"Transnational Torture by Jinee Lokaneeta reviewed with Prachi Patankar" on the blog Kafila. Evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and harsh interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay beg the question: has the “war on terror” forced liberal democracies to rethink their policies and laws against torture? Transnational Torture focuses on the legal and political discourses on torture in India and the United States—two common-law based constitutional democracies—to theorize the relationship between law, violence, and state power in liberal democracies. Analyzing about one hundred landmark Supreme Court cases on torture in India and the United States, memos and popular imagery of torture, Jinee Lokaneeta compellingly demonstrates that even before recent debates on the use of torture in the war on terror, the laws of interrogation were much more ambivalent about the infliction of excess pain and suffering than most political and legal theorists have acknowledged. Rather than viewing the recent policies on interrogation as anomalous or exceptional, Lokaneeta effectively argues that efforts to accommodate excess violence—a constantly negotiated process—are long standing features of routine interrogations in both the United States and India, concluding that the infliction of excess violence is more central to democratic governance than is acknowledged in western jurisprudence.

"Transnational Torture by Jinee Lokaneeta reviewed with Prachi Patankar" on the blog Kafila. Evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and harsh interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay beg the question: has the “war on terror” forced liberal democracies to rethink their policies and laws against torture? Transnational Torture focuses on the legal and political discourses on torture in India and the United States—two common-law based constitutional democracies—to theorize the relationship between law, violence, and state power in liberal democracies. Analyzing about one hundred landmark Supreme Court cases on torture in India and the United States, memos and popular imagery of torture, Jinee Lokaneeta compellingly demonstrates that even before recent debates on the use of torture in the war on terror, the laws of interrogation were much more ambivalent about the infliction of excess pain and suffering than most political and legal theorists have acknowledged. Rather than viewing the recent policies on interrogation as anomalous or exceptional, Lokaneeta effectively argues that efforts to accommodate excess violence—a constantly negotiated process—are long standing features of routine interrogations in both the United States and India, concluding that the infliction of excess violence is more central to democratic governance than is acknowledged in western jurisprudence.

Can we understand torture by focusing on the torture chamber or even on the states in which it is practiced, or do we have to consider the wider political context in which it is embedded? This is the central question of this book which explores concepts of state crime for understanding and responding to the indirect use of torture by external nation states. Drawing on the cooperation between France and Argentina in Argentina's Dirty War, this book explores the utility of the concept of state crime for understanding and responding to the indirect use of torture by external nation states with a detailed examination of the exportation of torture techniques and training expertise as complicity in torture. Discussing the institutionalisation of torture in its international structural context, this book focuses on examining three alleged manifestations of the torturer: direct perpetrator, institutional perpetrator, and transnational institutional perpetrator. Important reading for those in the fields of criminology, sociology, international relations and human rights law, this book will also be of key interest to scholars and students in the areas of state crime, human rights and imperialism.

The controversial nature of seeking globalised justice through national courts has become starkly apparent in the wake of the Pinochet case in which the Spanish legal system sought to bring to account under international criminal law the former President of Chile,for violations in Chile of human rights of non-Spaniards. Some have reacted to the involvement of Spanish and British judges in sanctioning a former head of state as nothing more than legal imperialism while others have termed it positive globalisation. While the international legal and associated statutory bases for such criminal prosecutions are firm, the same cannot be said of the enterprise of imposing civil liability for the same human-rights-violating conduct that gives rise to criminal responsibility. In this work leading scholars from around the world address the host of complex issues raised by transnational human rights litigation. There has been, to date, little treatment, let alone a comprehensive assessment, of the merits and demerits of US-style transnational human rights litigation by non-American legal scholars and practitioners. The book seeks not so much to fill this gap as to start the process of doing so, with a view to stimulating debate amongst scholars and policy-makers. The book's doctrinal coverage and analytical inquiries will also be extremely relevant to the world of transnational legal practice beyond the specific question of human rights litigation. Cited in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5.

Explores how expert bodies and non-state empowered professionals come together to shape human rights law.

We are understandably reluctant to "rank" moral atrocities. What is worse, genocide or terrorism? In this book, Thomas W. Simon argues that politicians use this to manipulate our sense of injustice by exaggerating terrorism and minimizing torture. He advocates for an international criminal code that encourages humanitarian intervention.

The United States has historically been regarded as a moral leader opening the pathway for human rights. The country which for so long has struggled for the establishment of the rule of law - as well as to be a model for other nations in observing it - has, since September11, 2001, committed abhorrent practices of torture, which the US has fought against when committed by others. What seems astonishing is that such practices took place within a climate of significant public indifference, and even with some public support. Time and again, observers of tragic historic events reveal that it is not so much the evil doing of the few which allows the worst atrocities to occur, as it is the indifference of the many. The Bush administration assumed neither moral nor legal responsibility, and in the end, it is hard-put to show what positive results may have been obtained for so many transgressions. The history of law and legal institutions has long proven the error of accepting the Machiavellian principle that the ends justify the means. In addition, the proposition that torture prevents terrorism cannot be proven true. Under torture, people tend to say whatever is expected of them. However, this is not only about pragmatic pursuits. It is about morality and ethics. The judgement has already been made that torture is unlawful. In addition, the Guantanamo Bay practices and the unlawful seizure of persons in different parts of the world by the CIA - after which they are transferred to countries where they are tortured - have proven that hard evidence is highly unlikely to be attained under torture. Most of the detainees have been proven to have no connection to terrorism and most of them have been released because they were wrongly arrested. Guantanamo represents a failed policy that has done much damage to the moral authority of the US. Aberrant views of torture as necessary because the ends justify the means have not generated much negative reaction from the legal profession - despite the fact that the 1984 Convention against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution, and the laws of the US have clearly prohibited such practices. This book examines such questions as: Are the events of September 11, 2001 enough to have us reopen the question of whether the medieval practice of torture should be allowed? Are they enough to have its institutionalized practice undermine the integrity of the US legal process and system of law, and to undermine the country's moral leadership in the world? The answer to these questions has to be a resounding and unqualified no. The US must, therefore, take quick and confident action to make amends and to hold responsible those who promoted a policy of torture. M. Cherif Bassiouni, in April 2012, received the Wolfgang Friedmann Memorial Award which is given by the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law to a distinguished scholar or practitioner who has made outstanding contributions to the field of international law. *** ...exquisitely detailed the way in which American governmental institutions bypassed international law in order to allow the creation of a policy that allowed torture. Bassiouni paints a striking portrait of the abuses and violations of international law by Bush's Administration, the way these actions strike at the heart of the American tradition, and the actions that must be taken to save America's collective conscience. - Prof. Karen Greenberg, Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law

This book analyses and compares how the USA's liberal allies responded to the use of torture against their citizens after 9/11. Did they resist, tolerate or support the Bush Administration's policies concerning the mistreatment of detainees when their own citizens were implicated and what were the reasons for their actions? Australia, the UK and Canada are liberal democracies sharing similar political cultures, values and alliances with America; yet they behaved differently when their citizens, caught up in the War on Terror, were tortured. How states responded to citizens' human rights claims and predicaments was shaped, in part, by demands for accountability placed on the executive government by domestic actors. This book argues that civil society actors, in particular, were influenced by nuanced differences in their national political and legal contexts that enabled or constrained human rights activism. It maps the conditions under which individuals and groups were more or less likely to become engaged when fellow citizens were tortured, focusing on national rights culture, the domestic legal and political human rights framework, and political opportunities.

Focusing on India between the early nineteenth century and the First World War, Colonial Terror explores the centrality of the torture of Indian bodies to the law-preserving violence of colonial rule and some of the ways in which extraordinary violence was embedded in the ordinary operation of colonial states. Although enacted largely by Indians on Indian bodies, particularly by subaltern members of the police, the book argues that torture was facilitated, systematized, and ultimately sanctioned by first the East India Company and then the Raj because it benefitted the colonial regime, since rendering the police a source of terror played a key role in the construction and maitenance of state sovereignty. Drawing upon the work of both Giorgio Agamben and Michel Foucault, Colonial Terror contends, furthermore, that it is only possible to understand the terrorizing nature of the colonial police in India by viewing colonial India as a 'regime of exception' in which two different forms of exceptionality were in operation - one wrought through the exclusion of particular groups or segments of the Indian population from the law and the other by petty sovereigns in their enactment of illegal violence in the operation of the law. It was in such fertile ground, in which colonial subjects were both included within the domain of colonial law while also being abandoned by it, that torture was able to flourish.