Abstract
Abstract This chapter analyzes national and international legal materials to consider the viability of the ‘defence of necessity’ (DoN) as legal grounds for torturing in a ticking bomb situation. As the chapter explains, in order to provide such grounds the DoN would have to be shown as constituting, at least potentially, an uncapped ‘choice of evils’ justificatory defence. While there is a narrow theoretical scope for interpreting the DoN in England and the USA as having these characteristics, German and other legal systems ‘cap’ it, placing absolute restraints on ‘lesser evil’ calculations. Exempting torturing interrogators from criminal liability using the DoN violates states' international legal obligations to prevent and punish torture. In international criminal law, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ‘defence of necessity’ is conflated with that of duress, and its availability is closely linked to the unavailability of justifications for acts such as torture.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
