Abstract
In two articles published in this journal, I argued that the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is not genuinely absolute in international human rights law as almost universally supposed. Neil Graffin and Natasa Mavronicola have recently offered critiques. But each, regrettably, suffers from three fatal defects: most of my arguments are simply ignored, I have already thoroughly explored every single one of those addressed, and their attempts to concede certain elements of my case in order to defend a narrower conception of absoluteness fails. What follows is a brief response to set the record straight.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 297-307 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Human Rights Law Review |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2018 |
Keywords
- 'absolute' prohibition of torture
- Competing 'absolute' rights
- Cruel
- Gäfgen v Germany
- Inhuman or degrading treatment
- International human rights law
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)
This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via OUP at https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/18/2/297/4993952. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.