Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law

Bibliographic Data

ID16764814
AuthorsSteven Greer (University of Bristol, corresponding author)
Year2015
Volume15
Issue1
Pages101-137
Publication date2015-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman Rights Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-7781 • E-ISSN: 1744-1021
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/hrlr/ngu035
OpenAlexW2142191631
LanguageEN
Citations received6

A cardinal axiom of international human rights law is that the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is absolute in the sense that no exception can be accepted, defended, justified, or tolerated in any circumstance whatever. Yet, for several reasons this is deeply problematic. For a start, since absoluteness is not an express, inherent, self-evident, or necessary feature of the provisions in question, this status is a matter of attribution rather than, as the orthodoxy holds, inherent legal necessity. Other non-absolute interpretations are not only possible, but expressly underpin similar prohibitions in some celebrated national human rights instruments. It does not follow either, because the term ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ is typically included in the same clauses which prohibit torture, that each of these very different types of harmful conduct must necessarily share the same status. The much-repeated claim that the prohibition is absolute in principle but relative in application is also unconvincing. Finally, it is not merely morally or legally, but also logically impossible for each of two competing instances of any ‘absolute’ right to be equally ‘absolute’ in any meaningful sense. The prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in international human rights law can, at best therefore, only be ‘virtually’, rather than strictly, absolute. It applies, in other words, in all but the rarest circumstances but not, as the received wisdom maintains, to the exclusion of every possible justification, exoneration, excuse, or mitigation.

Absolute (philosophy) · Criminology · Human rights · Political science · Sociology · Theology · Torture · Human Rights and Development · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy · Torture, Ethics, and Law

  • Los derechos humanos en estados excepcionales y el concepto de suspensión de derechos fundamentales

    Open Access•Guillermo Escobar Roca•Revista de Derecho Político•2021

  • Between Forbearance and Audacity

    Open Access•Ezgi Yildiz•Between Forbearance and Audacity•2023

  • Menschenrechtliche Anforderungen an den Strafvollzug

    Open Access•Sandra van der Stroom•Menschenrechtliche Anforderungen…•2021

  • Access to Abortion in Cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality

    Open Access•Bríd Ní Ghráinne, Aisling Mcmahon•Human Rights Law Review•2019

  • Effects of psychological torture and cybertorture with emerging digital technologies under anti-torture legal obligations in China

    Open Access•Mingming Hai•International Journal of Law and…•2025

  • Beyond a Human Rights-Based Approach to AI Governance

    Open Access•Nathalie A Smuha•Philosophy & Technology•2021

Unique citing works6
Citations per year0.86
Citation span2019 - 2025 (7)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 5

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae