Torture

Ian Hurd
{"title":"Torture","authors":"Ian Hurd","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvsf1qpk.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the legal status of torture, assessing the implications of an international ban on torture that coexists with a nontrivial level of torture in practice. This is not simply a case of torture law being violated. There is wide, perhaps unanimous, agreement that torture is prohibited by international law, and the legitimacy of the ban is rarely contested. The rule is established most directly by the Geneva Conventions and 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (CAT), but it is also widely held that torture is outlawed under jus cogens norms intrinsic in the international system. Despite this, many governments engage in practices that seem clearly prohibited by laws against torture. Much of this behavior comes with detailed defense of its legality. Thus, the politics of torture generally address questions of what constitutes torture, not concerns over the ban itself. This is precisely how the Bush administration used anti-torture law: to demonstrate that its actions were not subject to the rules. Officials sought a zone of legally protected irresponsibility. They used international law against torture as tools to legalize torture.","PeriodicalId":282283,"journal":{"name":"How to Do Things with International Law","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"How to Do Things with International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvsf1qpk.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the legal status of torture, assessing the implications of an international ban on torture that coexists with a nontrivial level of torture in practice. This is not simply a case of torture law being violated. There is wide, perhaps unanimous, agreement that torture is prohibited by international law, and the legitimacy of the ban is rarely contested. The rule is established most directly by the Geneva Conventions and 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (CAT), but it is also widely held that torture is outlawed under jus cogens norms intrinsic in the international system. Despite this, many governments engage in practices that seem clearly prohibited by laws against torture. Much of this behavior comes with detailed defense of its legality. Thus, the politics of torture generally address questions of what constitutes torture, not concerns over the ban itself. This is precisely how the Bush administration used anti-torture law: to demonstrate that its actions were not subject to the rules. Officials sought a zone of legally protected irresponsibility. They used international law against torture as tools to legalize torture.
酷刑
本章侧重于酷刑的法律地位,评估国际上禁止酷刑与实践中严重的酷刑并存的影响。这不仅仅是一个违反酷刑法的案件。国际法禁止酷刑,这是一个广泛的、或许是一致的共识,而且这一禁令的合法性很少受到质疑。《日内瓦公约》和1984年《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇公约》(CAT)最直接地确立了这一规则,但人们也普遍认为,根据国际体系固有的强制法规范,酷刑是非法的。尽管如此,许多政府从事的行为似乎是禁止酷刑的法律明确禁止的。这种行为大多伴随着对其合法性的详细辩护。因此,酷刑政治通常涉及什么构成酷刑的问题,而不是对禁令本身的关注。这正是布什政府使用反酷刑法的方式:证明其行为不受规则的约束。官员们寻求一个受法律保护的不负责任区域。他们利用禁止酷刑的国际法作为使酷刑合法化的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信