Talk:United Nations Convention against Torture
|WikiProject Human rights||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject International relations / law|
It would be good to see a list of the nations who have ratified and/or signed the act - does anyone have one? Andrewferrier 21:48, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
Signatories list added
I located a page with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights site explicitly listing the countries signing/ratifying with dates and added it to the external links. I tweaked the description for the external link to the official site for the convention to remove the statement that it includes a list of signatories because the link on the UN site for that doesn't work (you can't get the list using it). - Benjamin Franz (Sun Mar 6 14:18:22 UTC 2005)
Added map of members
Based on the [OHCHR's ratification list] - Idiot Savant (Mon Dec 19 17:00 NZDT 2005)
'Recent history' section
I have deleted the first paragraph of that section. The issue of what constitutes torture is not a settled one, and it is plainly incorrect to state that the ECHR's holding in the Ireland v. United Kingdom judgment, rendered more than thirty years ago, is today's relevant law on torture in Europe. There has been much development by the ECHR in subsequent cases regarding what constitutes and what does not constitute torture.
I do not have time to write this section correctly, but for the time being this article should not tell lies to the readers. If anyone else wishes to get into this, I suggest that that the writer be familiar, at the very least, with the following basic materials:
- The following ECHR cases: Selmouni v. France, Tomasi v. France, Ribitsch v. Austria, Aksoy v. Turkey, Aydin v. Turkey, among others. - The following HRC cases: Estrella v. Uruguay, López Burgos v. Uruguay, Cariboni v. Uruguay, Muteba v. Zaire, among many many others. - The CAT's new General Comment, issued in the session which was recently held. - The following ICTY cases: Furundzija, Celebici, Kunarac, Krnojelac, Kvocka, Mrksic, among others. - The following IACtHR cases: Villagrán Morales v. Guatemala, Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Loayza Tamayo v. Perú, Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Lori Berenson v. Perú, Cantoral Benavides v. Perú, Tibi v. Ecuador. - The reports of the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture. - The book "The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law" by Nigel S. Rodley.
Otherwise, this would be, once again, a superficial paragraph with very obvious imprecisions. If no one does this, I'm willing to write the section in a couple of months.Guillermo Otálora Lozano (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the last paragraph. It makes no sense here. It is obvious that the Convention against torture does not violate any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States. It is also incorrect. The US can go into any treaty. If the Congress (even silently) agrees it comes into force. The US is from then on bound and liable. A country (neither the US) can not avoid international obligations by amending its constitution. It is just the same as in civil law. A corporation can not breach a contract by changing its statutes. I'm sorry to read ever and again the same myopic US nationalistic ramblings about their constitution. Otto (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You may not delete a relevant fact that has a reliable source because your opinion differs. If Ireland v. UK (1979) has been actually overturned or superceeded, please cite a reliable source. Otherwise the present law should remain stated as it actually is. Most laws are thirty years old, the Geneva Convention was signed in 1899, is it expired yet?.
- A treaty cannot come into force "silently" within the US, whatever are you talking about. The US is bound by international law when (1) the US judiciary decides or (2) when the UN Security Council decides. If you want to claim otherwise, get a reliable source first. Of course a "country can avoid international obligations by amending its constitution". The US Supreme Court is the only body that has ever decided such an issue, and the US Supreme Court will follow the US Constitution. The UN Security Council may enforce treaties that are listed with the UN with the US as a signatory. If a treaty does list the US within the UN, only the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction. For your analogy: a corporation may cancel any contract, (but not cancel obligations by it prior to cancellation).
- Your pov may be that you dislike "the same myopic US nationalistic ramblings about their constitution". Too bad. Your opinions are not relevant, the article is about the actual facts. IF you find a reliable source to support your opinions I then encourge you to edit them in, but following the NPOV policy. How much do you know about the US Constitution? THE EU lacks any constitution and so is not a liberal democracy like the US is. The European attitude that constitutions are optional does not represent much of the world and does not reflect the US view. The US is a nation where the rule of law requires the consent of the governed. The Constitution places limits upon governmental authority, this is to deter tyranny. Raggz (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I hate to break it to you, but Europe does have liberal democracies. Read the intro to the article you linked and get back to me. In fact, the US isn't this special entity where only it has a Constitution and nowhere else does. Most countries (European ones and everywhere else too) have one. My country (the UK) is an exception to this.
- Do you disagree with Otto when he says, "It is obvious that the Convention against torture does not violate any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States"? It is true that "a country (neither the US) can not avoid international obligations by amending its constitution." Even if the US decided to amend the constitution to allow torture, the US government could still be tried for war crimes (either by the US itself or by the UN) because they would've broken international obligations. A country's constitution is not some magic fix that allows them to ignore an internationally agreed contract. If they opt out of this UN convention and then torture, then obviously they are not bound by this contract anymore. But since it is obvious the US has been torturing people while signed up to this, then in theory Cheney and co can be tried for war crimes. The only thing that stops it from happening in practice is the political will to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This link: http://www.redress.org/publications/CAT%20Implementation%20paper%2013%20Feb%202006.pdf REDRESS' handbook for states on how to comply with the Convention
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our guidelines since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- SiobhanHansa 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Meaning of numbers following some countries names
In the Signatories of CAT section, without any explanation, some countries have numbers after their names, like "Bosnia and Herzegovina 3", "China 4 , 5", "Croatia 3", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 , 10". What's the meaning behind? --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
USA: Signatory with reservations?
Have seen that USA reserved expressly the right of the CIA to be allowed to perform torture. Since CIA et al has been accused and not denied use of water-boardiing, what is the case here in 1. the first question posed 2. the use of waterboarding and its classification by the Convention Thankful for answers.Idealist707 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)