Sending armed troops to other countries is sensitive, but the Riksdag’s decision on an armed rescue operation in Sudan is compatible with international law. So says Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law at Stockholm University and the Norwegian Defense Academy.
– This is not a humanitarian intervention that endangers Sudan’s sovereignty – it is a humanitarian evacuation, he says.
He describes it as an opportunity that Sweden and other states can use to protect their own citizens.
– Therefore, it is not a problem under international law.
May use weapons in self-defense
Ove Bring believes that this type of evacuation has not been used before because it has not been relevant for Sweden. However, other countries have carried out similar operations.
– For example, in the 90s, American personnel were evacuated by ship from civil war Liberia.
In addition to deterring a possible attack, foreign troops have the right to have weapons in self-defense even on Sudanese soil.
– It is conditional according to international law. But it must be an evacuation with the sole purpose of saving one’s own citizens.
The Foreign Affairs Committee’s wording “natural”
The Riksdag’s Foreign Affairs Committee writes in his report that Sudan does not comply with the protection for diplomats that the Vienna Convention requires and that there is “certain scope under international law for limited evacuation operations that concern its own citizens during exceptional security situations” according to the government.
According to Ove Bring, it was natural to write like that.
– That is the reason for sending Swedish troops to Sudan – that it is not possible to protect diplomats or other Swedes in view of the violent development.
No reason to see as provocation
Ove Bring sees the government’s claim to dialogue with the warring parties as a way of declaring that it is not looking to interfere in the conflict.
– It is believed that it can help the situation and make it easier, safer for the Swedish effort to operate in Sudan.
He does not believe that any of the Sudanese parties see the armed intervention as a provocation.
– They have no reason, absolutely no reason.
