Skip Navigation


Journal of International Criminal Justice Advance Access originally published online on April 8, 2008
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2008 6(2):215-239; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqn012
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/2/215    most recent
mqn012v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roth, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press, 2008, All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Journal of International Criminal Justice issue: Special Issue The Law of Cruelty: Torture as an International Crime [View the issue table of contents]

I. The Legal Contours of the Crime of Torture

Just Short of Torture

Abusive Treatment and the Limits of International Criminal Justice

Brad R. Roth*

* Associate Professor of Political Science and Law, Wayne State University; J.D., Harvard University, 1987; LLM., Columbia University, 1992; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 1996. The author wishes to thank Jens David Ohlin, Jamie Mayerfeld, Mary Ellen O’Connell, Kirsten Campbell, Kenneth Anderson and Mark Osiel for their helpful comments. [brad.roth{at}wayne.edu]


  Abstract

Few juridical tasks are more distasteful than specifying the distinction between torture and ‘mere’ cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Although the distinction itself may seem morally obtuse, it is a line, not between prohibited and permissible conduct, but between categories of prohibited conduct that are subject to distinct implementation regimes. The Torture Convention combines a narrow exposure of individual state officials to prosecutions in foreign courts for the international crime of torture with a broad state responsibility for the decent treatment of all detainees under all circumstances. To ignore or blur the distinction would not necessarily strengthen real accountability; to the contrary, allowing extraterritorial prosecutions for acts short of the torture threshold would unduly jeopardize agents of politically unpopular governments, would furnish a tool for political actors bent on undermining peaceful and respectful international relations, and would, paradoxically, risk producing a perverse downward pressure on the standards for detainee treatment.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
B. Hudson
Justice in a Time of Terror
Br. J. Criminol., September 1, 2009; 49(5): 702 - 717.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.