Interpretations and Reservations to the Convention Against Torture

We will come back to this issue when we get to Human Rights. But yesterday the New York Times reported that lawyers for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies are pressing the Obama Administration to affirm a George W. Bush era interpretation of the International Convention Against Torture (CAT) that limits the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID) to the territory of the state party. President Obama had himself rejected that interpretation as a Senator, and an Executive Order he issued in his first term prohibits torture and CID both at home and abroad.

There were excellent blog posts on Just Security both yesterday and today analyzing the purpose and intent, language, context, and drafting history of the CAT, as well as the reservations declared by the U.S. at the time of ratification. The posts explain that the treaty is clearly intended to and does impose obligations with respect to conduct in any territory under the jurisdiction of the state party, and that the reservations do not alter this fact. As well, one of the posts discusses why American government lawyers might be pressing for this restrictive interpretation.

Aside from the importance of the substantive issue of torture, it is an excellent review of the issue of treaty interpretation, the operation of reservations, and even some aspects of jurisdiction. Please take the time to read these.