NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: THE CHALLENGES ARISEN FROM TERRORISM

inhuman, or degrading treatments. National security. ‘The debate over the use of torture goes back many years, with Bentham supporting it in a limited category of cases, Kant opposing it as part of his categorical imperative against improperly using people as means for achieving noble ends, and Voltaire’s views on the matter being ‘hopelessly confused’’1. The question of torture, once thought settled and closed as a normative matter (despite its ongoing practice in the world), became newly relevant in a domestic and international context in the past few years. In this sense, Peter King, the Chairman of the Committee Homeland Security (United States), stated in 2006 that “If we capture Bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out where the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it. ” Such a statement requires a deep consideration on whether such ‘treatment ’ (intended to save the lives of future victims of terrorist attacks) is consistent with the principles and norms of international human rights law, and explain what ‘remedies ’ would be available to Bin Laden before international human rights institutions. Therefore, first a discussion about whether ‘holding one’s head under the water’ is considered torture, or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment must take place. Secondly, the principles and norms of international human rights law regarding the subject shall be clarified and finally the remedies available before international human rights institutions will be explored. Additionally, a brief discussion on whether the use o