The Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment: Can the Absolute be Relativized under Existing International Law?

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 LAW Catholic University Law Review Pub Date : 2005-11-25 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.856905
Y. Shany
{"title":"The Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment: Can the Absolute be Relativized under Existing International Law?","authors":"Y. Shany","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.856905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the absolute international law prohibition against torture in the light of the general rationales that explain resorting to absolute prescriptions in IHL and IHR instruments. It also examines the scope of the prohibition against torture under international law, as it presently stands, and the degree of absoluteness it actually entails. Significantly, the article does not challenge, nor seeks to revisit the internationally accepted definitions of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Instead, it asks whether a distinction between the different degrees of prohibited ill-treatment - i.e., between torture, as defined by article 1 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 16 of CAT - might have legal significance for the possibility of invoking ex post criminal law defenses against the attribution of legal responsibility.","PeriodicalId":44667,"journal":{"name":"Catholic University Law Review","volume":"56 1","pages":"837-870"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2005-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catholic University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.856905","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The present article reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the absolute international law prohibition against torture in the light of the general rationales that explain resorting to absolute prescriptions in IHL and IHR instruments. It also examines the scope of the prohibition against torture under international law, as it presently stands, and the degree of absoluteness it actually entails. Significantly, the article does not challenge, nor seeks to revisit the internationally accepted definitions of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Instead, it asks whether a distinction between the different degrees of prohibited ill-treatment - i.e., between torture, as defined by article 1 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 16 of CAT - might have legal significance for the possibility of invoking ex post criminal law defenses against the attribution of legal responsibility.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
禁止酷刑和残忍、不人道和有辱人格的待遇和处罚:在现有国际法下绝对可以相对化吗?
本文根据解释诉诸国际人道法和国际卫生条例文书中的绝对处方的一般理由,回顾了绝对禁止酷刑的国际法的理论基础。报告还审查了目前在国际法下禁止酷刑的范围,以及它实际需要的绝对程度。值得注意的是,该条既没有挑战,也没有试图重新审视国际上接受的酷刑和其他形式的残忍、不人道和有辱人格的待遇或处罚的定义。相反,它提出的问题是,区分被禁止的不同程度的虐待- -即《禁止酷刑公约》第1条所界定的酷刑与《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第7条和《禁止酷刑公约》第16条所禁止的残忍、不人道和有辱人格的待遇- -是否可能具有法律意义,从而可以援引事后刑法抗辩,反对法律责任的归属。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
At the Intersection of Due Process and Equal Protection: Expanding the Range of Protected Interests Easing ‘The Burden of the Brutalized’: Applying Bystander Intervention Training to Corporate Conduct Partisan Gerrymandering and the Illusion of Unfairness Oversight of Oversight: A Proposal for More Effective FOIA Reform Fulfilling the Promise of Roe: A Pathway for Meaningful Pre-Abortion Consultation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1