The development of extraterritorial human rights safeguards as a strategic tool in foreign policy-making : American, German, and British approaches towards the international prohibition of torture since 9/11

Abstract

Why do powerful states introduce human right protections to foreigners abroad and thus commit to principles that they have previously repeatedly violated in the past? Since 2001, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Germany, alongside various other states, determinedly engaged in a fight against terrorism, in order to not only bring Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to justice, but to also prevent any attacks similar to 9/11 from happening again. Yet, while continuously condemning the terrorist groups’ behavior, the states’ own conduct often stood in a stark contrast to their obligations under humanitarian law and the international human rights regime: Breaches of the right to privacy, the right to be free from torture, and the right to life are only a few examples of the numerous human rights violations committed during Western counterterrorism operations. While the harm of such policies, in particular the infamous US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Detention and Interrogation Program, has received considerable attention, little research has analyzed the reasoning behind the eventual development of corresponding protection provisions for afflicted foreigners abroad. In exemplifying respective processes by scrutinizing the evolution of American, British, and German commitments to the Convention against Torture (CAT) and by offering some complementary insights into similar US safeguards against mass surveillance and targeted killings, this dissertation provides a multi-dimensional analysis of the drive and motivation behind each state’s respective counterterrorist policy-making. By scrutinizing why such safeguards form in different national contexts, this thesis provides further insight into how Western countries, despite their relative power and influence, can still be held accountable for their violations of the human rights of those “beyond” their official jurisdiction.