An Eye for an Eye Makes the International Human Rights System Blind
For a great deal of history, torture was commonly used with little to no compliant. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and as well as the Church all contributed to the practice of torture and justified torture as an appropriate weapon in their armouries. Even multiple legal systems utilized torture prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century. As civilizations began developing and advancements in the area of torture devices from the Judas cradle and the brazen bull to electric shocks, sleep deprivation, various forms of water torture, beatings, rape, etc., the idea of torture began to be questioned. In recent decades, governments around the globe enshrined …show more content…
The international agreement under the review of the United Nations stood as as “concrete steps to make the global on torture a reality” rather than a fantasy. Although certain states further implement the Convention Against Torture and significantly consider the recommendations made by the Committee Against Torture , torture is still widely used in the twenty-first century and certain countries deliberately ignore the efforts of the Convention and the Committee.
Along with torture follows the conflict of whether or not torture stands as a justifiable means of extracting strategic intelligence. Hypothesized benefits and the concept of “the greater good” weigh against the substantial physical, psychological, and moral implications of the use of torture when countries determine whether or not torture should be utilized when the very humanity they desire to protect, such as the security of their nation, lives of their citizens, and their way of life, hangs helplessly in balance.This …show more content…
In Sweden, the definition of torture, jurisdiction, international implementation, State parties obligations, and optional protocols were all points in question that surface in the 1984 torture convention. For instance, the definition of torture in Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the Convention Against Torture is inherently developed due to the harsh criticism of the vague definition apparent in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The zero-tolerance definition of torture is described as any intentional act of causing intense physical or mental pain that emanates from punishment, intimidation, discrimination, or information obtaining rationale. Although the definition of torture is considered newly improved, it still contains one vague aspect. The vague words appear in the last sentence of the definition of torture, where as “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental, to lawful sanctions.” It can be presumed that the drafters of the Convention kept this sentence to be vague in order for this definition to be used across borders; however, it is difficult to determine what classifies an “inherent… or incidental” sanction in a specific legal system. Thus, state parties
For a great deal of history, torture was commonly used with little to no compliant. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and as well as the Church all contributed to the practice of torture and justified torture as an appropriate weapon in their armouries. Even multiple legal systems utilized torture prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century. As civilizations began developing and advancements in the area of torture devices from the Judas cradle and the brazen bull to electric shocks, sleep deprivation, various forms of water torture, beatings, rape, etc., the idea of torture began to be questioned. In recent decades, governments around the globe enshrined …show more content…
The international agreement under the review of the United Nations stood as as “concrete steps to make the global on torture a reality” rather than a fantasy. Although certain states further implement the Convention Against Torture and significantly consider the recommendations made by the Committee Against Torture , torture is still widely used in the twenty-first century and certain countries deliberately ignore the efforts of the Convention and the Committee.
Along with torture follows the conflict of whether or not torture stands as a justifiable means of extracting strategic intelligence. Hypothesized benefits and the concept of “the greater good” weigh against the substantial physical, psychological, and moral implications of the use of torture when countries determine whether or not torture should be utilized when the very humanity they desire to protect, such as the security of their nation, lives of their citizens, and their way of life, hangs helplessly in balance.This …show more content…
In Sweden, the definition of torture, jurisdiction, international implementation, State parties obligations, and optional protocols were all points in question that surface in the 1984 torture convention. For instance, the definition of torture in Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the Convention Against Torture is inherently developed due to the harsh criticism of the vague definition apparent in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The zero-tolerance definition of torture is described as any intentional act of causing intense physical or mental pain that emanates from punishment, intimidation, discrimination, or information obtaining rationale. Although the definition of torture is considered newly improved, it still contains one vague aspect. The vague words appear in the last sentence of the definition of torture, where as “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental, to lawful sanctions.” It can be presumed that the drafters of the Convention kept this sentence to be vague in order for this definition to be used across borders; however, it is difficult to determine what classifies an “inherent… or incidental” sanction in a specific legal system. Thus, state parties