Eroding the Absolute: Reinterpretation, Weakened Oversight, and the Normalisation of Exceptionalism in Prohibition against Torture

The UN Convention against Torture strictly prohibits torture defined as intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental pain for information, punishment, or intimidation stating no exceptional circumstances, including war or public emergencies, justify its use.  However, the post-9/11 "war on terror" has severely challenged this absolute prohibition. States, particularly the U.S., have increasingly justified coercive practices under the guise of national security, effectively creating implied exceptions to international standards.  This paper analyzes how counterterrorism efforts and policies have eroded the Convention's legal protections. It examines specific instances of this shift, assesses the resulting damage to the broader international human rights framework, and highlights the global risks posed as more states adopt similar national security justifications to circumvent fundamental rights.