Abstract
Few juridical tasks are more distasteful than specifying the distinction between torture and 'mere' cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Although the distinction itself may seem morally obtuse, it is a line, not between prohibited and permissible conduct, but between categories of prohibited conduct that are subject to distinct implementation regimes. The Torture Convention combines a narrow exposure of individual state officials to prosecutions in foreign courts for the international crime of torture with a broad state responsibility for the decent treatment of all detainees under all circumstances. To ignore or blur the distinction would not necessarily strengthen real accountability; to the contrary, allowing extraterritorial prosecutions for acts short of the torture threshold would unduly jeopardize agents of politically unpopular governments, would furnish a tool for political actors bent on undermining peaceful and respectful international relations, and would, paradoxically, risk producing a perverse downward pressure on the standards for detainee treatment. © Oxford University Press, 2008, All rights reserved.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Roth, B. R. (2008). Just short of torture: Abusive treatment and the limits of international criminal justice. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqn012
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.