Derogation from the Prohibition of Torture in the Case of Extreme Necessity

International Journal of Legal Studies and Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 35-49, March 2013

15 Pages Posted: 28 Apr 2013

See all articles by Tomas Königs

Tomas Königs

Utrecht University - Faculty of Law; National Chengchi University (NCCU)

Date Written: March 15, 2013

Abstract

Despite an absolute prohibition of torture, its practice is common in the fight against terrorism. This article investigates whether, in practice, this absolute prohibition is uncontested and whether states have the opportunity to derogate from this prohibition in the case of extreme necessity. To answer this question, causal theory – the theory behind the necessity defence – is elaborated on. Treaty law and customary law, both sources of international law, are also analysed. Many states use torture as an interrogation method, and both domestic and international law might provide for exclusion of criminal liability. These findings show that the absolute prohibition of torture is far from uncontested, which could indicate a paradigm shift away from a peremptory norm in international law.

Keywords: prohibition of torture, international public law, necessity defence, coercive interrogation, terrorism

Suggested Citation

Königs, Tomas and Königs, Tomas, Derogation from the Prohibition of Torture in the Case of Extreme Necessity (March 15, 2013). International Journal of Legal Studies and Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 35-49, March 2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2257488

Tomas Königs (Contact Author)

National Chengchi University (NCCU) ( email )

No. 64, Chih-Nan Road
Section 2
Wenshan, Taipei, 11623
Taiwan

Utrecht University - Faculty of Law ( email )

Janskerkhof 3
Utrecht, 3512 BK
Netherlands

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
136
Abstract Views
611
Rank
381,436
PlumX Metrics