Natsu Taylor Saito
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780814798362
- eISBN:
- 9780814786512
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- NYU Press
- DOI:
- 10.18574/nyu/9780814798362.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
Since its founding, the United States has defined itself as the supreme protector of freedom throughout the world, pointing to its Constitution as the model of law to ensure democracy at home and to ...
More
Since its founding, the United States has defined itself as the supreme protector of freedom throughout the world, pointing to its Constitution as the model of law to ensure democracy at home and to protect human rights internationally. Although the United States has consistently emphasized the importance of the international legal system, it has simultaneously distanced itself from many established principles of international law and the institutions that implement them. In fact, the American government has attempted to unilaterally reshape certain doctrines of international law while disregarding others, such as the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the prohibition on torture. America's selective self-exemption, this book argues, undermines not only specific legal institutions and norms, but leads to a decreased effectiveness of the global rule of law. The book takes a pointed look at why the United States's frequent—if selective—disregard of international law and institutions is met with such high levels of approval, or at least complacency, by the American public.Less
Since its founding, the United States has defined itself as the supreme protector of freedom throughout the world, pointing to its Constitution as the model of law to ensure democracy at home and to protect human rights internationally. Although the United States has consistently emphasized the importance of the international legal system, it has simultaneously distanced itself from many established principles of international law and the institutions that implement them. In fact, the American government has attempted to unilaterally reshape certain doctrines of international law while disregarding others, such as the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the prohibition on torture. America's selective self-exemption, this book argues, undermines not only specific legal institutions and norms, but leads to a decreased effectiveness of the global rule of law. The book takes a pointed look at why the United States's frequent—if selective—disregard of international law and institutions is met with such high levels of approval, or at least complacency, by the American public.
Jinee Lokaneeta
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780814752791
- eISBN:
- 9780814765111
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- NYU Press
- DOI:
- 10.18574/nyu/9780814752791.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
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 ...
More
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? This book 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 100 landmark Supreme Court cases on torture in India and the United States, memos and popular imagery of torture, this book 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, the book 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.Less
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? This book 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 100 landmark Supreme Court cases on torture in India and the United States, memos and popular imagery of torture, this book 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, the book 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.
