Advertisement

Degradation: A Human Rights Law Perspective

  • Elaine Webster
Chapter
Part of the Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy book series (LOET, volume 24)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on a number of common questions relating to the concept of degradation, against the backdrop of that concept as it has developed in the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically in relation to the prohibition of degrading treatment within Article 3. The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is commonly understood, and is expressed in case-law, as having an intimate connection with the concept of human dignity, the language of which underpins the modern human rights regime. The basic structure of the Article 3 understanding of degradation is outlined, alongside examples of its practical application, in order to highlight significant conceptual relationships. Questions concerning the significance of the individual emotion of degradation, the relevance of autonomy in understanding degradation, and the relevance of the idea of social dignity can be illuminated by a contextualized discussion of the jurisprudence. It is suggested in this respect that the scope of what can be understood as degradation is not limited primarily by the victim’s emotional experience, that the jurisprudence draws our attention to one particular facet of autonomy, and that the essence of the concept of degradation is helpfully captured in the idea of abuse of equal rank.

Keywords

Human Dignity Corporal Punishment Personal Autonomy Public Reason Moral Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A, no. 94.Google Scholar
  2. Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, no. 46430/99, 05 October 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 23819/94, 16 November 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A, no. 48.Google Scholar
  5. East African Asians v. United Kingdom, Commission Report of 14 December 1973, Decisions and Reports 31.Google Scholar
  6. Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, 02 December 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Greek Case, Commission Report, 5 November 1969, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights XII (1969), Chapter IV, Section A(2).Google Scholar
  8. Ireland v. United Kingdom. Commission Report of 25 January 1976, Decisions and Reports 31.Google Scholar
  9. Ireland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A, no. 25.Google Scholar
  10. Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, 15 November 2001.Google Scholar
  11. Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI.Google Scholar
  12. Keenan v. United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, ECHR 2001-III.Google Scholar
  13. López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 09 December 1994, Series A, no. 303-C.Google Scholar
  14. Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, 05 April 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Peers v. Greece, no. 28525/95, ECHR 2001-III.Google Scholar
  16. Raninen v. Finland, no. 20972/92, Commission Report of 24 October 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Raninen v. Finland, no. 20972/92, 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII.Google Scholar
  18. Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom, no. 33985/96; 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI.Google Scholar
  19. T. v. United Kingdom, no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Tyrer v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A, no. 26.Google Scholar
  21. Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, ECHR 2001-VIII.Google Scholar
  22. Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, 11 December 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Allport, Gordon W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  24. Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cane, Peter. 2002. Responsibility in law and morality. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  26. Duff, R. Anthony. 2005. Punishment, dignity and degradation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25(1): 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  29. Dworkin, Ronald. 2003. The secular papacy. In Judges in contemporary democracy: An international conversation, eds. Robert Badinter and Stephen G. Breyer, 67–111. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dworkin, Ronald. 2006. Justice in robes. Cambridge: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  31. Evans, Malcolm and Rod Morgan. 1998. Preventing torture: A study of the European convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jayawickrama, Nihal. 2002. The judicial application of human rights law: National, regional and international jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lawson, Anna and Amrita Mukherjee. 2004. Slopping out in Scotland: The limits of degradation and respect. European Human Rights Law Review 6: 645–659.Google Scholar
  34. Margalit, Avishai. 1996. The decent society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCrudden, Christopher. 2008. Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. In European Journal of International Law 19(4): 655–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, William Ian. 1993. Humiliation – And other essays on honor, social discomfort and violence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Millns, Susan. 2002. Death, dignity and discrimination: The case of Pretty v. United Kingdom. German Law Journal 3(10). http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=197. Accessed 19 May 2009.
  38. Nowak, Manfred. 2005. U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Commentary, 2nd edition. Kehl: NP Engel.Google Scholar
  39. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2004. Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame and the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  42. Silver, Maury et al. 1986. Humiliation: Feeling, social control and construction of identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 16(3): 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. On humiliation. Michigan Law Review 93(6): 1787–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waldron, Jeremy. 2007. Dignity and rank. European Journal of Sociology 48(2): 201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waldron, Jeremy. 2008. Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment: The words themselves. New York University public law and legal theory research paper series. Working paper 08-36. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1278604. Accessed 15 May 2009.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law, University of StrathclydeStrathclydeUK

Personalised recommendations