Sweden's accession to the extended partial agreement for the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S insists on joining the tribunal to strengthen international accountability and justice as the ICC has legal limitations 1. M considers the tribunal a necessity for sustainable peace through accountability 2. V wants the decision to lead to Vladimir Putin facing his Nuremberg trial 3. C considers the tribunal crucial to closing a gap in the Rome Statute 4 and that Sweden should join to create an institutional framework through the Council of Europe 4. KD welcomes the joining as the crime of aggression is the original crime 5. MP stands behind the proposal to fill the legal vacuum 6. L argues that those responsible must be held accountable 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.
Today, Sweden takes another important step to ensure that Russia's leadership will one day be held accountable for its war of aggression against Ukraine. By joining the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, we strengthen the international work for accountability, justice, and respect for international law.
Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing to stand in a chamber where all parties agree on this decision, which is incredibly important for both principled, moral, and international law reasons.
When we speak about the war in Ukraine, we often speak about the war crimes committed. We speak about torture. We speak about sexual violence. We speak about the deportation of Ukrainian children. We speak about attacks against hospitals, schools, and residential areas. We speak about extensive destruction of the environment. It is clear that we shall speak about it, and we will continue to do so.
But today the debate is about something else. It is about the crime that made all the other crimes possible: the crime of aggression – the decision to start an illegal war of aggression, the decision to attack another country with military violence, the decision to violate the UN Charter and attempt to change Europe's borders with force of arms. That is why the tribunal was needed.
The International Criminal Court, ICC, can investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but when it comes to the crime of aggression specifically, there are legal limitations that mean the ICC cannot prosecute the Russian state leadership for the decision itself to start the war. Therefore, the international community has needed to create a special legal tool to fill this vacuum.
Mr. Speaker! For the Social Democrats, this is not a new issue. Already during the Social Democratic government in 2022, decisions were made regarding special support for the International Criminal Court's work in investigating Russian crimes in Ukraine. Sweden contributed extra funds to strengthen the prosecutor's office's capacity to collect evidence, document abuses, and prepare for future prosecutions.
We as a country did this because we understood something fundamental: Without evidence, there is no justice. Without documentation, we will not be able to demand accountability. Without accountability, we will not achieve a lasting peace. The work that began in 2022 continues now through the tribunal that we are discussing today.
Mr. Speaker! The support for Ukraine is not just a question of military support, even though Ukraine must win the war. It is also about defending the rules-based world order.
In our latest foreign policy committee motion, we were clear that Sweden shall continue to work for international accountability, strengthen support for international courts, and work to ensure that those who bear responsibility for Russia's aggression are brought to justice.
If the war of aggression is left unpunished, we send a signal far beyond Ukraine's borders that great powers can attack their neighbors without facing legal consequences. This would be devastating for international law, and it would be devastating for the security of all of Europe.
Mr. Speaker! We must dare to speak about something that all too rarely is mentioned in the Swedish debate. If we mean business with Russia being held accountable, we must also defend the institutions that exist there to dispense justice. We have been clear in our support for the International Criminal Court, but we view with concern that the USA at various times has chosen to use sanctions against representatives of the ICC.
Such measures risk undermining the court's independence. They risk weakening trust in international accountability altogether, not just in the ICC. They also risk providing arguments to authoritarian regimes that want to avoid legal scrutiny.
When the world needs more international law, it is the wrong path to weaken the institutions that are to defend it. When Ukraine needs justice, it is the wrong path to put pressure on the legal system that works to deliver this. When Russia's leadership must be held accountable, democracies need to strengthen, not weaken, the international legal institutions.
Mr. Speaker! The tribunal we are joining today is ultimately about a simple principle: No one shall be above the law – not individual soldiers, not officers, not generals, not ministers, and not presidents. If we want to defend the UN Charter, we must also defend the principle that those who violate the UN Charter shall be held accountable. That is why today's decision is so important. It is important for Ukraine, it is very important for Europe, and it is incredibly important for international law and for the rules-based world order that Sweden has been involved in building up for generations.
Ann-Sofie Alm (M)
Mr. Speaker! I particularly remember one morning in Kyiv. The sun was shining, and people greeted each other with smiles on the street, even though no one had really been able to sleep through another hellish night with hundreds and hundreds of Russian missiles and drones.
The chestnut trees, standing in full bloom with both white and pink flowers, lined the streets, and everything looked idyllic. But when the car stopped, I found myself in front of a house. The facade was completely worn down so that the house looked like a dollhouse. But in my childhood, the dollhouse's floors were not filled with splinters, and the entrance was not full of bloodstains. On the fourth floor, I could see straight into a refrigerator. The door hung slightly crooked, but everything looked as if someone in the family who lived there was just about to reach in and grab breakfast.
The rescue personnel told about a woman whom they had managed to rescue from the lower layers of the rubble. She did not want to be rescued, because her children were no longer there. They were still inside.
Mr. Speaker! There are some mornings one does not forget, for there are moments in history when the rule of law is put to the test and when it is not about principles in theory but about whether they actually hold when they are challenged.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is such a trial. It is an attack. It is a rape of international law. It is an attack on the European security order, and it did not start by chance. It began with decisions – decisions made by a political and military leadership that chose aggression over diplomacy, violence over justice, and conquest over peace. That is why the concept of the crime of aggression is completely central. It points out the ultimate responsibility of those who actually made the decisions.
Mr. Speaker! During the 20th century, the world learned a costly lesson. After the greatest catastrophes in Europe's history, a principle was established: that whoever starts a war of aggression shall be held personally accountable under international law.
It is this principle that is now being put to the test again, for if it is eroded, the order that protects small states from large ones is also eroded. Therefore, the special tribunal is not symbolic. It is a necessity because a sustainable peace must be built on justice through accountability.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been clear throughout this entire period. We stand behind Ukraine, we stand behind international law, and we stand behind the principle that accountability must be demanded. I am incredibly proud of the unity we have here in the Riksdag. It is unique, and it is immensely valuable.
But I also want to emphasize the purposeful work that the government has undertaken. Under the leadership of Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergård, Sweden has consistently prioritized support for Ukraine. That work is not just a foreign policy line. It is a moral duty and a security policy necessity, because when Russia tries to change Europe's borders with military violence, it is not only Ukraine that is threatened. Then the entire European security order, which has given our continent peace and stability for generations, is threatened.
Mr. Speaker! The tribunal we are now joining is therefore a decisive step. It establishes that the crime of aggression is not abstract, that it has perpetrators, and that accountability will be demanded.
Since Russia took the first steps onto Ukrainian territory, the war crimes have been documented by civil organizations, by journalists, by people with body cameras and mobiles, by authorities and by volunteers. Everything they have documented is heartbreaking, but it is also very good that it has been done because Russia will have to be held accountable for every single one of these crimes.
But, Mr. Speaker, it will not give back the childhood to the more than 20,000 children who have been illegally deported and forcibly moved from their Ukrainian families. I hope and believe that extra much time and effort will be devoted to these crimes, for to take children away from their families in order to exterminate a people and its culture and then let them turn against their roots and return to fight against their families is perhaps the most hideous and wicked thing one can imagine.
The court will also not give life back to the fathers and mothers, sons and daughters who are no longer in life.
It will also not heal the lifelong injuries, injuries that require lifelong use of diapers, which many suffer from after the systematic rapes they were subjected to during occupation and captivity as prisoners of war.
Mr. Speaker! It will not give the woman who was rescued from the rubble that morning in Kyiv her daughters back. But accountability will be demanded from those who are responsible.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
Håkan Svenneling (V)
Mr. Speaker! Crimes of aggression is the legal term for what we others call war, invasion or horrific attack. And through the special tribunal, it becomes possible for us to hold accountable those who bear the responsibility for Russia's full-scale invasion of and war against Ukraine.
In the autumn, the film Nuremberg premiered in cinemas. It is about how the Nazis faced a legal trial for their crimes of aggression, the genocide of Jews and other groups.
In my home municipality, Karlstad, it has been arranged so that all older school pupils have been made to go and see the film Nuremberg as part of their education to understand the history of how we have prosecuted and sentenced those who have committed crimes of aggression earlier in history.
With this decision, we have the ambition that Vladimir Putin and his cronies will one day face their Nuremberg trial for their crimes, for their crime of aggression.
Mr. Speaker! Through Russia's war, Ukraine has also been subjected to thousands of environmental crimes. Therefore, the crime of ecocide, large-scale environmental destruction, must also become an international crime. Just as we sat down here for debate, news flashes arrived that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant once again lacks power supply and that the catastrophe is once again imminent.
I think it is good that more and more people think that we should make ecocide a crime. Sweden must push so that Russia is also held accountable for its environmental crimes, such as those Jacob Risberg mentioned earlier. Previous wars have led to genocide being classified as a crime. We have highlighted the crimes against women and the sexual violence. Now it is time that the crimes committed against the environment receive a substantial and real trial.
Mr. Speaker! The journey will be long, but I want to see a day when Vladimir Putin sits behind bars. I hope that this decision leads to that day coming a little closer.
Kerstin Lundgren (C)
Mr. Speaker! This is the second part of the decisions we are to make later. The compensation commission is naturally an important part. The tribunal that we are now discussing is the second leg to move forward and ensure that impunity does not prevail.
In this way, we can address a deficiency in the Rome Statute. That the crime of aggression is not included in the Rome Statute means, as has been said before, that the ICC, the International Criminal Court, cannot adjudicate precisely the crime of aggression.
The ICC has already issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin. Others will follow in the wake of this, not only against the ombudsman and the president but against many more. The ICC has an incredibly important role to work consistently and take care of the evidence that is now being collected. This happens partly with Swedish help, not only through our support for the ICC but also by us participating in collecting evidence and ensuring that this happens so that crimes are not committed in silence. The difficulty naturally concerns the territories occupied by Russia – Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk – but it is important that evidence is brought to court.
Since the ICC is unable to handle the crime of aggression, it is extremely important that we have found a way to plug the hole that decision-makers once took regarding the Rome Statute. Through this tribunal, the crime of aggression cannot pass without judicial review.
This is naturally completely crucial, as it is part of the UN Charter. Territorial borders shall be respected by all who sign the Charter. Exactly the same applied to territorial borders for those who were to sign Europe's security order.
That Russia so brutally violates these fundamental principles is extremely serious. Even more serious would it be if we let it pass without acting. Therefore, we in Sweden have worked on a broad front to ensure that this would come to fruition, that we would create a tribunal.
From the beginning, there were difficulties regarding an image that a new tribunal could undermine the ICC's status and role. It is, of course, always a risk, but at the same time, it is so vital for our legal order, for international law, that we do not let a deficiency in the Rome Statute allow a crime of aggression to pay off. Therefore, it is important.
In the same way, I also want to highlight ecocide, which is a possible path. It is also not in the Rome Statute, and we have not assessed that it is possible to get such a change into the Rome Statute now. But here there is now a tribunal that could also bring up ecocide to close that gap and take care of the very serious environmental crimes that have been committed against the people of Ukraine and against Ukraine as a nation.
This is, as has been said, the 1,569th day of ongoing acts of aggression. It is high time that we now reach a solution. Once again, this is happening thanks to the fact that we have created a Europarliament that can become the institutional framework for this activity. Here, the Europarliament now has an opportunity to be a voice for democracy, for a functioning rule of law, for the rule of law and for human rights, which has been the foundation for that institution.
The Council of Europe also plays a very important role here for the tribunal. Here we form a school and provide experience to the rest of the world regarding the value of having such an order.
From the Swedish side, we are united. That unity will remain even after we go to the election on September 13. Regardless of the government, Sweden will stand behind the support for the tribunal, for the commission, to hold Russia accountable, and for Ukraine to win the war. The support for Ukraine will remain; I am absolutely convinced of that because of the very broad unity in this chamber. It is a welcome message, to Ukraine, to Russia, and beyond that.
It is naturally also valuable that the tribunal opens up the possibility of joining, just as with the commission. It is said that the aim shall be the individual criminal responsibility that certain persons in leading positions have for a state's use of violence against another state.
In addition to the thirty countries present in the European Commission, it has been worked out that it shall be open and welcoming. All member and observer states in the Council of Europe and the EU, other states that have voted for the UN General Assembly resolution, or other states or international organizations that have participated in the core group can become members of the administrative committee by notifying the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
This is interesting. The UN resolution naturally concerns Russia's crimes and crimes of aggression.
This is, therefore, an inclusive tribunal. In that way, it can gain greater political weight in the defense of international law and in the demanding of accountability for the crime of aggression.
I hope that regardless of which government is in Sweden after the election, they will work actively to get as many other states as possible to join. It would increase the legitimacy and the pressure. I share that assessment.
I hope that one day we will see President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Prime Minister brought to The Hague. As long as they hold their offices, however, they have immunity from prosecution, and that is part of what has been agreed upon at this stage. This does not apply, however, to an ICC trial.
Magnus Berntsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we are addressing the government's proposition on Sweden's accession to the extended partial agreement on the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The Christian Democrats support the committee's proposal and welcome that Sweden joins this agreement.
This matter may at first glance appear somewhat technical. It concerns an administrative committee, organizational rules, and the financing of an international tribunal, but in reality, it concerns something significantly larger. It is about whether the international legal order should be defended when it is subjected to perhaps its most serious attack in Europe since the Second World War. It is about responsibility and about justice.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is not just a war. It is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principles regarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This war of aggression has caused enormous human suffering and simultaneously challenges the very foundation of the rules-based world order.
Mr. Speaker! When we talk about war crimes, it is often about abuses that occur during a war, but the crime of aggression is different. It is about the decision to initiate an illegal war and about those who sit at the top of the political and military leadership who make the decisions to use military violence against another state in violation of international law. The crime of aggression is therefore usually described as the original crime – the crime that makes all the subsequent abuses possible.
That is precisely why it is so important that there is a mechanism to hold people accountable even for this crime. The International Criminal Court has a central role when it comes to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, but when it comes to the crime of aggression, there are specific jurisdictional rules that mean Russian representatives cannot be prosecuted under current circumstances. That is the background to why the international community has worked out this special tribunal.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden, together with a large number of like-minded countries, the European Union and the Council of Europe, has participated in this work from the beginning, and now we take the next step. By joining the extended partial agreement, Sweden becomes a member of the structure that shall ensure the tribunal's function and long-term operations. This means that we contribute to the tribunal's governance, funding and continued development.
It is important to understand that this is not about revenge but about the principles of the rule of law. It is about the person who violates international law knowing that it will have consequences. If we accept that leaders can start wars of aggression without risk of legal responsibility, we open the door for future aggressions. Then we risk signaling that power takes precedence over justice, and that would be a dangerous message.
Mr. Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, the support for Ukraine is deeply rooted in our fundamental values. We believe in human dignity, we believe in freedom, we believe in the right of nations to self-determination, and we believe in justice. Therefore, we have from day one stood behind a strong Swedish support for Ukraine, both militarily, humanitarily, and economically as well as politically.
That support, however, cannot stop at arms deliveries and reconstruction; it must also encompass justice. The one who has made the decision to launch a war of aggression must know that the world does not forget and does not turn a blind eye. Accountability is important for the people of Ukraine – for those people who have lost loved ones, their homes, and their future – but it is also important for all of Europe. If international law is not defended in Ukraine, it will indeed become weaker everywhere.
Mr. Speaker! History shows that peace built on oblivion is rarely lasting. Lasting peace requires justice, lasting peace requires accountability, and lasting peace requires that the world clearly marks that wars of aggression can never be accepted as a legitimate political tool. The tribunal that is now being built up will not alone determine the outcome of the war, but it will contribute to upholding the principles that are crucial for international peace and security.
Sweden should be a part of that work. It is in Ukraine's interest, it is in Europe's interest and it is, not least, in Sweden's interest.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on Sweden's accession to the expanded partial agreement for the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Even in this matter, the word "debate" is perhaps a bit misleading.
I can begin by saying that Miljöpartiet supports the committee's proposal. This is a crucial step to ensure accountability for the most fundamental crime in international law, namely the crime of aggression.
Mr. Speaker! At the core of the international legal system lies a simple but crucial prohibition: States may not use military force against other states. This is established in the UN Charter, and it is one of the cornerstones of the rules-based world order.
The crime of aggression is not just any crime, but a crime that enables all other crimes. It is the decision to start a war that opens the door for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and enormous humanitarian catastrophes. That is why it was already called the ultimate international crime after the Second World War.
Mr. Speaker! It is easy to believe that this type of crime can already be handled by the International Criminal Court, the ICC, but that is not the case. The ICC can investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Ukraine, but when it comes to the actual decision to start the war – the crime of aggression – there is a decisive problem: in that case, the ICC lacks jurisdiction.
This is due to how the Rome Statute is designed and which states are covered by its rules. The consequence is a legal vacuum where we can investigate what happens in the war but not the original crime of starting it. It is precisely this vacuum that the special tribunal is intended to fill.
The special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine has a clear mandate: to investigate, prosecute, and judge the individuals at the highest level who bear responsibility for the decision to initiate the war. It is therefore a crime of leadership – a crime committed by those who plan, prepare, and carry out the aggression. The tribunal complements the ICC; it does not compete with the ICC. The ICC handles the crimes in the war, and the tribunal handles the decision to start the war. Together, they create a more complete administration of justice.
This is crucial not only for Ukraine but for the entire international system, because if we cannot hold leaders accountable for having started a war, the very prohibition against war is undermined.
Mr. Speaker! The special tribunal, which is being established in cooperation with the Council of Europe, represents an important development in international law. It specifically targets the highest political and military leaders and aims to ensure that no one is above the law. It is also a response to a clear political and legal need: when the UN Security Council is blocked and when existing legal mechanisms are insufficient, the international community must still be able to act. It is precisely that need that this tribunal addresses.
Mr. Speaker! Let me also touch upon another point. What is now happening in Ukraine shows not only the need to prosecute the crime of aggression but also a greater need, namely the need to develop international law in step with the challenges of our time. One of these challenges is environmental destruction in war. We have seen destroyed ecosystems, poisoned soil and water, burnt forests and emissions on a scale that affects the entire climate. These are not just side effects, but they are systematic consequences of modern warfare.
The concept of ecocide, i.e., extensive, serious and long-lasting damage to nature, is becoming increasingly relevant here. Today, ecocide is not yet fully established as a core crime in international criminal law, but the development is moving in that direction – and Ukraine is a clear example of why. Research indicates that ecocide can include mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air and water, and acts that cause ecological catastrophes.
Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet argues that this perspective must be integrated into international accountability. As we now build new legal institutions, such as this tribunal, we should also lay the foundation for the future – a future where even those who destroy nature on a large scale can be held accountable on the same level as for other international crimes.
The special tribunal is not just about judging in retrospect but also about prevention. It is about making it clear that aggression has consequences – that decision-makers can be held personally accountable and that international law is something more than words. This is crucial for preventing future wars. As several international law analyses have pointed out, it is precisely the accountability for the crime of aggression that can strengthen the prohibition against violence and thus contribute to lasting peace.
Mr. Speaker! By joining the expanded partial agreement, Sweden becomes part of the financing, governance, and political support for the tribunal. It is a way to translate our values into concrete action. We have long stood up for international law, multilateral cooperation, and a rules-based world order, and now it is time to show that we mean business.
Mr. Speaker! The report is fundamentally about a simple question: Should it be crime-free to start an illegal war? The answer is as clear as it is obvious to us: no. The one who makes the decision to initiate a war of aggression must be able to be held accountable.
In a time when the consequences of war also hit our planet hard, we must begin to see environmental destruction for what it is: a crime of international significance. The special tribunal is an important step for justice, for Ukraine, for international law, and for the future.
Fredrik Malm (L)
Mr. Speaker! As one previous speaker mentioned, it is a bit difficult to name this debate, because we are in complete agreement. It is exactly like with the previous report we discussed.
Mr. Speaker! I think the questions regarding the international regulatory framework were well clarified by the previous speaker, Jacob Risberg from Miljöpartiet. We have an international world order, but a number of states do not follow that world order and do not accept the principles that exist, which is one of the problems. To handle that, some parallel initiatives are taken and mechanisms and other things are established. The other problem is that the Rome Statute, with its structure, does not quite regulate decisions to launch an attack or a war, which Russia did against Ukraine.
This war has been going on for 1,569 days, as Kerstin Lundgren mentioned in her speech. It is 1,569 days of atrocities against the Ukrainian population. It is clear that Russia thought this would be over in a week or two. They would just roll into Kyiv, and the Ukrainians would stand there waving the Russian Federation's flag and see the Russians as liberators. It is obviously a fatal miscalculation of historically monumental proportions. Now Russia has dug in at these front lines. The military developments show that Ukraine has cracked the code to be able to wage an asymmetric war against the Russian invasion army in a very successful way. It is a heroic effort that the Ukrainian population is making.
Of course, those responsible must be held accountable for the decision to start the war, for the development of the war, and for all the crimes that have been committed. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children are kidnapped and brainwashed on Russian territory. To take away someone's identity is a crime in itself. Everyone has a right to their identity, and this naturally also applies to Ukrainians.
Mr. Speaker! The United Nations has reached a decision on a special commission of inquiry regarding various crimes against human rights that Russia is committing in Ukraine. A report has been submitted concerning what Russia is specifically doing in the city of Kherson. That city was occupied by Russia early in the war. Then Ukraine took back Kherson in the autumn of 2022. Russia's forces are now on the other side of the Dnepr river.
What Russia is doing is sending in drones with cameras. These drones try to locate civilian Ukrainians. It could be a person out walking the dog, a person going to the bus, or a person cycling on their way to the store. Then the drones circle and hunt these individual people, who of course become completely terrified and try to run inside and take shelter from the drones, which may have a hand grenade or something similar on them. They are quite small drones – FPV drones. Russia has killed hundreds of Ukrainians in Kherson in this way.
What one does when flying these drones, hunting down civilians and then dropping explosive charges directly over them is obviously terrorism. We all understand that it is. But what one also does is use footage of this on Telegram channels and so on, on pro-Putin accounts in social media, to boast and mobilize. One adds military orchestra melodies and so on as background sound to the videos. What one is doing is, therefore, boasting about the heinous crimes against the civilian population that one commits.
Mr. Speaker! The independent commission of inquiry appointed by the UN has established that this is a crime against humanity. There are a number of different such structures. The tribunal we are now making a decision on is one, and then there is much more. It is extremely important that the crimes Russia commits are documented, even though Ukraine also commits crimes in this war. Of course, they shall be documented, and those responsible shall be held accountable. What we are doing now is laboriously trying to push this snowball forward to get the structures in place, so that those responsible will actually be behind bars for this at some point in the future. They shall simply be convicted for the crimes they have committed.
Mr. Speaker! I am the chair of the Swedish Council for Cultural Heritage. We must not forget that cultural heritage issues are also protected under international law. The Hague Convention, established by the newly formed UN in the 1950s, stipulated that all states have an obligation to protect their cultural heritage and must not destroy it. The Rome Statute, which came at the end of the 1990s, implies that one can also be individually criminally liable if one commits a crime against a cultural heritage. This means that a Russian commander – a general, a major, or whatever it may be – who makes a decision that one shall specifically attack, for example, a Ukrainian cultural heritage, can be held accountable for this. Now, Russia has not signed the Rome Statute, but as international law has developed, it implies a stronger protection for cultural heritage.
Mr. Speaker! The most important thing to protect in a war is, of course, human life. But cultural heritage is so intimately intertwined with a country's history and its legacy and has such a value for the inhabitants' identity that it enjoys a special protection in international law which must also be upheld.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.