1 results
11 - What explains torture coverage during war-time? A search for realistic answers
- Edited by Werner G. K. Stritzke, University of Western Australia, Perth, Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Western Australia, Perth, David Denemark, University of Western Australia, Perth, Joseph Clare, University of Western Australia, Perth, Frank Morgan, University of Western Australia, Perth
-
- Book:
- Terrorism and Torture
- Published online:
- 15 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 18 June 2009, pp 221-245
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The international community no longer condones torture. Pressure by various groups of people throughout the world has led to multiple legal prohibitions of the practice. For example, torture is forbidden by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture (United Nations, 1984), and by multiple regional treaties (Nagan and Atkins, 2001). Many of these treaties have monitoring mechanisms. For example, the UN has a Committee against Torture, consisting of ten experts charged with monitoring states' compliance with anti-torture conventions. Likewise, the UN Commission on Human Rights has had a Special Rapporteur on Torture office since 1985. Individual countries also have their private and public monitoring bodies. For instance, Israel has a Public Committee against Torture that investigates torture allegations, and Amnesty International, a non-governmental privately funded organization, uses its worldwide membership to fight against human rights abuses wherever they may occur.
The persistence of torture
Despite these institutional constraints, torture continues essentially unabated, judging from Amnesty International's Annual Reports. That makes the use of torture a true paradox because it is simultaneously widely practiced and yet is a universal taboo. Torture is particularly common during war-time when governments attempt to extract strategically salient information from captured enemies. Torture is easier to justify when countries can claim that it is done for a noble cause – the protection of the country's citizens during war (see also Bellamy, this volume).