Analysis Of The Convention Against Torture

Whether it’s to stop an imminent threat or as a form of response to fear and discrimination, it is common for states to turn towards torture as a mean of attaining information from someone. Torture has been used since the beginning of states and it is still used in some today. The Romans used torture on its citizens who were suspected of crimes, especially violent crimes. The world used torture as a means of acquiring a confession. The Russian Tsars would use torture in order to extract confessions. Ivan the terrible would torture his subjects for amusement, and Peter the great became paranoid that his own son was planning treason and had him tortured and executed. The Nazis tortured Jews in concentration camps and even tortured and killed

In addition, there is no way to enforce the treaty in states, even if they have ratified it. Which makes it hard to make any progress on reducing the use of torture, fortunately, there may be some headway in the future in the form of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The Optional protocol would allow monitored visits to states to ensure that no cases of torture were occurring. The purpose of this paper is to research the Convention Against Torture and how why states decide to accept the convention. We will also look at the enforceability of the Convention Against Torture and what the future for it may possibly

Weaker and Middle power states are more likely to adopt human rights treaties when there is international pressure or it is becoming an international norm. Even powerful states will fall under international pressure. William Schulz in his book Tainted Legacy defined international norms as the views held by those with the power, which he defined as either the majority of people, or the powerful elite (Schulz 2003, 110). For this example, the powerful elite are the major powers, and the majority represents a large alliance of lesser power states. For the United States, the advantage for ratifying the CAT would be a broadening of democratic ideals to non-democratic countries. The costs of ratifying are relatively low for the United States. We have domestic policies already in place that reflect the main goals of the CAT. Also, there is almost a zero chance that it will lead to unintended consequences. The cost the United States would face if the possibility of limited flexibility. Plus, if we ratified the treaty then there is a higher chance of it becoming an international norm due to the United States’ almost super power status. Which in turn means a higher chance that nondemocratic states like those in the middle east will fall under enough international pressure and have to ratify the treaty. The United States can use the ratification of treaties as a form