Ticking Bomb Cases Delegitimizing the State of Israel?
PUUKKO, SUSANNA (2013)
Tässä tietueessa ei ole kokotekstiä saatavilla Treposta, ainoastaan metadata.
PUUKKO, SUSANNA
2013
Valtio-oppi - Political Science
Johtamiskorkeakoulu - School of Management
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2013-05-31Tiivistelmä
The question of torture as an interdisciplinary topic is important. Torture is contrary to every international law, but it is still internationally widespread and growing. Most of the utilitarian academics agree on that torture disrespects human dignity and on that it is theoretically always wrong. Yet, an absolute ban on torture is practically and morally untenable, when as outlawing torture sets unrealistic standards which cannot be met in catastrophic circumstances, such as in the ticking bomb cases.
The state of Israel is not the central violator of international laws in terms of torture, but it is one of the only states that have openly confronted the debate on torture. Since 1999 the Israeli High Court of Justice allowed the use of certain interrogation methods in ticking bomb cases that constitute torture under the international laws. This thesis offers a utilitarian analysis of torture in ticking bomb cases in Israel in terms of normative-legal findings related to the international laws, the Israeli case law, and other documents.
According to this thesis, utilitarian aim to maximize happiness in ticking bomb cases is directly related to political and legal legitimation. The use of torture in ticking bomb cases can be justified only if it entails political obligations and values that are realized. Interestingly, utilitarian discussion on torture in ticking bomb cases has categorically disregarded the fact of political and legal legitimation, even though some utilitarian academics, such as Dershowitz and Shue, have referred to it with relatively few quotes.
Therefore, this thesis aims to define if torture in ticking bomb cases delegitimizes the state of Israel, when torture is legally justified de jure in the Israeli case law, but ignored by the question of political and legal legitimation de facto. This thesis presents that Israeli laws on torture are not thoroughly politically and legally justified since the functions of the state of Israel are controversial in terms of legal praxis. It presents that justified laws on torture should be politically and legally legitimate to maximize happiness in utilitarian terms.
The state of Israel, and many other states that are using torture, are not totally legitimate in the torture debate. In order to be politically and legally legitimate, they should entail virtues, moral and ethical obligations on decision-making in torture debate. In reality, these intangible aspects of happiness should be used as a principal instrument of policy to increase moral demand in torture debate, when politics is profoundly combining ethics to decision-making and when the decision of a state whether to torture is a choice of political and legal identity.
The state of Israel is not the central violator of international laws in terms of torture, but it is one of the only states that have openly confronted the debate on torture. Since 1999 the Israeli High Court of Justice allowed the use of certain interrogation methods in ticking bomb cases that constitute torture under the international laws. This thesis offers a utilitarian analysis of torture in ticking bomb cases in Israel in terms of normative-legal findings related to the international laws, the Israeli case law, and other documents.
According to this thesis, utilitarian aim to maximize happiness in ticking bomb cases is directly related to political and legal legitimation. The use of torture in ticking bomb cases can be justified only if it entails political obligations and values that are realized. Interestingly, utilitarian discussion on torture in ticking bomb cases has categorically disregarded the fact of political and legal legitimation, even though some utilitarian academics, such as Dershowitz and Shue, have referred to it with relatively few quotes.
Therefore, this thesis aims to define if torture in ticking bomb cases delegitimizes the state of Israel, when torture is legally justified de jure in the Israeli case law, but ignored by the question of political and legal legitimation de facto. This thesis presents that Israeli laws on torture are not thoroughly politically and legally justified since the functions of the state of Israel are controversial in terms of legal praxis. It presents that justified laws on torture should be politically and legally legitimate to maximize happiness in utilitarian terms.
The state of Israel, and many other states that are using torture, are not totally legitimate in the torture debate. In order to be politically and legally legitimate, they should entail virtues, moral and ethical obligations on decision-making in torture debate. In reality, these intangible aspects of happiness should be used as a principal instrument of policy to increase moral demand in torture debate, when politics is profoundly combining ethics to decision-making and when the decision of a state whether to torture is a choice of political and legal identity.