كليدواژه :
Human Rights , Torture , Prison , International Law , Guantanamo Bay , Abu Ghraib
چكيده فارسي :
Over the past few years, two events have radically transformed American identity and global perceptions of America with respect to human rights. The first of these is the detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay and the second is the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This paper considers how Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have altered the intellectual and popular perceptions of human rights in America and abroad. The paper argues that the very different reactions to these events in the US and abroad suggest a move toward a relativist view of human rights in the US, limited by necessity and legality, but a universalist approach to human rights abroad. Moving toward a common global understanding of necessity and legality is critical to the pursuit of universal human rights. The reactions to Guantanamo indicate a growing acceptance in the United States of a relative conception of human rights. In the winter and spring of 2003, United States military forces at Abu Ghraib prison committed a range of often gruesome violations of Iraqi prisoners. When news and images of these abuses reached the media, the reaction in the United States was one of moral outrage and widespread condemnation. However, outside the United States, the reactions to both Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have been equally condemnatory and deemed violations of fundamental human rights. These international reactions are indicative of a growing universalist approach to human rights in the rest of the world and radically different perceptions of necessity and legality of human rights infringements. The critical distinctions between the reactions to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are based on the perceived necessity and supposed legality of the actions. The paper argues that resolving the differences over necessity and legality of human rights infringements is a necessary step in the pursuit of universal human rights and that the two events may provide insight into a shared understanding of necessity and legality. The first part of this paper tracks US reactions to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in law, politics, and culture, suggesting a move toward a relativist perception of human rights, based on conceptions of necessity and legality. Part II looks to international reactions to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, suggesting that both have reinforced a universalist approach to human rights, rooted in very different understandings of necessity and legality. Part III explores both the international law and popular perceptions of the concept of necessity in an effort to explain the different reactions in the US and abroad and to offer insight into a common understanding of the term. The paper concludes by arguing that a move toward universal human rights in the post 9/11 era will require greater consensus in the US and abroad in both the law and popular perceptions of necessity in restricting human rights.
