International Politics

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 176–197 | Cite as

But we don’t call it ‘torture’! Norm contestation during the US ‘War on Terror’

  • Andrea Birdsall
Original Article

Abstract

International law has become the reference frame that establishes legitimacy for international encounters, but paradoxically and at the same time international law itself has become increasingly contested. This article analyses the relationship between norm acceptance and norm implementation and examines an instance of norm contestation in the context of the US ‘War on Terror’. The focus is on the use of torture or ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ during the Bush Presidency. The so-called ‘torture memos’ that were made public in recent years shed light on different arguments that were used by the government at the time to justify their actions and to show that they were in line with existing international legal obligations. The article seeks to assess the validity of international agreements by analysing compliance and actual meaning (meaning-in-use) of fundamental international human rights norms that are being contested through different interpretations and usages on the domestic level.

Keywords

torture law and norms human rights norm contestation 

References

  1. Adamson, F.B. and Sriram, C.L. (2010) Perspectives on international law in international relations. In: B. Cali (ed.) International Law for International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, J.E. (2005–2006) Torturing the law. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2): 175–223.Google Scholar
  3. Arbour, L. (2005) Human Rights Day – Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour. New York: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, P. (2014) Dismissing Senate Report, Cheney Defends C.I.A. Interrogations, New York Times, 8 December.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, S.G. (2007) Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency: Application of the War Crimes Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain Techniques that May Be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees. Washington DC: Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  6. Bradbury, S.G. (2009) Memorandum for the Files: Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Washington DC: Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  7. Brunnée, J. and Toope, S.J. (2010) Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunnée, J. and Toope, S.J. (2011) Interactional international law: An introduction. International Theory 3 (2): 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bush, G.W. (2004) Statement on United Nations international day in support of victims of torture. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2003-06-30/html/WCPD-2003-06-30-Pg824.htm, accessed 14 December 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Bush, G.W. (2005) President’s Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the ‘Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006’. In T. W. House (ed.). Washington DC.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, J.S. (2002a) Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales Counsel to the President: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§2340–2340 A. Washington DC: Office of the Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  12. Bybee, J.S. (2002b) Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency: Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative. Washington DC: Office of the Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  13. The Economist (2005) Civil liberties: Just a few bad apples? 20 January.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. (1996) Government responses to human rights reports: Claims, denials, and counterclaims. Human Rights Quarterly 18 (3): 517–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole, D. (2010) They Did Authorize Torture, But … The New York Review of Books, 10 March, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2010/03/10/they-did-authorize-torture-but/, accessed 14 December 2015.
  16. Congressional Record: Senate (2005) Department of defense appropriations act, 2006. S11061-S11076, https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/5631, accessed 14 December 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Department of Justice: Office of Professional Responsibility (2009a) Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Concerning Issues Relating to the Central Intelligence Agency's Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ on Suspected Terrorists.Google Scholar
  18. Department of Justice: Office of Professional Responsibility (2009b) Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Concerning Issues Relating to the Central Intelligence Agency’s Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ on Suspected Terrorists.Google Scholar
  19. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldsmith, J.L. and Posner, E.A. (2006) The Limits of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gonzales, A.R. (2002) Decision re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Washington DC: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  22. Hamdan v Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense et al (2006) (Supreme Court of the United States 2006).Google Scholar
  23. Heine, J. (2011) Politics as usual? US torture practices 2001–2008 and transitional justice. International Studies Review 13 (3): 570–578.Google Scholar
  24. Henderson, C.W. (2010) Understanding International Law. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. House, T.W. (2009) Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  26. House, T.W. (2014) Press Conference by the President.Google Scholar
  27. Ignatieff, M. (2002) Human rights, the laws of war, and terrorism. Social Research 69 (4): 1137–1158.Google Scholar
  28. Johns, F. (2005) Guantanamo bay and the annihilation of the exception. The European Journal of International Law 16 (4): 613–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin, D. (2004) Memorandum for James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General: Re: Legal Standards Applicable Under 18 U.S.C. §§2340–2340 A. Washington DC: Office of the Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  30. Liese, A. (2009) Exceptional necessity: How liberal democracies contest the prohibition of torture and Ill-treatment when countering terrorism. Journal of International Law and International Relations 5 (1): 17–47.Google Scholar
  31. Margolis, D. (2010) Memorandum for the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General. Washington DC: Office of the Deputy Attorney General.Google Scholar
  32. Mayer, J. (2005) Annals of Justice: Outsourcing Torture. New Yorker,14 February.Google Scholar
  33. McKeown, R. (2009) Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. International Relations 23 (1): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin (Appeal Judgement) (2007) No. IT-99-36- A (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 2007).Google Scholar
  35. Sands, P. (2008) Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  36. Scherer, M. and Ghosh, B. (2009, 31 August) McCain Denies giving O.K. to a CIA Torture Tactic, Time, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1919523,00.html#ixzz1wMVWV6uO.
  37. Senate Armed Services Committee (2008) Inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. Custody, Washington DC, 11 December, http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Detainee-Report-Final_April-22-2009.pdf, accessed 14 December 2015.
  38. Statement of FBI Agent Ali Soufan at Torture Hearing (2009) U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 13 May, http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/soufan_testimony_05_13_09.pdf, accessed 14 December 2015.
  39. Tenet, G.J., Goss, P.J., Hayden, M.V., McLaughlin, J.E., Calland, A.M. and Kappes, S.R. (2014, 9 December) Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations saved lives, Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644.
  40. Waldron, J. (2005) Torture and positive law: Jurisiprudence for the white house. Columbia Law Review 105 (6): 1681–1750.Google Scholar
  41. Wiener, A. (2008) The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiener, A. (2009) Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms in international relations. Review of International Studies 35 (1): 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiener, A. and Puetter, U. (2009) The quality of norms is what actors make of it: Critical constructivist research on norms. Journal of International Law and International Relations 5 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  44. Yoo, J.C. (2003) Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense Re: Military Interrogation for Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Deputy Assistant Attorney General.Google Scholar
  45. Zelikow, P.D. (2006) The McCain Amendment and U.S. Obligations under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture. Washington DC: Unclassified State Department Memo.Google Scholar
  46. Zelikow, P.D. (2009) The OLC ‘torture memos’: Thoughts from a dissenter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Birdsall
    • 1
  1. 1.Politics & International Relations, The University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations