Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Torture and the fight against terrorism

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Through tragic events, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or the kidnapping case of Jakob von Metzler the absolute prohibition against torture is increasingly challenged, even in steadfast rule-of-law states. This article deals with this development and discusses the different approaches relativizing the absolute ban on torture. As a historical introduction this article starts with a brief overview of the history of interrogational torture. In a second part the article focuses on the ban on torture in international law and the quality of this prohibition as an absolute and non-derogable provision. In a next step the article analyses (the implementation of) the prohibition on torture in German and US law. In a last step the different models challenging the absoluteness of the prohibition (the ex ante authorisation and the ex post justification) are analysed and critically discussed concluding that the ban on torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should not be relativized on an ex ante level but arguing–in extreme cases–for the possibility of an excuse as regards to a criminal sanction for the interrogator breaking the absolute prohibition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The facts of the case are as follows. In 2002 Jakob von Metzler, a 12 year old son of a banking family in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, was kidnapped. The kidnapper issued a ransom demand to the boy’s parents. After the kidnapper collected the ransom, he was arrested. During the subsequent interrogation, the police officers threatened the applicant that he would face considerable suffering if he persisted in refusing to disclose the child’s whereabouts. They considered that threat necessary as the child’s life was in great danger from lack of food and the cold. As a result of those threats, the applicant disclosed where he had hidden the child. However, the child was already dead as he was killed by the kidnapper soon after the kidnapping. For the facts of the case compare ECHR, Judgment of 1 June 2010, Gäfgen v. Germany, § 9 et seqq.

References

  1. Addicott, J. F. (2009). Terrorism Law—materials, Cases, Comments. Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brugger, W. (2000). May government ever use? Two responses from german law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 48(4), 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Garcia, MJ (2010). Interrogation of Detainees: Requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act, Congressional Research Service Report RL33655: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33655_20090826.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  4. Dershowitz, A. M. (2002). Why Terrorism Works—Understanding the threat; responding to the challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erb, V. (2004). Nothilfe durch Folter. JURA, 2004, 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gaeta, P. (2004). May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(3), 785–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris, D. J., O'Boyle, M., & Warbrick, C. (2009). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hufen, F. (2009). Staatsrecht II—Grundrechte. Munich: C.H. Beck.

  9. Jarass, H. D., & Pieroth, B. (2009). Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.

  10. Langbein, J. H. (2004). The legal history of torture. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Torture—A collection (pp. 93–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lea, H. C. (1973). Torture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Maunz, T., & Dürig, G. (2009). Grundgesetz Kommentar, vol. I (Art. 1 bis Art. 5). Munich: C.H. Beck.

  13. Mayerfeld, J. (2007). Playing by our own rules: How U.S. marginalization of international human rights law led to torture. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 20(1), 89–140.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ovey, C., & White, R. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parry, J. T., & White, W. S. (2002). Interrogating Suspected Terrorists: Should Torture Be an Option? University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 63(4), 743–766.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Peters, E. (2003). Folter—Geschichte der peinlichen Befragung, translation by Jobst Christian Rojahn. Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson, O. F. (2007). Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodley, N. S. (2009). The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rüping, H., & Jerouschek, G. (2007). Grundriss der Strafrechtsgeschichte. Munich: C.H. Beck.

  20. Shue, H. (2004). Torture. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Torture—A collection (pp. 47–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Silker, E. (2004). Terrorists, Interrogation, And Torture: Where Do We Draw The Line? Journal of Legislation, 31(1), 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Slater, J. (2006). Tragic choices in the war on terrorism: Should we try to regulate and control torture? Political Science Quarterly, 121(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Steven G. Bradbury, Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A to Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of a High Value al Qaeda Detainee, 10 May 2005. http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-bradbury2005-3.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  24. US Department of Justice. (2006). Office of Legal Counsel, Daniel Levin, Memorandum for James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Standards Applicable Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, 30.12.2004. In K. J. Greenberg (Ed.), The torture Debate in America (pp. 361–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zagolla, R. (2006). Im Namen der Wahrheit—Folter in Deutschland vom Mittelalter bis heute. Berlin: be.bra Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Detainee Treatment Act 2005, Publ. L. No. 109–148, Title X.

  27. Jerouschek, G., & Kölbel, R. (2003). Folter von staats wegen? Juristenzeitung, 58(12), 613–620.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nowak, M., & McArthur, E. (2008). The united nations convention against torture—A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. covenant on civil and political rights—CCPR commentary. Kehl: Engel.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Herdegen, M. (2010). Völkerrecht. Munich: C.H. Beck.

  31. Rachor, F. (2007). Das Polizeihandeln. In H. Lisken & E. Denninger (Eds.), Handbuch des Polizeirechts—Gefahrenabwehr (pp. 399–725). Strafverfolgung: Rechtsschutz. Munich: C.H. Beck.

  32. Ambos, K. (2008). May a State Torture Suspects to Save the Live of Innocents? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6(2), 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Steven G. Bradbury, Memorandum for John. A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Application of United States Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees, 30 May 2005. http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-bradbury2005.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  34. CIA, Fax to Daniel Levin, DoJ Command Center, Office of Legal Counsel, Background Paper on CIA’s Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques, 30 December 2004. http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/082409/olcremand/2004olc97.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  35. US Department of Justice. (2005). In K. J. Greenberg & J. L. Dratel (Eds.), The torture papers, the road to Abu Ghraib, Cambridge u.a. 2005 (pp. 172–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Amnesty International (2010), Amnesty International Report 2010—The State of the World’s Human Rights. http://www.amnesty.de/2010/5/26/amnesty-jahresbericht-2010-zahlen-und-fakten?destination=node%2F15925. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  37. Crelinsten, R. D. (1993). In R. D. Crelinsten & A. P. Schmid (Eds.), The politics of pain, torturers and their masters (pp. 39–72). Leiden: COMT.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Holmes, S. (2006). Is defiance of law a proof of success? In K. J. Greenberg (Ed.), The torture debate in America (pp. 118–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Marx, R. (2004). Folter: eine zulässige polizeiliche Präventionsmaßnahme? Kritische Justiz, 2004, 278–304.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kremnitzer, M., & Segev, R. (2000). The legality of interrogational torture: A question of proper authorization or a substantive moral issue? Israel Law Review, 34(2000), 509–559.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gaede, K. (2004). Die Fragilität des Folterverbots—Präventiv begründete Ausnahmen vom absoluten Folterverbot zur Herstellung absoluter Sicherheit? In M. Camprubi (Ed.), Angst und Streben nach Sicherheit in Gesetzgebung und Praxis. Zürich: Schulthess.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Basoğlu, M., Livanou, M., & Crnobaric, C. (2007). Torture vs other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Archive of General Psychiatry, 64(2007), 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ohlin, JD (2008). The bounds of necessity. Journal of International Criminal Justice 6, pp. 289–308

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jerouschek, G. (2005). Gefahrenabwendungsfolter—Rechtsstaatliches Tabu oder polizeirechtlich legitimierter Zwangseinsatz? JuS, 45, 296–302.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Roxin (2006), Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Band I, Grundlagen—Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4. Ed., Munich: C. H. Beck.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St.Gallen, Switzerland

    Linus Sonderegger

Authors
  1. Linus Sonderegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linus Sonderegger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sonderegger, L. Torture and the fight against terrorism. Crime Law Soc Change 62, 337–353 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9469-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9469-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation