Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Personal Dignity ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Domestic Affairs

International humanitarian law (IHL) was developed to ensure respect for the dignity and integrity of the human being. It aims to reduce human suffering in times of armed conflict by requiring combatants to act in a humane manner and to avoid cruelty. In relation to non-international armed conflicts, both IHL and international human rights law (IHRL) have been challenged with arguments of state sovereignty and a supposed prohibition on interference with domestic affairs. This chapter examines the three types of ill-treatment under both IHRL and IHL in light of relevant literature and jurisprudence: torture, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment. It discusses the United Nations Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the obligations of states under human rights law, and outrages upon personal dignity.

Defining Torture and the Obligation of Systematic Review in the CAT Treaty

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
Manfred Nowak ◽  
Giuliana Monina
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Universal Protocol

Torture is one of the most severe and violent human rights violations and is absolutely prohibited under international law. As we also know from experience, most cases of torture occur during interrogations by law enforcement officials for the purpose of extracting a confession. After elaborating on the legal definition of torture under international human rights law and how torture can be distinguished from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the authors reflect on the need to address the root causes of torture. While Juan Méndez’ call for a Universal Protocol for non-coercive interviews is an important initiative in this direction, this contribution focuses on the obligation of systematic review of interrogation rules under Article 11 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This article of the treaty requires States parties to systematically review their interrogation rules, instructions, methods, and practices. Although it has not received much attention in the literature and seems—at first sight—to only establish a formal obligation to keep interrogation and detention rules under systematic review, over the years the CAT Committee has given a broad interpretation to this provision, making it an important safeguard for the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The authors provide an overview of the CAT Committee’s practice and discuss how Article 11 of CAT, acting as a guarantee of minimum standards of interrogation, could represent an important provision for ensuring the implementation of the CAT’s preventive obligations, laying the basis for bridging the gap between law and practice.

The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cordula Droege
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Historical Developments

International human rights law and international humanitarian law are traditionally two distinct branches of law, one dealing with the protection of persons from abusive power, the other with the conduct of parties to an armed conflict. Yet, developments in international and national jurisprudence and practice have led to the recognition that these two bodies of law not only share a common humanist ideal of dignity and integrity but overlap substantially in practice. The most frequent examples are situations of occupation or non-international armed conflicts where human rights law complements the protection provided by humanitarian law.This article provides an overview of the historical developments that led to the increasing overlap between human rights law and humanitarian law. It then seeks to analyse the ways in which the interplay between human rights law and humanitarian law can work in practice. It argues that two main concepts inform their interaction: The first is complementarity between their norms in the sense that in most cases, especially for the protection of persons in the power of a party to the conflict, they mutually reinforce each other. The second is the principle of lex specialis in the cases of conflict between the norms.

scholarly journals HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED BY STATE AGENTS IN MILITARY OCCUPATIONS: ANALYSIS OF THE INCURSION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO THE NORMATIVE TERRITORY OF THE ARMED CONFLICTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (32) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Sidney Cesar Silva Guerra ◽  
Luz E. Nagle ◽  
Ádria Saviano Fabricio da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Military Occupations

This article aims to revisit the interrelationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), in honour of their respective normative scopes and in order to carry out an analysis of their complementary or supplementary application, towards the construction of a more appropriate tool for the protection of human beings in extreme situations, as it occurs during armed conflicts. This is because, amid the multifaceted vulnerabilities that accumulate in today's conflicts, it is essential to provide the most effective source of protection - proportional to the demands for protection that are manifested today, particularly in military occupations around the world, whose occurrence will be the focus of this research. As for the method of approach concerning the logical basis of the investigation, the hypothetical-deductive method was selected, insofar as the corroboration or falsification of the main hypothesis about the effective complementary and harmonious application of IHRL will be tested to cases of human rights violations in International Armed Conflicts in the military occupation modality. Given this framework, the core of this work lies in the understanding of the praxis for the complementary application of both aspects in armed conflicts, considering not only International Human Rights Law as lex generalis, but their effective overlap to the detriment of International Humanitarian Law, when it is most beneficial to human protection in the cases of Military Occupations.

Torture in International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: The Actor and the Ad Hoc Tribunals

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDESH SIVAKUMARAN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
International Human ◽  
Definition Of

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.

Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Ten Years of Affirmative State Practice within United Nations Resolutions

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilia Maria Siatitsa ◽  
Maia Titberidze
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Two Bodies ◽  
Real Test

The debate concerning the interrelation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is certainly not new within the relevant academic circles. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study of recent State practice in the UN political bodies, that puts the opposition to the applicability of human rights to a real test, adds a new and rather intriguing twist to the matter. It appears that the statements of governments arguing for the exclusive application of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts are not always supported by their own practice within the UN political bodies. The present article explores the potential influence and importance of this observation for bridging the possible gaps between these two bodies of international law. It further identifies a number of interesting trends in the application of specific human rights norms in armed conflicts.

Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (860) ◽  
pp. 737-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Lubell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Joint Application ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe debates over the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, have often focused on the question of whether human rights law continues to apply during armed conflict, and if so, on how these two bodies of law can complement each other. This article takes the continuing applicability of human rights law as an accepted and welcome starting point, and proceeds to lay out some of the challenges and obstacles encountered during the joint application of IHL and Human Rights Law, that still need to be addressed. These include extra-territorial applicability of human rights law; the mandate and expertise of human rights bodies; terminological and conceptual differences between the bodies of law; particular difficulties raised in non-international armed conflicts; and the question of economic, social and cultural rights during armed conflict.

Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 648-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Lubell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This article provides a critical examination of the debate over the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. On the question surrounding the very fact of co-application, it appears that the dominant view supports the co-applicability of the two legal regimes. Opinion is however far from settled on the scope of application of international human rights law, especially insofar as it relates to the issue of extra-territorial applicability. The approach taken in the event of co-applying the two frameworks to specific circumstances, and whether and how one is to use the doctrine of lex specialis, reveals further questions in need of coherent answers. Finally, there remain particular areas in which the co-application faces challenges that must be surmounted, if it is to prove a useful approach. These include the issues of the so-called “war on terror,” the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, non-international armed conflicts, and more. Whilst the co-application of the two regimes is now almost undisputed, it appears therefore that obstacles remain that must be dealt with in order for the relationship of the regimes to be of a fully harmonious nature.

Hassan v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Article 5

On September 16, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) gave its judgment in the case of Hassan v. United Kingdom.This is the Court’s first explicit engagement with the co-applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in relation to detention in international armed conflicts. The judgment is significant for its rejection of the government’s argument that international humanitarian law operates as lex specialis to displace international human rights law entirely during the “active hostilities phase of an international armed conflict.” It is also noteworthy for the majority’s ruling that provisions on detention of prisoners of war and the internment of protected persons in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 could be read into Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention), creating a new ground for detention under Article 5(1) in international armed conflicts and modifying the procedural guarantees in Article 5(4).

Starvation in Armed Conflicts

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 723-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Hutter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

Abstract Armed conflict can cause food shortages, which continue long after the fighting is over, and increase the chance that a famine may occur. When it occurs during the context of an armed conflict, death resulting from hunger is tolerated by the international community. Yet, the prevention or alleviation of famines, even within environmentally precarious regions, is often within human control. This gives rise to the following questions. Can a state use the outbreak of an armed conflict as an excuse to remain passive while starvation takes its course? Is it justified for a state to allocate most of its resources to its military operations, while claiming to have difficulties to collect sufficient resources to meet its minimum core obligations under international human rights law? This article aims to clarify these complex questions and elaborates on how the framework of human rights law includes provisions to prevent starvation in armed conflicts. With a focus on the right to food, this analysis scrutinizes the human rights-based obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, which impose clear duties on states with respect to famines. As it is generally accepted that international human rights law continues to apply in situations of armed conflict, both human rights law and international humanitarian law apply simultaneously in these scenarios. The analysis thus also examines the complex relationship between obligations under human rights law and humanitarian law and the influence of the former on the assessment of latter. Finally, the article touches upon the scope of obligations held by armed non-state actors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document