No description available.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-10T10:46:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 LARISSA APARECIDA LIMA SANTOS.pdf: 830312 bytes, checksum: edf488ec8df82ed498f07cb92f062fd3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-10-22 / The present work investigates the application of the Enemy Criminal Law theory in the war against terrorism, particularly, in the prison of Guantanamo, and the paradigm shift in Criminal Garantism, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Therefore, this study analyzed the wishes of the American Society against terrorism and the thirst for an exacerbated punitivism in a context of criminal law expansion, which leads to the relaxation of human rights as a consequence of an exceptional regime. Subsequently, this thesis presents a confrontation between the Enemy Criminal Law theory its characteristics, foundations and philosophical assumptions and the Criminal Garantism theory with its focus on greater protection of human rights in a democratic state. Shortly thereafter, this study focus on the definitions, characteristics and consequences of terrorism that triggered the development of harsh laws against terrorism and also the practice of torture in Guantanamo. This thesis, also examined the international standards of human rights protection, several international conventions against terrorism and some measures historically adopted by the UN in similar cases. Last but not least, in the light of the practices of torture conducted at Guantanamo this study reveals an attempt to deconstruct the Criminal Garantism theory and the protection of human rights, illustrating the current conflict between protecting national security and respect for human rights. / O presente trabalho tem como objeto a análise da aplicação da teoria do Direito Penal do Inimigo na guerra contra o terrorismo e, em especial, na prisão de Guantânamo, e a ruptura com o paradigma do Garantismo Penal, principalmente após os ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001. Para tanto, analisou-se os anseios da sociedade americana perante o terrorismo e a sede por um punitivismo exacerbado em um contexto de expansão do direito penal, o qual conduz à flexibilização dos direitos humanos como consequência de um regime de exceção. Posteriormente, realizou-se um embate entre a teoria do Direito Penal do Inimigo, suas características, fundamentos e pressupostos filosóficos e a teoria do Garantismo Penal com seu enfoque na maior proteção dos direitos humanos em um Estado Democrático de Direito. Logo em seguida, estudou-se as definições, características e as conseqüências do terrorismo, as quais desencadearam a elaboração de duras leis americanas antiterroristas e as práticas de torturas em Guantânamo. Ainda, examinou-se as normas internacionais de proteção aos direitos humanos e várias Convenções Internacionais e medidas contra o terrorismo adotadas pela ONU. Por fim, analisou-se as práticas de torturas realizadas em Guantânamo demonstrando a tentativa de desconstrução da teoria do Garantismo Penal e da proteção dos direitos humanos, representando o conflito existente na atualidade entre proteção da segurança nacional e o respeito aos direitos do ser humano.

Although torture is considered universally reprehensible by law, including international law and human convention, it occurs routinely as an acceptable and efficient method for interrogation and intimidation. The questions that follow are: What kind of person engages in/commits acts of torture? If legalized, how would torture affect morality when an individual can be instrumentally utilized as a mere means-to-an-end? How does torture affect the victim, the torturer, and society as a whole? In order to answer these questions, I will use events at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center to argue in favor of the plausibility for the concept of a non fallacious slippery slope against torture by means of theoretical and real world evidence. I will argue that each act of torture that is deemed acceptable in the eyes of any society not only corrupts the societal morality of that nation, but it also produces an increase in direct and indirect participation in such acts.

Guantánamo ist zum Symbol des Aufeinandertreffens verschiedener Wertesysteme geworden, bei dem die Frage nach den Rechten des Menschen im Mittelpunkt steht. In der Dissertation werden die komplexen Probleme dargestellt, mit denen das Völkerrecht durch die Herausforderungen des internationalen Terrorismus und speziell des Gefangenenlagers auf Kuba konfrontiert wird. Darüber hinaus wird die Frage untersucht, welche Rechte des Menschen fern der diplomatisch verhandelten internationalen Kodifikationen tatsächlich in den verschiedenen Kulturen der Welt anerkannt und gelebt werden. Zwar legen der Wortlaut und die Verbreitung der Menschenrechtsverträge die Vermutung nahe, dass in den Kulturen der Welt ein Konsens über die Rechte des Menschen zumindest im Kern existiert. Bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich aber, dass es verschiedene Menschenbilder - etwa freiheitlich-individualistische, kommunalistische und theozentrische - gibt, die zum Teil diametral zueinander stehen. Ein interkultureller Vergleich offenbart, dass häufig das jeweils andere Wertesystem abgewehrt und auch „die universellen Menschenrechte“ als westlich determinierte Werte mit Distanz betrachtet werden. Welche Begründungen für Menschenrechte in den Kulturen existent sind, welche Aufschlüsse die bisherigen Begründungsmodelle geben und inwieweit daraus ein Kern an Rechten dem Menschen überkulturell als angeboren begründet werden können, sind wichtige Fragen, die in dieser Dissertation behandelt werden. Es werden neue Ansätze untersucht, welche die Begründungsdefizite bisheriger Modelle womöglich auflösen und den rechtlichen Diskurs damit aktualisieren können. Denn kontroverse Menschenrechtslagen, wie die in Guantánamo, sind in Zukunft nur vermeidbar, wenn sich auf der Basis eines fortgeführten interkulturellen Dialoges eine gemeinsame Identität entwickelt und dadurch eine Gewalt zwischen den Kulturen verringert wird, die durch die Differenzen ihrer Werte entsteht. / Guantánamo has become a symbol for the clash of differing value systems. With widespread international concern and criticism of the treatment of the detainees - Islamic terror suspects - as grave violations of universal human rights. The dissertation illustrates the complex problems confronting international law by the aspects of international terrorism and especially the prison camp on Cuba. Furthermore, it examines the question, which rights beyond the international codifications are actually accepted within the cultures. The wording of the international human rights treaties and their dissemination assume a consensus on basic human rights. However differing and sometimes opposing cultural and religious conceptions exist. Some communities attach importance to a liberal and individual understanding, whilst others on the involvement and obligation of the individual into the community. Making it difficult to define and implement core human rights treaties, which can be applied universally regardless of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, the examination goes further than an analysis by means of international law. It discusses the question, which justifications of human rights are existing within the cultures, what the contents of the present paradigms of justification - to which also the international human rights refer - are, and how an inherence of a core of human rights can be derived beyond cultural relativity. Rights that would consider equal conditions of human interaction, and examine the correlation of identity, structural violence and the state of need of the human being. The actualization of the justification of human rights is vital in the legal discourse to assimilate the conceptions about the rights of man. Controversial human rights situations like Guantánamo can only be resolved and avoided in the future, with continued intercultural dialogue, understanding of a common human identity, and celebration instead of condemnation of the inherent richness of differing cultural and religious values.

Thesis (MPhil (Political Science))--University 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation’s primary focus is why torture is used when torture is not an effective means of gathering intelligence. To answer this question the argument for the use of torture, commonly known as the ticking time bomb argument, is discussed. Due to psychological and physiological processes during torture interrogation it was found that torture cannot be relied upon to deliver truthful information. Torture was also found to adversely affect the institutions that are needed for its establishment. After torture has been found to be of no utility in terms of the appropriation of information the question of why torture is still used is answered by means of discussing societal dynamics as well as the political process surrounding torture. On the societal front it was found that American public opinion towards torture is ambivalent. The reason for this includes a host of socio-psychological factors such as the in-group out-group bias as well the War on Terror as a political ideology in its own right. The notion that anybody is likely to torture is also explored by means of discussing the Milgram’s Obedience Experiment as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment. On the political front the notion that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were the work of a few bad apples is dispelled since it formed part of a deliberative political process that tried to make torture a legitimate foreign policy measure. The reason for the existence of this process is the failure of international and domestic checks and balances. On the international front U.S. unilateralism as foreign policy principle is cited as the reason for the ineffectiveness of international measures to stop torture. On the domestic front the permanent rally around the flag effect due to the permanent state of mobilization in the War on Terror is cited as the reason for the failure of domestic checks and balances. The lessons learnt from the research enables the creation of measures on how to stop torture even when it is found that the necessary political will is not present within the Obama administration. In the absence of political will it must be manufactured by means of the actions of civil society, the free press and the international community. It was found that the most effective means would be the creation of a committee of inquiry to create the political memory of the use of torture and how it was established. Additionally a memorial must be erected as well seeing that inquiries create political memories but they do not sustain it. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis se fokus is om na te vors waarom marteling gebruik word as dit nie ‘n effektiewe wyse is om inligting in te win nie. Om hierdie vraagstuk te beantwoord word die argument vir die gebruik van marteling naamlik die tikkende-tydbom-argument bespreek. Asgevolg van sielkundige en fisiologiese prosesse tydens ondervragings wat gebruik maak van marteling kan daar nie op marteling staatgemaak word om die waarheid op te lewer nie. Dit was ook bevind dat marteling die instansies, wat nodig is vir die gebruik daarvan, op ‘n negatiewe wyse beïnvloed. Nadat daar vasgestel is dat marteling geen nutswaarde aangaande die inwinning van informasie bied nie word die vraagstuk waarom marteling steeds gebruik word beantwoord. Op die samelewingsvlak kan daar gestel word dat die Amerikaanse samelewing onseker is oor of marteling gebruik moet word al dan nie. Verskeie redes vir hierdie opinie word aangevoer waarvan die in-group out-group bias en die Oorlog teen Terreur as politieke ideologie slegs twee daarvan uitmaak. Dat enige persoon in staat is tot marteling onder die regte stel omstandighede word ook bespreek na aanleiding van die Milgram’s Obedience Experiement en die Stanford Prison Experiment. Op die politiese vlak is daar vasgestel dat die menseregteskendings in Abu Ghraib en Guantanamo Bay nie die werk was van slegs `n paar indiwidue was nie, maar deel uitmaak van ‘n doelbewuste politiese proses wat marteling as ‘n legitieme buitelandse beleidskwessie wil afmaak. Die rede waarom die beleidsproses bestaan kan toegeskryf word aan die mislukking van inter- en intranasionale wigte en teenwigte. Op die internasionale vlak kan daar gestel word dat die Verenigde State se unilateralistiese modus operandi die rede is vir die mislukking van internasionale maatreëls teen marteling. Op die intranasionale front kan daar gestel word dat die Amerikaanse publiek verkeer in ‘n permanent rally around the flagtoestand asgevolg van die permanent mobilisasie in die Oorlog teen Terreur. Uit die lesse wat geleer is uit die navorsing kan daadwerklike stappe gedoen word om die gebruik van marteling stop te sit alhoewel die Obama-administrasie se politiese wil ontbreek. Met die tekort aan politiese wil moet die politiese wil geskep word deur die burgerlik samelewing, the vrye pers asook die internasionale gemeenskap. Daar was gevind dat die mees effektiewe wyse om marteling stop te sit sal deurmiddel van ‘n kommissie van ondersoek wees. Die kommissie se doel sal wees om te bepaal hoe marteling tot stand gekom het en ‘n politiese herinnering te skep. Daar moet ook ‘n bykomende maatreël wees, naamlik die oprigting van ‘n monument aangesien kommissies van ondersoek politiese herinneringe skep maar nie in stand hou nie.

LL.M. (International Law) / The attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 sent waves of disbelief and shock through the world. It was probably the worst terrorist attack on the United States ever. The horrific terrorist attacks led to a mixture of political, social and economic reaction around the world and also led to the creation of what is today known as the “The war on terror”. When acts of torture by United States officials came to light in 2004, as well as allegations that these acts were authorized by the United States executive as a way of obtaining information from terrorist suspects in the United States’ “War on Terror”, it led to the question – “How was it possible that acts of torture were committed by United States officials”? The purpose of this dissertation is to try to find an answer to this question and also tom establish which definition of torture should be utilized in the United States domestic laws for the establishment of acts of torture.

This thesis examines the foreign policy of the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. A significant theme of Barack Obama's candidacy for presidency was "change"; more specifically change in policy from previous administration. Therefore, the thesis looks at the changes brought about by President Obama once he was elected. First, we look at foreign policy of the United States under President George W. Bush, then we look at foreign policy-related assertions of Barack Obama during his candidacy, and lastly we look at the actual policies of the new administration, with particular focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, drones and extrajudicial killing, Guantanamo detention facility and extraordinary rendition, and NSA surveillance.

No description available.

This study examines the phenomenon of abusive violence (AV) in the context of the American Post-9/11 Counter-terrorism and Counter-insurgency campaigns. Previous research into atrocities by states and their agents has largely come from examinations of totalitarian regimes with well-developed torture and assassination institutions. The mechanisms influencing willingness to do harm have been examined in experimental studies of obedience to authority and the influences of deindividuation, dehumanization, context and system. This study used Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to examine the lived experience of AV reported by fourteen American military and intelligence veterans. Participants were AV observers, objectors, or abusers. Subjects described why AV appeared sensible at the time, how methods of violence were selected, and what sense they made of their experiences after the fact. Accounts revealed the roles that frustration, fear, anger and mission pressure played to prompt acts of AV that ranged from the petty to heinous. Much of the AV was tied to a shift in mission view from macro strategic aims of CT and COIN to individual and small group survival. Routine hazing punishment soldiers received involving forced exercise and stress positions made similar acts inflicted on detainees unrecognizable as abusive. Overt and implied permissiveness from military superiors enabled AV extending to torture, and extra-judicial killings. Attempting to overcome feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and rage, subjects enacted communal punishment through indiscriminate beatings and shooting. Participants committed AV to amuse themselves and humiliate their enemies; some killed detainees to force confessions from others, conceal misdeeds, and avoid routine paperwork. Participants realized that AV practices were unnecessary, counter-productive, and self-damaging. Several reduced or halted their AV as a result. The lived experience of AV left most respondents feeling guilt, shame, and inadequacy, whether they committed abuse or failed to stop it.