Torture: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Case Study Example

Torture: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Introduction The right against torture or the protection against torture is a key element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 of the Declaration states “No individual should be subjected to torture or to inhuman punishment or treatment” (Puybaret, 2008). However, despite the protection against torture in the Declaration, there is a lot of debate and controversy regarding the use of torture. Human rights activists and religious groups are adamant that the use of torture is unethical, illegal and unjustifiable mainly because it is inhumane, undermines human dignity and contravenes universal human rights (Miller, 2005). Nevertheless, recent reports by Amnesty International show that there has been recurring use of torture by law enforcement authorities in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria, Iran, Israel, Uganda, Spain, Pakistan and Turkey. Proponents of the use of torture often argue that it is justifiable especially in some extreme circumstances (Rehman & Breau, 2007). According to Einolf (2007) the use of torture is more prevalent in non-western countries than in western countries. Based on Amnesty International reports on torture and the sentiments of Einolf (2007), it is evident that there is conflict between the concepts of universal human rights and cultural relativism when it comes to the issue of torture. Nonetheless, the use of torture is not justifiable mainly because it is morally wrong, inhumane and breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Miller, 2005; Puybaret, 2008). The main aim of this case study is to critically examine different arguments in relation to the use of torture. Foremost, this case study will examine what torture entails by giving examples on the use of torture in today’s world. Subsequently, it will critically examine different arguments in relation to the use of torture and highlight the apparent conflict between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism when it comes to the issue of torture. Lastly, this case study will examine how Amnesty International has tried to combat the use of torture. In addition to this, it will examine the effectiveness of a mechanism used by this body to combat the use of torture. The use of torture According to the “United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman Treatment” torture can be defined as an act of inflicting either mental or physical pain or suffering to an individual or a group of individuals with the aim of coercing information or punishing a crime (Carll, 2007). In the book “Torture and Democracy”, Rejali (2009) provides some concrete example on the use of torture when dealing with terror suspects. He notes that the use of torture often involves brutal and inhumane approaches such as severe copal punishment, sexual assault, tooth extraction, oxygen deprivation, mutilation and solitary confinement among many other forms of inhumane treatment (Rejali, 2009). Perspectives on the use of torture The arguments for and against torture are based on questions over its morality and legality are best understood within the context of the conflict between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism or between deontological and utilitarian ethical theories. Proponents of the universality of human rights argue that torture is unjustifiable in whichever context or for whatever purpose as it violates a basic human right which is shared universally by all human beings (Donnelly, 2007 Reichert, 2006). Therefore, regardless of wherever they are committed, acts of torture are fundamentally illegitimate as they are committed against human beings who possess the “universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated” right of protection against torture (Reichert, 2006). Torture is also considered unethical according to deontological ethical theory. In Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory, an action can only be considered ethical if the intent is pure regardless of the consequences. The Kantian deontological imperative is that the end cannot justify the means and that people should be treated as the end themselves (Kant, 2009). This precludes the argument that torture as a means is justifiable in circumstances where it could be used to save lives or achieve positive outcomes such as obtaining information from a terrorist to help successfully prevent a terror attack that would endanger lives. Torture aims to inflict suffering on its victims to coerce them into colluding against themselves against their will by using methods which are brutal, barbaric, inhumane and sadistic. This automatically makes torture unlawful and unethical (Donnelly, 2007). Torture is also unethical from a deontological perspective as it is considered a violation of both domestic and international law. An act of torture by itself is a violation of law therefore torture cannot be justified. Internationally, the illegitimacy of torture is reflected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in conventions such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture which categorically outlaw acts of torture. Domestic laws in most democratic countries also outlaw acts of torture such as the Eighth Amendment in the U.S Constitution or the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill relating to Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition enacted under the Commonwealth Criminal Code in Australia (Greenberg, 2006 Heller & Dubber, 2010). On the other hand, consequentialist or utilitarian ethical theories and cultural relativists argue that question over the legality or morality of torture is an issue dictated by the context in which it is being considered. Utilitarian ethical theory postulates that an action is ethical and therefore moral based on its consequences (Sussman, 2005 Graham, 2010). An action is ethical and therefore moral if the outcome of the action yields maximum benefit to as many people as possible or simply if the end justifies the means. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, it could be argued that torture is justifiable in certain extreme circumstances. Such circumstances include when law enforcement authorities capture a terror suspect who may have information on the location of an explosive device improvised for an impending attack on civilian targets and the timing of the attack. In the event that the suspect is uncooperative, it would be considered justifiable from a utilitarian perspective to use torture to coerce the suspect into providing this information under the rationale that the commission of acts of torture would potentially avert massive civilian casualties (Sussman 2005). Cultural relativists would also contest the universal illegitimacy of torture as a human rights violation. Cultural relativists argue that it is the prerogative of every culture or country to determine its own culture and values independently and demand respect for cultural differences when considering human rights, emphasizing that cultural values should be prioritized over any claims of universal values (Reichert 2006). The import of cultural relativism as a doctrine is that torture would therefore be justifiable if acts of torture are committed in a country whose culture and laws accommodate them. However, it is difficult to find a modern society where torture is condoned in law since most domestic laws outlaw torture (Donnelly, 2007). Amnesty International and its fight against torture Amnesty International is a non-governmental organisation whose main role entails promoting human rights by conducting research and creating awareness on human rights violations such as torture in order to promote compliance to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and generate action to prevent human rights violations. The organization also mobilizes public opinion and puts pressure on governments to enact laws that ban torture, punish perpetrators of torture and provide justice for torture victims (Amnesty International, 2012). As a result of its efforts and campaigns towards the fight against torture, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 (The Nobel Foundation, 1977). Currently, one of the mechanisms that this organization uses to combat torture is its Committee Against Torture (CAT). This committee works towards combating torture by conducting research, investigations on perpetrated acts torture. Subsequently, it creates awareness on perpetrated acts torture. The use of this approach has over the years proved to be effective mainly because, conducting investigations and creating public awareness generates public opinion and outcry. This in turn puts pressure on governments to takes measures against torture, punish perpetrators of torture and provide justice for torture victims. In addition to this, the use of this approach has provided legal grounds for other human rights and legal bodies to take legal action against individuals, groups and governments that perpetrate torture (Amnesty International, 2003). Conclusion Basically, this case study has critically examined different perspectives on the use of torture within the context of the conflict between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism. The findings of this case study depict that the protection against torture is a key element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Puybaret, 2008). However, despite the protection against torture in the Declaration, there is a lot of controversy regarding the use of torture. In addition to this cases of torture have been reported in some countries. Proponents of the use of torture often argue that it is justifiable in some extreme circumstances especially when dealing with terror suspects or issues relating to national security (Rehman & Breau, 2007). Nevertheless, it is established in this case study that torture is unjustifiable in whichever context or for whatever purpose as it violates a basic human right which is shared universally by all human beings (Donnelly, 2007 Reichert, 2006). References Amnesty International (2003). Combating torture: a manual for action. London: Amnesty International Publications. Amnesty International (2012). Who we are. Retrieved on December 14 2012 Carll, E. K. (2007). Trauma Psychology: Issues in Violence, Disaster, Health and Illness. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing. Donnelly J. (2007). ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights’. Human Rights Quarterly 29, (2), 281-306. Einolf, C.J. (2007). “The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis”. Sociological Theory 25(2), pp. 101-121. Graham, G. (2010). Theories of ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy with a selection of classic readings. New York: Taylor & Francis. Greenberg, K. J. (2006). The Torture Debate in America. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. Heller, K. & Dubber, M. (2010). The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kant, I. (2009). Theory of Ethics. Memphis: General Books. Miller, S. (2005). Is Torture Ever Morally Justifiable? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (2), 179-192. Puybaret, E. (2008). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva: UN Publication. Rehman, J. & Breau, S. (2007). Religion, Human Rights and International Law: A Critical Examination of Islamic State Practices. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Reichert, E. (2006). ‘Human Rights: An Examination of Universalism and Cultural Relativism’. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 22 (1), 23-26. Rejali, D. (2009). Torture and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sussman, D. (2005). ‘What’s Wrong with Torture?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(1), 1-33. The Nobel Foundation (1977). Nobel Peace Prize: Amnesty International. Retrieved on December 14 2012 Read More