We do not review the court's decision. The ICC has no executive authorities of its own and is therefore entirely dependent on states cooperating. Sweden is a party to the Rome Statute and will live up to the obligations that come with it.

As the interpellants well know - or should know - it is both the Swedish independent judicial authorities and the government that will, if it becomes relevant, examine the question of extradition, in accordance with current law. It is not a decision I want to anticipate. That was exactly what I said in November, and I stand by it.

International law is a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign policy. Upholding the rules-based world order is absolutely crucial both for our country's security and for stability in the surrounding world. Sweden has been a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court since its inception. We have, for example, seconded a number of prosecutors and investigators to the court, and Sweden is the largest donor to the ICC's trust fund for victims of crime of all time.

The court is currently facing threats and attacks that are unparalleled. Arrest warrants have been issued against several of the court's employees by Russian authorities, which is unacceptable. The court is also threatened by American sanctions, which is very worrying.

Sweden, together with like-minded countries, has conveyed this concern to American representatives. The core of the message has been that the sanctions would seriously undermine all 17 situations that the ICC is investigating. Some of these are already at an advanced stage, partly thanks to the previous support from the USA. Such investigations include those concerning Ukraine, Venezuela, Myanmar, Sudan, and Uganda.

Together with the rest of the EU and other like-minded countries, we have, as mentioned, conveyed to the American counterparts our concern that the sanctions would seriously affect the court's ability to perform its work. The EU is now looking at what measures could be taken to mitigate the effects of the impending American sanctions for EU companies whose services the court is dependent on. One of the measures being considered within the EU is to activate the so-called blocking statute. This is a decision that, in that case, would be made by the Commission, and the government supports such an activation.

Finally, I want to answer Jacob Risberg that the answer I provide here today is, of course, the government's answer and something that the entire government stands behind.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! In the Foreign Minister's second answer, we heard exactly what we in the opposition have expressed concern about, namely that one is, so to speak, backing off a little. One begins to talk about the ICC's independence, about these being independent decisions made by courts, and about not wanting to anticipate any potential decisions in the event that they should come here.

None of us here question the independence of the courts, but that one does not clearly state that one will follow the rules is precisely what we have expressed concern about. I therefore still feel that is a serious part of the Foreign Minister's talking points, because I do not share her view in that part.

When it comes to the fact that criticism has been voiced regarding the US's actions and plans for action, I must say that I welcome what the Foreign Minister says. I particularly welcome the news we have just received, that is, that the government supports the proposal to activate the blocking statute at the EU level if the USA imposes sanctions against the ICC. I think it is a welcome piece of news. To be forward-looking, plan for what Trump might think of doing, and build support for the plans will make it easier to actually do something.

That it is also a decision taken by the Commission in this case is positive, given that there are states such as Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which have repeatedly blocked this type of decision at the EU level. Therefore, the Swedish statement here is extra important.

I actually had the privilege of visiting the ICC in the autumn of 2023, just after Hamas's horrific attack. I think it was a very good visit in the sense that one, among other things, got a picture of how important it is that states join the ICC. In this case, it is Palestine's accession to the ICC that makes the ICC's legality cover crimes committed on Palestinian territory, i.e., the West Bank and Gaza, and crimes committed by Palestinians on Israeli territory, which means that Hamas's horrific attack is covered.

Just as the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned in his answer, the fund for victims of crime is something that Sweden has been a leading contributor to and has provided significant financial support for. It is the type of thing we need to continue to support, and therefore I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs can consider whether we should not increase the financial support to the International Criminal Court, ICC, and the International Court of Justice, ICJ.

These two courts differ slightly; everyone in this chamber knows that. The ICC investigates crimes against humanity committed by individuals – in this case, we are discussing Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant – while the ICJ looks at the question of genocide, where South Africa has filed a complaint with the court. We need to support these two courts. Both are located in The Hague, have almost the same name, and are part of the broad effort to uphold international law and ensure that both individuals and states are held accountable for the crimes against humanity or the genocides they may have committed. It is important that Sweden as a state supports that effort.

I hope that the government stops hiding behind various types of weak and vague statements and instead is very clear both in what the Foreign Minister calls a core interest, that is, to stand up for international law, and in politically supporting the work against all those who threaten the courts. The courts must be supported financially, but also be given political legitimacy for their work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! One must never be fully satisfied. Just when we thought we had received increased clarity from the government's side on this issue, the Minister for Foreign Affairs takes the rostrum and contributes once again to the confusion.

My simple question was: Is Sweden as a state obliged to arrest a person suspected of war crimes and either prosecute or extradite them to the International Criminal Court? Is Sweden as a state obliged to do so?

The answer to that question, since we are an ICC state, can be nothing other than yes. Sweden as a state is obliged to arrest a person suspected of war crimes in our country and either prosecute or extradite the individual to court. Then we have internal procedures here, both in the judiciary and in the government, but all our internal decision-making institutions are subject to the same obligation, namely the one expressed in the ICC Statute. When the Foreign Minister now says that she does not want to anticipate any preparations, she creates, so to speak, once again doubt regarding what our obligations actually are.

This is not unimportant, but it is extremely important. When one is this wavering or mumbling, there is a risk that it will be taken up by other countries, which in turn risks a situation where one can refer to the fact that there are a number of countries that do not at all think they are obliged to intervene if we were to bring in a war criminal whom we would need to intervene against. Then it suddenly becomes discretionary, that is to say that countries themselves shall decide whom they shall take and whom they shall not take.

My question was: Is Sweden as a state obligated to intervene if we have the possibility to do so? In my view, there is only one answer, and that is yes. It would be good if the Foreign Minister could clarify that question in the next contribution.

Then I think it was a good and important announcement that Sweden supports a blocking mechanism if it is the case that the USA will target the International Criminal Court with sanctions. It means that we can contribute to strengthening and protecting the ICC from the sanctions through that blocking mechanism. It is a good and welcome announcement - and new, I should also say. We truly welcome it.

This is important in substance, but it is also important in a larger context. Trump's attack on the ICC is just one example of the moves we will see during the coming years. We have already seen a number of others that are very eye-catching, regarding Greenland, Panama and Canada. This is, therefore, only the beginning.

That is why I believe it is very important that we stop pretending that Trump is something he is not. Trump is not a democrat in any sense of the word; Trump is an autocrat, that is, a person who wants to concentrate all power in himself. He is a person who does not care what others say and who does not hesitate to threaten people or states to get what he wants. He has no respect for democratic rules of the game, no respect for courts, no respect for other states, no respect for international law and no respect for the rules-based world order.

The sooner we realize that it is the case in that way, the better prepared I believe we are for what he is going to come up with in the future. I was in the government the last time Trump was in power, and we had a number of quite challenging situations in that situation.

I therefore just want to say that when such things happen, it is very important that one stands one's ground and does not fall silent - that one does not back down, crawl away into some corner and try not to be seen. It is important that one instead steps forward and is prepared to clearly defend the rules-based world order. If we do not do it now - above all Europe but naturally also Sweden - we will soon have no rules-based world order left. Therefore, it is important that we are clear in that sense as well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for some clarifying answers. I must, however, unfortunately agree with the two previous speakers that it feels as though it was blurred a bit in the second answer. What is the government's actual position on this? Will Gallant, Netanyahu, and Deif be arrested, extradited, or prosecuted if they were to come to Swedish territory? It would be good to have a clarification.

I think the Foreign Minister said quite a few good things, including that within the EU one tries to do what can be done to mitigate any sanctions from the USA. I think the blocking statute is an excellent example and hope that Sweden pushes forward for this. However, it must not stop there. More pressure must be exerted on the USA. The USA's Congress and president must not get away with these types of sanctions. I would like to hear how more pressure can be put on the USA in this area.

The question of how to act towards Israel and Israel's ambassador here in Sweden remained somewhat unanswered. Regarding Israel's attacks on the ICC, and above all that Mossad is being used to attack the court, I would like to know how the government intends to act. Will you summon the ambassador and get a clarification on this? It is a totally unacceptable behavior. One must not attack an independent court. In what way does the Foreign Minister intend to put pressure on Israel so that they do not clash with the ICC in this manner?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for further answers.

As has been said, there is no doubt whatsoever that serious crimes against humanity have occurred in Gaza. There is also no doubt as to who bears the responsibility. Naturally, the crimes against the laws of war and against international law must be carefully investigated and have consequences. Does the Minister agree with the court's decision that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza? I would like to have an answer to that. 45,000 dead, of whom a majority are women and children, is a clear example.

Does the Minister consider that Netanyahu and Gallant should be arrested if they come to Sweden? Yes or no? It is not enough to simply refer to the court - I want to hear the Minister's position here.

If the principles of international law are to be upheld, it is central that democratic states such as Sweden act when war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed. That those responsible are held accountable is extremely important. There must be no sanctuary for those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless of whether they are named Putin or Netanyahu. There must be no doubt about where Sweden stands on this important issue. We are simply obligated to follow the Rome Statute and arrest these individuals if they come to Sweden.

The protection of the International Court of Justice is, of course, extremely important. The international judges are part of international law. The international regulatory framework that the world's countries agreed upon after the Second World War is now under threat, perhaps primarily due to Trump's actions but also from Russia and China.

It is good that work is ongoing in the EU, as the minister spoke about, but more needs to be done. Clearer pressure must be exerted, especially on the USA. Will the minister act to increase the support for the international courts? They need more resources.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Shall we complete what is natural according to the international regulatory framework that we ourselves have stood behind? Will we arrest these persons if they visit Sweden? It should not be difficult to say yes, because it is the consequence of the regulatory framework that we ourselves have signed. Here, the minister could rehabilitate himself in his next contribution by clearly saying yes. That chance exists.

I noticed that the question of proportionality was not commented on in the Minister's previous post. I listed a long series of figures - 46,913 dead, 110,750 injured and so on. These are horrific figures and a miserable statistic. It is a terrible killing that has taken place here. Does the Minister consider that this is consistent with the principle of proportionality? It is important to have that investigated.

The Minister also had no comment regarding the statement on a negotiated two-state solution. My impression is that this is included in all possible motions as a line, but then nothing more is said. Is there any strategy? Is any strategy being discussed? How does one intend to proceed? Or are these just words that have no meaning in practice?

When it comes to international law and justice and the institutions that are to uphold this, one must constantly be very clear. This system is under constant attack, not least through the attack that Russia directed against Ukraine and through the ongoing war. In that case, one cannot have different standards; violations of international law and justice must be handled in the same way and with the same clear statements regardless of who commits them. Therefore, the government's silence on, for example, the settlement policy is remarkable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The demands for respect for international law, including international humanitarian law, have been and continue to be something that Sweden emphasizes towards Israel. Sweden has, among other things, been clear that Israel must do more to comply with the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the protection of the civilian population and that the International Court of Justice's decision on provisional measures, which are legally binding, must be complied with.

My and the government's conviction is that we have the greatest opportunity to influence when we act together with others. We have a close dialogue within the EU and with other like-minded countries on how respect for international humanitarian law can be ensured in the best and most effective way.

It is not, however, the Swedish government's, or my, task to determine whether violations of international humanitarian law were committed in individual cases. Ultimately, the responsibility to uphold respect for the international legal framework rests with judicial institutions. Both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have ongoing investigations concerning Israel's conduct of war, and it would be wrong of me to preempt them. The question of proportionality is fundamental in international law, but it is the courts that interpret this—not I or the government.

Let me also draw attention to the ceasefire that has now come into force in Gaza. It is very welcome. Now, parts of the hostages can finally be reunited with their families. It is absolutely central that the ceasefire alleviates the immense suffering that the civilian population in Gaza is enduring and that access for humanitarian aid increases. A ceasefire is also a prerequisite for a negotiated two-state solution.

In my first response, I was clear that all parties to the ICC's statute, the Rome Statute, are obliged to cooperate with the court, even when it concerns the execution of arrest warrants. This includes Sweden. Håkan Svenneling said that he and Vänsterpartiet obviously stand behind the independence and autonomy of courts and authorities. But his statements in this debate, as well as the statements from the members from Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, testify to the fact that this is actually not the case. What they demand of me in this debate is that I should speak for the Police Authority and the Prosecution Authority regarding which decisions these authorities should make. If I had done that, the risk of a report to the KU would have been imminent.

Therefore, I and the government state that we shall live up to our commitments if the issue ever lands on our table. But for it to potentially do so - in a hypothetical situation - a number of independent decisions by independent authorities are required. I can and may not anticipate these.

Morgan Johansson said that Trump is not a democrat. It is a great stroke of luck that it is not Morgan Johansson who is the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this very difficult time, when we are to navigate in a very difficult security policy environment. The cooperation with the USA will continue to be very important.

Magdalena Andersson had already chosen her candidate before the election. It was a candidate who lost in a democratic election. USA, the world's most powerful nation, has a democratically elected leader. It is the duty of Sweden and the government to develop the cooperation with USA in accordance with Swedish interests.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! From the opposition's side, we thought for a while today that we had taken a step forward. But the feeling when we leave here today is that we took a step forward and then a step back.

When the ICC's arrest warrants arrived, we saw how other foreign ministers managed to comment in accordance with international law that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant should be arrested and brought to justice for the allegations they are accused of and thereby receive a fair trial within the framework of international law.

It is serious matters we are talking about. We are talking about suspicions regarding war crimes through starvation as a weapon and crimes against humanity through murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. We are talking about that 1.9 million Palestinians are in flight and that around 50,000 people have been killed - likely even more because we have not found them under the ruins where they lie buried. That is why we demand the clarity that we now lack from the government's side.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned the judgment that the International Court of Justice, ICJ, has issued. Here, we from the opposition pointed out just yesterday that we need an analysis from the government on what the judgment implies. Otherwise, Sweden as a state risks contributing to Israel's occupation of Palestine, an occupation that must end immediately.

As for the fact that there is now a ceasefire. It is very welcome. I am glad that the Foreign Minister now welcomes it. She also seems to have shifted her position to that it should be a permanent ceasefire.

Now reconstruction is needed. A Marshall Plan or an al-Shifa Plan was needed, to mention the hospital that has been bombed very powerfully. Help was needed for Swedes who are in Gaza, and medical evacuation of patients from Gaza was needed. These are points that the government has not yet addressed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! No, we have not demanded that the Foreign Minister should say what a court or the police should do. We have demanded that Sweden as a state should take its obligations seriously. The Foreign Minister must be able to express that Sweden in certain situations is obliged to do what is incumbent upon us according to the charter that we have signed.

It is crystal clear that Sweden's obligation as an ICC country is to arrest the person against whom there is an arrest warrant and to either prosecute him or extradite him to the ICC court.

If we waver on that question, all other countries will also waver. Then one forms a body of international law which in turn will mean that one undermines the International Criminal Court. We will end up on a list of countries that cannot answer clearly yes or no to the question of whether we arrest war criminals. It is fundamentally very worrying.

We must in the situation that is now arising do everything we can to protect the International Court of Justice, for it will be attacked. We must also in the case of Israel work to ensure that the ICC can now, now that there is a ceasefire, enter Gaza so that evidence can be collected for what has actually happened in Gaza and thereby build its cases.

Then the Foreign Minister chooses to have a discussion with me about Trump and whether he is a democrat or not. Trump is a person who did not acknowledge being defeated in an election. Trump is a person who has just released 1,500 far-right violent actors who stormed Congress with the aim of killing some of the members of Congress, including Trump's own vice president Mike Pence.

My simple conclusion is that a democrat does not behave that way. A democrat also does not behave in the way we have seen over the last few days by threatening other countries and completely undermining the rules-based world order.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Now it has become difficult for Morgan Johansson. Now he says that he has not at all urged me to tell independent authorities which decisions they should make. That is exactly what he and his colleagues on the left side in this debate have done. I and the government stand firm. We regard our independent authorities as just independent. We will continue to respect that.

In the event that a situation arises that actualizes the issues we have discussed in this debate, a number of independent decisions will need to be made by independent authorities. I do not intend to anticipate those, despite urges from the opposition. However, I note, just as I have done earlier in this debate, that Sweden is obliged to cooperate with the court, including when it concerns the execution of arrest warrants.

No, I did not choose to raise the debate on whether Trump is a democrat or not. It was Morgan Johansson who, in the debate, claimed that Trump was not a democrat.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)