Cakal: Torture and the Recognition of Psychological Suffering in International Law

Ergün Cakal (Univ. of Copenhagen - Law) has published Torture and the Recognition of Psychological Suffering in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2026). Here's the abstract:

Torture and the Recognition of Psychological Suffering in International Law finds that psychological suffering has posed difficulties for international human rights advocates and adjudicators working on the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. A systematic survey of the relevant international caselaw, the book presents, reveals a vast variation in how psychological suffering is found to violate the prohibition (or not). When singled out in cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), psychological suffering has never been specifically categorized as torture. What is more, psychological suffering has often been excluded altogether from the purview of the prohibition, categorized instead as ‘lawful sanctions’ or as falling below the ‘minimum level of severity’ threshold, and therefore not found to be a violation. Coupling caselaw analysis and interviews, this book provides numerous inter-related reasons: that socio-political standards recognizing the significance of psychological suffering are selectively applied or altogether overlooked; that categorization is subject to caution and conservatism; that scientific expertise documenting health impacts has not compelled adjudicators in all cases; and that interpretation still depends on sense-centric reasoning (intuition–emotion–presumption), potentially undercutting scientific expertise and perpetuating preconceptions associating severe suffering with the physical.

Cakal: Law and Torture: Widening the Apertures from the Doctrinal to the Critical

Ergün Cakal (Univ. of Copenhagen) has published Law and Torture: Widening the Apertures from the Doctrinal to the Critical (Cambridge Univ. Press 2025). Here's the abstract:

Contemporary understandings of torture are ruled by a medico-legal duopoly: the language of law (regulating definition and prohibition) and that of medicine (controlling understandings of the body in pain). This duopoly has left little space for contextual conceptualisation – of ideological, emotional and imaginational impulses which function in readily recognising some forms of violence and dismissing others. This book challenges the rigour of this prevailing duopoly. In its place, it develops a new approach to critique the central scripts of 'law and torture' scholarship (around progress, violence, evidence and senses). Drawing on socio-legal and critical-theoretical scholarship, it aims to 'widen the apertures' of the dominant dogmas to their interconnected social, political, temporal and emotional dimensions. These dimensions, the book advances, hold the key to more fully understanding not only the production of torture's definition and prohibition; but also its normative contestation – to better grasp whose pain gets recognised and redressed and why.

Casey-Maslen: The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment under International Law

Stuart Casey-Maslen (Univ. of Johannesburg - Law) has published The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment under International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2025). Here's the abstract:

The first comprehensive analysis of domestic and international law defining and prohibiting torture and other forms of ill-treatment, this groundbreaking work reviews the law on torture in countries around the world. It considers how international law governs the use of force by police against suspects held in custody and during protests, and the practice and outlawing of torture both in peacetime and during armed conflict. The analysis also includes the application of universal jurisdiction, which is used in the attempt to prosecute and punish torture committed anywhere in the world. The application and execution of the death penalty are also discussed in detail.

Oette: The Transformation of the Prohibition of Torture in International Law

Lutz Oette (SOAS Univ. of London - Law) has published The Transformation of the Prohibition of Torture in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2024). Here's the abstract:

The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment has a special status. It is the foremost international human rights norm protecting persons from attacks on their dignity and integrity. Consequently, it has been at the forefront of a series of developments in international human rights law and international law more broadly. Having withstood sustained challenges to its absolute nature in the 'war on terror', it has broadened its scope of application, becoming more sophisticated and complex in the process. The prohibition of torture increasingly interacts with other fields of human rights law, such as non-discrimination law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and international migration law.

The Transformation of the Prohibition of Torture in International Law analyses the nature and significance of this transformation and looks into the scope of the prohibition's further evolution. Empirical scholarship, innovative human rights body practice, and challenges from activists, particularly from the Global South, have focused on the relational nature of torture and other ill-treatment, its embeddedness in wider structures of power, and the role of international law in legitimizing-if not facilitating-widespread suffering, from mass incarceration to poverty and climate change. This analysis reveals an inherent tension in the prohibition between a conventional, narrow focus on direct State violence and a wide lens encompassing myriad forms of suffering. To retain its validity and effectiveness in the twenty-first century, argues Lutz Oette, the prohibition on torture must navigate this tension and successfully address and transform abusive power asymmetries.

Yildiz: Between Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against Torture

Ezgi Yildiz (California State Univ., Long Beach - Political Science) has published Between Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against Torture (Cambridge Univ. Press 2023). This book is available open access. Here's the abstract:

When international courts are given sweeping powers, why would they ever refuse to use them? The book explains how and when courts employ strategies for institutional survival and resilience: forbearance and audacity, which help them adjust their sovereignty costs to pre-empt and mitigate backlash and political pushback. By systematically analysing almost 2,300 judgements from the European Court of Human Rights from 1967–2016, Ezgi Yildiz traces how these strategies shaped the norm against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. With expert interviews and a nuanced combination of social science and legal methods, Yildiz innovatively demonstrates what the norm entails, and when and how its contents changed over time. Exploring issues central to public international law and international relations, this interdisciplinary study makes a timely intervention in the debate on international courts, international norms, and legal change.

Carcano & Scovazzi: Upholding the Prohibition of Torture: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights

Andrea Carcano (Univ. of Modena and Reggio Emilia) & Tullio Scovazzi (Univ. of Milano-Bicocca) have published Upholding the Prohibition of Torture: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights (Brill | Nijhoff 2023). Here's the abstract:

This volume deals with the right of any individual not to be subjected to torture. Although almost universally prohibited, torture still manifests itself in the conduct of several States around the world, including Member States of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights has, since its inception, entered numerous findings of torture. Mindful of the urgency of the effectiveness of the international legal prohibition of torture, this book examines and critically appraises the practice of the European Court on torture. Through the analysis of leading cases and the legal issues ensuing from them, the book explores the contribution of the European Court to the clarification of the applicable law, illustrating developments of legal significance, exploring some still contentious issues, and stressing the several achievements as well as some still questionable outcomes.

Carcano & Scovazzi: Upholding the Prohibition of Torture: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights

Andrea Carcano (Univ. of Modena and Reggio-Emilia) & Tullio Scovazzi (formerly, Univ. of Milano Bicocca - Law) have published Upholding the Prohibition of Torture: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights (Brill | Nijhoff 2023). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This volume deals with the right of any individual not to be subjected to torture. Although almost universally prohibited, torture still manifests itself in the conduct of several States around the world, including Member States of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights has, since its inception, entered numerous findings of torture. Mindful of the urgency of the effectiveness of the international legal prohibition of torture, this book examines and critically appraises the practice of the European Court on torture. Through the analysis of leading cases and the legal issues ensuing from them, the book explores the contribution of the European Court to the clarification of the applicable law, illustrating developments of legal significance, exploring some still contentious issues, and stressing the several achievements as well as some still questionable outcomes. The volume offers knowledge and analytical tools to students and researchers, but also to lawyers and practitioners as it collects in a single volume significant portions of jurisprudence distilled from what are often lengthy and detailed judgments, followed by a reflection on the legal issues arising in a specific case or common to a number of them.

Davidson: Everyday Lawmaking in International Human Rights Law: Insights from the Inclusion of Domestic Violence in the Prohibition of Torture

Natalie R. Davidson (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) has posted Everyday Lawmaking in International Human Rights Law: Insights from the Inclusion of Domestic Violence in the Prohibition of Torture (Law and Social Inquiry, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

How is international human rights law (IHRL) made “everyday”, outside of treaty negotiations? Leading socio-legal accounts emphasize transnational civil society activism as driver of norm change, but insufficiently consider power dynamics and the legal-institutional environment. This article sheds light on these dimensions of IHRL by reconstructing how domestic violence came to be included in the prohibition of torture in five international and regional human rights institutions. Through process-tracing based on interviews and a vast amount of documentation, the study reveals everyday lawmaking in IHRL as a complex, incremental process in which a wide range of actors negotiate legal outcomes. The political implications of this process are ambiguous, as it enables participation while creating hidden sites of power. In addition to challenging existing models of international norm change, this study offers an in-depth empirical exploration of a key development in the international prohibition of torture, and demonstrates the benefits of process-tracing as a socio-legal methodology.

Evans & Modvig: Research Handbook on Torture: Legal and Medical Perspectives on Prohibition and Prevention

Malcolm D. Evans (Univ. of Bristol - Law) & Jens Modvig (DIGNITY - Danish Institute against Torture) have published Research Handbook on Torture: Legal and Medical Perspectives on Prohibition and Prevention (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This Research Handbook is of great importance in an era where torture, whilst universally condemned, remains endemic. It explores the nature of the international prohibition of torture and the various means and mechanisms which have been put in place by the international community in an attempt to make that prohibition a reality.

Edited by Chairs of the UN Committee against Torture and of the UN Subcommittee for Prevention of Torture, this Research Handbook considers both the legal and medical dimensions of torture, as well as societal and philosophical perspectives. Contributions from experts with personal experience of working with torture victims and survivors in medical, legal and political settings survey practice within the UN and regional human rights systems, international criminal and domestic legal settings, and in medical and rehabilitative contexts. These expert perspectives combine to offer a unique range of insights into the realities of tackling torture in the contemporary world.

Berlin: Does Criminalizing Torture Deter Police Torture?

Mark S. Berlin (Marquette Univ. - Political Science) has posted Does Criminalizing Torture Deter Police Torture? Here's the abstract:

Studies that cast doubt on the effectiveness of legal norms for improving respect for human rights have mostly focused on treaty ratifications or constitutional provisions. In contrast, I focus on national criminal law. I argue that criminalization of torture is more likely to deter police torture than these other forms of legal prohibition, because criminalization more credibly increases the threat of material and social costs of torture, while also helping to catalyze mobilization that amplifies these deterrent effects. Using an original, global dataset on national criminal laws against torture, I find that states that criminalize torture and define it in line with the standards of the UN Convention against Torture experience reductions in police torture. These findings highlight a largely unexplored angle on the relationship between law and human rights protection and demonstrate the importance of legal domestication for the effectiveness of international human rights law.

Ramji-Nogales: Non-Refoulement under the Trump Administration

Jaya Ramji-Nogales (Temple Univ. - Law) has posted an ASIL Insight on Non-Refoulement under the Trump Administration.

Simmons & Creamer: Do Self-Reporting Regimes Matter? Evidence From the Convention Against Torture

Beth A. Simmons (Univ. of Pennsylvania) & Cosette D. Creamer (Univ. of Minnesota - Political Science) have posted Do Self-Reporting Regimes Matter? Evidence From the Convention Against Torture (International Studies Quarterly, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International regulatory agreements depend largely on self-reporting for implementation, yet we know almost nothing about whether or how such mechanisms work. We theorize that self-reporting processes provide information for domestic constituencies, with the potential to create pressure for better compliance. Using original data on state reports submitted to the Committee Against Torture, we demonstrate the influence of this process on the pervasiveness of torture and inhumane treatment. We illustrate the power of self-reporting regimes to mobilize domestic politics through evidence of civil society participation in shadow reporting, media attention, and legislative activity around anti-torture law and practice. This is the first study to evaluate systematically the effects of self-reporting in the context of a treaty regime on human rights outcomes. Since many international agreements rely predominantly on self-reporting, the results have broad significance for compliance with international regulatory regimes globally.

Celermajer: The Prevention of Torture: An Ecological Approach

Danielle Celermajer (Univ. of Sydney - Sociology and Social Policy) has published The Prevention of Torture: An Ecological Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press 2018). Here's the abstract:

There is an urgent need to analyze and assess how we prevent torture, against the background of a rigorous analysis of the factors that condition and sustain it. Drawing on rich empirical material from Sri Lanka and Nepal, The Prevention of Torture: An Ecological Approach interrogates the worlds that produce torture, in order to propose how to bring about systemic institutional and cultural change. Critics have decried human rights approaches' failure to attend to structural factors, but this book seeks to go beyond a 'stance of criticism' to take up the positive project of reimagining human rights theory and practice. It discusses key debates in human rights and political theory, as well as the challenges that advocates face in translating situational analyses into real world interventions. Danielle Celermajer develops a new, ecological framework for mapping the worlds that produce torture, and thereby develops prevention strategies.

Zorzi Giustiniani: Divieto di non-refoulement e tortura. Osservazioni in margine al General Commentn. 4 alla Convenzione ONU contro la tortura

Flavia Zorzi Giustiniani (Università Telematica Internazionale Uninettuno - Law) has published Divieto di non-refoulement e tortura. Osservazioni in margine al General Commentn. 4 alla Convenzione ONU contro la tortura e altre pene o trattamenti crudeli, inumani o degradanti del 1984 (federalismi.it, no. 2/2018). Here's the abstract:

Il Comitato delle Nazioni Unite contro la tortura (di seguito Comitato o CAT)ha pubblicato, il 9 febbraio scorso, ilGeneral Commentn. 4 sull’attuazione dell’articolo 3della Convenzione contro la tortura e altri trattamenti o punizioni crudeli, inumani o degradanti del 1984 nel contesto dell’articolo 22. Il documento, che sostituisce ilGeneral Commentn. 1 del 1997, é stato adottato in esito ad un lungo drafting process che ha visto il coinvolgimento non soltanto degli Stati parti, ma anche di numerose agenzie internazionali ed esponenti della società civile. Le nuove Osservazioni generali intendono chiarire il contenuto e la portata del divieto di refoulement ai sensi dell’art. 3 della Convenzione. Il tema é di estrema importanza, considerato che l’art. 3 costituisce una delle norme chiave del trattato ed é anche l’articolo più invocato nell’ambito della procedura di comunicazione individuale ex art. 22 della Convenzione. Il presente contributo si prefigge di esaminare le principali novità introdotte dal General Commentn. 4 ed il loro rilievo nel contesto della Convenzione. A tal fine si procederà preliminarmente ad inquadrare l’attuale portata del non-refoulement nel diritto internazionale, nonché le funzioni e lo status giuridico dei General Commentsdei cosiddetti treaty-bodies delle Nazioni Unite.

The UN Committee against Torture has published, on February 9th, General Comment no. 4 on the implementation of Article 3 of the Convention against the torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of 1984 in the context of Article 22. The document, which replaces General Comment n. 1 of 1997, was adopted following a long drafting process that saw the involvement not only of States parties, but also of numerous international organizations and representatives of civil society. The new General Observations intend to clarify the content and scope of the prohibition of refoulement pursuant to art. 3 of the Convention. The theme is of extreme importance, considering that art. 3 constitutes one of the key rules of the treaty and it is also the most invoked article in the context of the individual communication procedure pursuant to art. 22 of the Convention. The present contribution aims to examine the main changes introduced by General Comment n. 4 and their relevance in the context of the Convention. To this end, we will first proceed to frame the current scope of non-refoulement in international law, as well as the functions and legal status of the General Comments of the so-called UN treaty-bodies.

Nowak: Torture: An Expert's Confrontation with an Everyday Evil

Manfred Nowak (Univ. of Vienna - Law; formerly, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture) has published Torture: An Expert's Confrontation with an Everyday Evil (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 2018). Here's the abstract:

Torture represents a direct attack on the essence of human dignity. Its mere mention evokes a prolific and sordid history: Europe in the Middle Ages, with beds of nails, witch hunts, and burnings; the brutal methods used by military dictatorships against political dissidents in 1970s Latin America; and the gruesome photographs from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other Bush-era places of detention. While leaders in the West had once hoped that torture would disappear by the end of the twentieth century—and that our children would read about this unfathomable practice in history books and not in the daily papers—research indicates that torture is still routinely used in the majority of twenty-first-century nations.

In his six years as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak was tasked with reviewing thousands of complaints of torture and detention, investigating facts and circumstances surrounding the global practice of torture, and drawing up recommendations aimed at combating torture. Now, in Torture, readers can get a firsthand glimpse of how modern-day torture is investigated and understood by those working on the frontlines of researching, addressing, and preventing it.

Nowak recounts his experience visiting countries, reviewing documents, collecting evidence, and conducting interviews with perpetrators, witnesses, and victims of torture. He offers vignettes of the many states he visited, comparing their diverse experiences, and he explores the rise of new twenty-first-century practices of torture, questioning whether capital punishment, corporal punishment, solitary confinement, and contemporary forms of slavery qualify as torture. Ultimately, Torture offers vital insights for human-rights scholars and professionals as it tries to make the unfathomable more comprehensible and to clarify the causes and dynamics of torture.

Davidson: Toward a Self-Reflexive Law? Narrating Torture's Legality in Human Rights Litigation

Natalie R. Davidson (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) has posted Toward a Self-Reflexive Law? Narrating Torture's Legality in Human Rights Litigation. Here's the abstract:

Scholars of Holocaust trials have emphasised law's potentiality as a tool of physical atrocity, and the part played by liberal trials in obscuring this dark side of legality. That responses to mass atrocity should better acknowledge law's contribution to violence is all the more pressing in light of authoritarian regimes' reliance on courts, and the growing and paradoxical obsession with legal form accompanying widespread violence in the neo-liberal era. If trials of atrocity, intensely publicized and reported upon, do not acknowledge the legality of much violence, we - lawyers and members of the public, including potential perpetrators - might fail to recognise mass atrocity when it is before us, cloaked with legal rationality and familiarity. Yet the principal legal mechanisms used to address mass atrocity, namely domestic and international criminal trials as well as truth commissions, do not appear to expose the legality of violence better than the post-WWII criminal trials. This paper explores the possibility of developing what it terms "self-reflexive law": a mass atrocity trial that could expose the part played by law in violence. It does so by exploring a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. courts against Ferdinand Marcos where at trial law's contribution to violence was made very clear for doctrinal, evidentiary and strategic reasons. Part of a collection of essays on "minor historical jurisprudence," this paper offers a distinct version of such jurisprudence as the attempt to derive normative insights from minor practices within law, here oral trial proceedings.

Carver & Handley: Does Torture Prevention Work?

Richard Carver & Lisa Handley have published Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

In the past three decades, international and regional human rights bodies have developed an ever-lengthening list of measures that states are required to adopt in order to prevent torture. But do any of these mechanisms actually work? This study is the first systematic analysis of the effectiveness of torture prevention. Primary research was conducted in 16 countries, looking at their experience of torture and prevention mechanisms over a 30-year period. Data was analysed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Prevention measures do work, although some are much more effective than others. Most important of all are the safeguards that should be applied in the first hours and days after a person is taken into custody. Notification of family and access to an independent lawyer and doctor have a significant impact in reducing torture. The investigation and prosecution of torturers and the creation of independent monitoring bodies are also important in reducing torture. An important caveat to the conclusion that prevention works is that is actual practice in police stations and detention centres that matters – not treaties ratified or laws on the statute book.

Hamdan: The Principle of Non-Refoulement under the ECHR and the CAT

Eman Hamdan has published The Principle of Non-Refoulement under the ECHR and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Brill | Nijhoff 2016). Here's the abstract:

In this study, Eman Hamdan examines the protection against refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention against Torture, with the aim to determine which of those Conventions affords better protection for international protection seekers. Hamdan explores the scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement under both Conventions and the application of the principle to the immigration control measures and the extraordinary rendition operations.

The author provides a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the case-law of both the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Committee against Torture on the procedural and substantive aspects of the principle of non-refoulement, in order to help practitioners to determine which of these human rights treaty bodies is more favorable for their specific non-refoulement case.

Shue: Fighting Hurt: Rule and Exception in Torture and War

Henry Shue (Univ. of Oxford) has published Fighting Hurt: Rule and Exception in Torture and War (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Some of our most fundamental moral rules are violated by the practices of torture and war. If one examines the concrete forms these practices take, can the exceptions to the rules necessary to either torture or war be justified? Fighting Hurt brings together key essays by Henry Shue on the issue of torture, and relatedly, the moral challenges surrounding the initiation and conduct of war, and features a new introduction outlining the argument of the essays, putting them into context, and describing how and in what ways his position has modified over time. The first six chapters marshal arguments that have been refined over 35 years for the conclusion that torture can never be justified in any actual circumstances whatsoever. The practice of torture has nothing significant in common with the ticking bomb scenario often used in its defence, and weak U.S. statutes have loop-holes for psychological torture of the kind now favoured by CIA in the 'war against terrorism'. The other sixteen chapters maintain that for as long as wars are in fact fought, it is morally urgent to limit specific destructive practices that cannot be prohibited. Two possible exceptions to the UN Charter's prohibition on all but defensive wars, humanitarian military intervention and preventive war to eliminate WMD, are evaluated; and one possible exception to the principle of discrimination, Michael Walzer's 'supreme emergency', is sharply criticized. Two other fundamental issues about the rules for the conduct of war receive extensive controversial treatment. The first is the rules to limit the bombing of dual-use infrastructure, with a focus on alternative interpretations of the principle of proportionality that limits 'collateral damage'. The second is the moral status of the laws of war as embodied in International Humanitarian Law. It is argued that the current philosophical critique of IHL by Jeff McMahan focused on individual moral liability to attack is an intellectual dead-end and that the morally best rules are international laws that are the same for all fighters.

Examining real cases, including U.S. bombing of Iraq in 1991, the Clinton Administration decision not to intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and CIA torture after 9/11 and its alternatives, this book is highly accessible to general readers who are interested in the ethical status of American political life, especially foreign policy.

Creamer & Simmons: Ratification, Reporting and Rights: Quality of Participation in the Convention Against Torture

Cosette Creamer (Harvard Univ. - Government) & Beth A. Simmons (Harvard Univ. - Government) have posted Ratification, Reporting and Rights: Quality of Participation in the Convention Against Torture (Human Rights Quarterly, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The core international human rights treaty bodies play an important role in monitoring implementation of human rights standards through consideration of States parties' reports. Yet very little research explores how seriously governments take their reporting obligations. This article examines the reporting record of parties to the Convention against Torture, finding that report submission is heavily conditioned by the practices of neighboring countries and by a government’s human rights commitment and institutional capacity. This article also introduces original data on the quality and responsiveness of reports, finding that more democratic – and particularly newly democratic – governments tend to render higher quality reports.