Legal Definition of Torture in an International Context, & States’ Obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Al Moghabat
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Context ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

scholarly journals Elusive Legal Definition of Terrorism at the United Nations

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-87
Author(s):  
Mercy Obado Ochieng
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
United Nations ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Draft Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

Terrorism is indisputably a serious security threat to states and individuals. Yet, by the end of 2016, there was still lack of consensus on the legal definition of terrorism at the United Nations (UN) level. The key organs of the UN, the Security Council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (UNGA), are yet to agree on a legal definition of terrorism. This disconnect is attributed partly to the heterogeneous nature of terrorist activities and ideological differences among member states. At the UN level, acts of terrorism are mainly tackled from the angle of threats to international peace and security. In contrast, at the state level, acts of terrorism are largely defined as crimes and hence dealt with from the criminal justice paradigm. This article argues that the lack of a concrete legal definition of terrorism at the UN level undermines the holistic use of the criminal justice paradigm to counter-terrorism at the state level. To effectively counter-terrorism the UNSC and the UNGA have to agree on a legal definition of terrorism in their resolutions. This will streamline efforts to combat terrorism at the state level and consolidate counter-terrorism measures at the international level. The draft comprehensive Convention on Measures to Eliminate Terrorism (the Draft Convention) should be tailored to fill gaps and provide for a progressive legal definition of acts of terrorism.

Slavery de jure and de facto: The United Nations’ Definition of Slavery and Its Incomplete Dutch Translation in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Suriname

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-329
Author(s):  
Boris Paschke
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Dutch Translation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract The international legal definition of slavery (Art. 1 Slavery Convention [1926]; Art. 7 Supplementary Convention [1956]) distinguishes between slavery de jure and slavery de facto. The definition puts the emphasis on slavery de facto. However, by letting some words untranslated, the respective Dutch translation prevalent in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Suriname (unintentionally) focuses on slavery de jure. Nowadays, slavery is illegal (Art. 4 udhr; Art. 4 echr) and, thus, only exists de facto. A corrected and completed Dutch translation will increase the awareness of the various forms of slavery de facto. In so doing, it can make an important contribution to the fight against slavery.

The Revision of the General Comment No. 1 on the Implementation of Art. 3 uncat’s Non-Refoulement Obligation in Light of the Use of Diplomatic Assurances

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-209
Author(s):  
Stephanie Schlickewei
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Individual

On 26 June 1987, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (uncat) entered into force. The comprehensive set of regulations of the Convention aimed at ensuring a more effective implementation of the international community’s common endeavours to eradicate torture globally. Nevertheless, torture practice still prevails in many countries. New crises, such as the international fight against terrorism, constantly compromise the achievement of the Convention’s overall objective; in particular, they present a great challenge to States Parties’ compliance with the uncat’s explicit nonrefoulement obligation of Art. 3 uncat. Aiming for the transfer of a person to another State and in a bid to nevertheless satisfy their international obligations, States Parties tend to rely on so-called diplomatic assurances from the receiving State, thereby potentially exposing the individual to the risk of being subjected to torture following the transfer. Being aware of the new challenges to the protection of Art. 3 uncat, in 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture finally decided to undertake a comprehensive review of its General Comment No. 1 (1997). As the text of 1997 was considered to no longer meet the needs of the States with respect to the new challenges of the 21st century, the revision was inter alia aimed to also explicitly address the alarming trend of the application of diplomatic assurances and to include an assessment of their legitimate use in the context of Art. 3 uncat. This article outlines the aforementioned review process with regard to the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and analyses the question of their legitimacy under international law with respect to the uncat and in light of and in comparison to the European Court of Human Right’s jurisdiction in this context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document