Torture

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Sanders
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Enhanced Interrogation ◽  
Torture Memos

Despite its universal and absolute prohibition in international human rights and humanitarian law, torture has persisted even in liberal democracies. This chapter traces how changing national security legal cultures have shaped justifications for torture in the United States, culminating in an extensive torture program in the global war on terror. A culture of exception helped legitimize slave torture, lynching, and colonial torture through much of the United States’ early history, while a culture of secrecy facilitated covert and proxy torture during the Cold War. After 9/11, American authorities operated in a culture of legal rationalization. Rather than suspend or ignore the torture prohibition, the Bush administration sought legal cover for torture. As evidenced by the torture memos, lawyers reframed practices such as waterboarding as lawful enhanced interrogation techniques. These attempts to construct the plausible legality of torture effectively immunized Americans from prosecution for grave human rights violations.

Exceptionalism Again: The Bush Administration, the “Global War on Terror” and Human Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 707-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Foot
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
British Government ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Detention Facility ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Global War ◽  
Made In

When former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, gave his farewell address in December 2006, he expressed his dismay at the Bush administration's conduct during its anti-terrorist campaign. The United States had given up its vanguard role in the promotion of human rights, he averred, and appeared to have abandoned its ideals and principles. There have been many statements similar to this one made in the period since September 2001. Even close allies, such as the British government, for example, have called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on the grounds that, as a symbol of injustice, it had tarnished the United States as a “beacon of freedom, liberty and justice.”

The Fate of Human Rights in the Global War on Terror

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Violence ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Global War ◽  
Trump Administration

American officials attempted to construct the plausible legality of torture, indefinite detention, targeted killing, and mass surveillance in the global war on terror. These efforts were largely successful, foreclosing prosecution and ensuring impunity for human rights violations. Moreover, with the exception of torture, many of these counterterrorism practices persist and enjoy widespread acceptance. Around the world, international human rights and humanitarian law have been weakened by American efforts to erode and reinterpret constraints on state violence. This has created space for more overt attacks on legal norms by the Trump administration, which has signaled its intent to shift American national security legal culture toward the politics of exception. At the same time, international law advocates are pushing back. The chapter concludes by reflecting on possible pathways for promoting a culture of human rights in the United States.

Plausible Legality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Violence ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Global War ◽  
Enhanced Interrogation

After 9/11, American officials authorized numerous contentious counterterrorism practices including torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, trial by military commission, targeted killing, and mass surveillance. While these policies sparked global outrage, the Bush administration defended them as legally legitimate. Government lawyers produced memoranda deeming enhanced interrogation techniques, denial of habeas corpus, drone strikes, and warrantless wiretapping lawful. Although it rejected torture, the Obama administration made similar claims and declined to prosecute abuses. This book seeks to understand how and why Americans repeatedly legally justified seemingly illegal security policies and what this tells us about the capacity of law to constrain state violence. It argues that legal cultures shape how political actors interpret, enact, and evade legal norms. In the global war on terror, a culture of legal rationalization encouraged authorities to seek legal cover—to construct the plausible legality of human rights violations—in order to ensure impunity for wrongdoing. In this context, law served as a permissive constraint, enabling abuses while imposing some limits on what could be plausibly legalized. Cultures of legal rationalization stand in contrast with other cultures prevalent in American history, including cultures of exception, which rely on logics of necessity and racial exclusion, and cultures of secrecy, which employ plausible deniability. Looking forward, legal norms remain vulnerable to manipulation and evasion. Despite the efforts of human rights advocates to encourage deeper compliance, the normalization of post-9/11 policy has created space for the Trump administration to promote a renewed culture of exception and launch bolder attacks on the rule of law.

Human rights abuses at the limits of the law: Legal instabilities and vulnerabilities in the ‘Global War on Terror’

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
State Violence ◽  
Legal Compliance ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Global War

AbstractLaw following and law breaking are often conceptualised as polar opposites. However, authorities in liberal democracies increasingly deploy a strategy of what I callplausible legalityin order to secure immunity and legitimacy for proscribed practices. Rather than ignore or suspend law, they construct legal justifications for human rights abuses and other dubious policies, obscuring the distinction between legal compliance and non-compliance. I argue this is possible because instabilities in legal rules make them vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. By tracing American rationales for contentious ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, indefinite detention, and ‘targeted killing’ practices in the ‘Global War on Terror’, I show that law need not always be abandoned or radically reconstituted to achieve troubling ends and that rule structures enable certain patterns of violation while limiting others. The international prohibition on torture is robust and universal, but provides vague definitions open to interpretation. Detention and lethal targeting regulations are jurisdictionally layered and contextually complex, creating loopholes and gaps. The article concludes by reflecting on implications for the protection of human rights. While law is not wholly indeterminate, human rights advocates must constantly advocate shared legal understandings that constrain state violence.

The year in review

2002 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 255-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avril McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Transnational Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Full Speed ◽  
Global War

With the attacks of 11 September 2001 very much casting their shadow, 2002 was a year in which issues concerning both thejus in belloand thejus ad bellumoccupied centre stage in international law and relations and dominated the news agenda, but often in a way that promoted confusion and misinformation rather than greater understanding of the law, and, as the year progressed, frustration and despair rather than optimism.Transnational terrorism was cemented as the declared pre-eminent security concern of many states, and, as a consequence, full speed into the ‘global war on terror’ (hereinafter GWOT), the integrity of international humanitarian law, human rights law and international law in general, including the role of international organisations such as the United Nations, came under increasing challenge. Focal points of rancorous, polarised debate were the fact and the conditions of detention of persons, including minors, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; the applicability and relevance of international humanitarian law in the context of the terrorist threat and the counter-terrorist response; the perceived conflict between human rights and national security; the coming into being of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the US's almost obsessive opposition to it; and, as the year drew to a close, the spectre of the use of force against Iraq without Security Council authorisation by an increasingly belligerent United States and a handful of its allies.

Foreign Election Interference and Open-Source Anarchy

2021 ◽  
pp. 293-314
Author(s):  
David P. Fidler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Open Source ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Media Companies ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Material Power ◽  
International Anarchy

Russian meddling in the 2016 elections in the United States sparked debates in liberal democracies about how to counter foreign election interference. These debates reveal the seriousness of the threat and the complexity of responses to it, including how to protect voting systems and what actions social media companies should take against disinformation. This chapter argues that international anarchy changes in ways that leading theories of international relations do not capture. The chapter develops the concept of “open-source anarchy” to understand how anarchy changed after the Cold War and to analyze why foreign election interference has gained prominence during the second decade of the twenty-first century. In open-source anarchy, changes in the structure of material power, technologies, and ideas permit less powerful states and nonstate actors to affect more directly and significantly how anarchy functions. The concept helps explain how Russia exploited the internet and social media to interfere in elections in the United States—the world’s leading democracy, foremost source of technological innovation, and most powerful country. Open-source anarchy also illuminates the struggles that the United States and other democracies have experienced in preventing, protecting against, and responding to foreign election interference.

19. Religion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Emergency Plan ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Christian Zionism ◽  
Global Affairs ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines the influence of religion on US foreign policy. It first considers how religion affected American policy during the Cold War, from the time of Harry S. Truman to George H. W. Bush, before discussing the bilateral relationship between Israel and the United States. It then looks at the rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a US-based interest group, and how its work has been complemented by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who ascribe to Christian Zionism. It also explores the ways in which religion has intersected with the global war on terror and US foreign policy, how the US resorted to faith-based diplomacy, the issue of religious freedom, and George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in Africa. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the Office of Religion and Global Affairs (ORGA), created by Barack Obama.

Autonomy and Foreign Policy: the Brazilian Case on the Fight Against Terrorism in the Lula administration

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Luiza Zaia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Realist Approach ◽  
Global War ◽  
Brazilian Case

This paper examines Brazilian Foreign Policy during Lula’s administration and how the concept of autonomy has shaped Brazil’s stance on alleged terrorist activities within its borders. By using the Neoclassical Realist approach, this article explores how autonomy has allowed for Brazil to oppose the pressures of the United States’ led Global War on Terror between 2003-2010. Autonomy has worked as an intervening variable that allowed for Brazilian Foreign Policy, to some extent, to take its own direction in matters of security. 

Philippines-US Relations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio N. Abinales
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Military

An enduring resilience characterizes Philippine–American relationship for several reasons. For one, there is an unusual colonial relationship wherein the United States took control of the Philippines from the Spanish and then shared power with an emergent Filipino elite, introduced suffrage, implemented public education, and promised eventual national independence. A shared experience fighting the Japanese in World War II and defeating a postwar communist rebellion further cemented the “special relationship” between the two countries. The United States took advantage of this partnership to compel the Philippines to sign an economic and military treaty that favored American businesses and the military, respectively. Filipino leaders not only accepted the realities of this strategic game and exploited every opening to assert national interests but also benefitted from American largesse. Under the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos, this mutual cadging was at its most brazen. As a result, the military alliance suffered when the Philippines terminated the agreement, and the United States considerably reduced its support to the country. But the estrangement did not last long, and both countries rekindled the “special relationship” in response to the U.S. “Global War on Terror” and, of late, Chinese military aggression in the West Philippine Sea.

History, Ideology, and Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-176
Author(s):  
Anthony DiFilippo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
South Korean ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Rights Issues

This article will analyze the connection between history, countervailing ideologies, that is, the legacy of the Cold War, and the perceived identification of human rights violations as they pertain to countries with major security interests in Northeast Asia. This article will further show that the enduring nuclear-weapons problem in North Korea has been inextricably linked to human rights issues there, specifically because Washington wants to change the behavior of officials in Pyongyang so that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) becomes a state that at least remotely resembles a liberal democracy. Although supported by much of the international community, including the United States' South Korean and Japanese allies in Northeast Asia, Washington's North Korean policy has remained ineffective, as Pyongyang has continued to perform missile testing and still possesses nuclear weapons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document