Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- CONTENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS TORTURE? -- WHY TORTURE? -- ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TORTURE -- CRUELTY AND "NORMAL" PEOPLE -- CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORY OF TORTURE -- ORDEAL AND INQUISITION -- METHODS OF TORTURE -- AN EARLY TORTURE HANDBOOK -- THE ENLIGHTENMENT -- CHAPTER 3: ABUSIVE RULERS IN MODERN TIMES -- DICTATORS AND WORLD WAR II -- TORTURE DURING THE COLD WAR -- TORTURE IN SOUTH AMERICA , ASIA, AND AFRICA -- CHAPTER 4: INTERNATIONAL ACTION AGAINST TORTURE -- INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND TREATIES -- The Geneva Convention -- The U.N. Convention Against Torture -- International Criminal Court -- DOMESTIC TORTURE LAWS -- OTHER MEASURES AGAINST TORTURE -- INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS -- CHAPTER 5: WHY IS TORTURE AN ISSUE IN AMERICA? -- THE PRISON AT GUANTÁNAMO -- RENDITION -- ENHANCED INTERROGATION -- TORTURE AND POLITICS -- GLOSSARY -- FOR MORE INFORMATION -- WEB SITES -- FOR FURTHER READING -- BIBLIOGRAPHY -- INDEX -- ABOUT THE AUTHOR -- PHOTO CREDITS

A discussion of torture in relation to humanitarian values notes that it is condemned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Geneva Conventions of the Red Cross, & the International Criminal Court. Specifics of each text are explored. The evolution of definitions of torture to include a wide range of cruel & degrading actions is discussed, along with the complexity of legal arguments dealing with the line between torture & other forms of inhuman treatment. The law of the European Court of Human Rights expresses one of the clearest consensuses on torture which allows no exceptions even in times of national emergency. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, established in the 1990s, has been given unprecedented powers of access to places of detention, detainees, & relevant documents. However, chances of acceptance of these mechanisms by countries outside Europe, especially the US, are slim. It is argued that existing ambivalences about torture represent a "slippery slope" toward acceptance of torture under another name. J. Lindroth

Torture is not as universally condemned as it once was. After 9/11, its apologists could use the 'war on terror' to justify a practice that has in fact never fallen completely out of use, in democracies no less than under dictatorships. From Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib prisons to the death of Giulio Regeni, countless recent cases have shocked public opinion. But if we want to defend the human dignity that torture violates, simple indignation is not enough. In this penetrating text, Donatella Di Cesare seeks insight from philosophers, playwrights, directors and poets to provide a critical perspective on torture in all its dimensions, culminating in a wholly original 'phenomenology of torture'. She seeks to capture the peculiarity of an extreme, systematic, methodical violence. This is a violence where the tormentor calculates and measures out pain so that he can hold off the victim's death, allowing him to continue to exercise his sovereign power. For the victim, being tortured is like experiencing his own death even while he is still alive. It is also a violence inextricably linked with power. Torture is a threat wherever the defenceless find themselves in the hands of the strong: in prisons, on psychiatric wards, in migrant camps, in nursing homes, in centres for the disabled, and in institutions for minors.

Contemporary torture, which is surprisingly common & is normally a government activity, can usefully be analyzed according to two categories (1) terroristic torture is primarily intended to intimidate persons other than the victim, & makes no demands upon the victim with which it would even be possible to choose to comply, & (2) interrogational torture could have a natural end-point, & appears to allow the victim a choice of whether to escape by cooperating. Neither form of torture can be justified, except in conceivable cases so extraordinary as to be generally misleading about actual situations. Discussion of torture is taken to be an instance of a general methodological tendency: artificial cases make bad ethics. An attempt is made to refute the common argument that because killing is worse than torturing & killing is sometimes permissible, torture must also sometimes be permissible. The basic contention is that there are fundamental moral standards concerning cruelty that can be satisfied even by killing but cannot be satisfied by torture. The virtually universal revulsion against torture can, therefore, be given a rational justification. AA.

I am deeply conscious of the fact, as I consider the subject of torture, that I have led a very sheltered life. I have never been tortured. I have never seen anybody being tortured. Nor have I ever met anyone who has undergone this dreadful practice. But I cannot say that I have never met anyone who has had anything to do with it. The Cyprus emergency was at its height during my period of national service. My attempt to persuade the military authorities that my knowledge of classical Greek was a suitable qualification for me to be sent to the island to act as an interpreter was unsuccessful. I was sent instead to serve with an infantry battalion in the British Army of the Rhine in West Germany. I did not think so at the time as we endured one of the coldest winters in living memory in Nordrhein-Westphalia, but I was to discover later that this may well have been the better option. When I went up to university I met someone who had indeed been sent to Cyprus. He had acted as an interpreter when Greek Cypriot members of the Eoka organization were being interrogated. Conscious of the constraints of the Official Secrets Act, he never revealed to me the details of what was done to them during this process. But I had the distinct impression, as we talked, that he had been revolted by it and that things were done which were and would always remain a scar on his memory.

AbstractMuch research casts doubt on the effectiveness of legal norms for improving respect for human rights. But such studies have mostly focused on treaty ratifications or constitutional provisions. In contrast, I focus on national criminal law. I argue that criminalization of torture is more likely to deter police torture than these other forms of legal prohibition, because criminalization more credibly increases the threat of material and social costs of torture, while also helping to catalyze mobilization that amplifies these deterrent effects. Using an original, global dataset on national criminal laws against torture, I find that states that criminalize torture and define it in line with the standards codified in the UN Convention against Torture experience reductions in police torture. These findings highlight a largely unexplored angle on the relationship between law and human rights protection and underscore the general importance of domestic legal internalization for the effectiveness of international law.