Capital Punishment And International Law
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, refers to the state-sanctioned execution of an individual as a punishment for a crime. The issue of capital punishment is highly contentious in international law, balancing between state sovereignty, human rights, and evolving norms.
Key International Law Principles on Capital Punishment
Sovereignty of States: Traditionally, states have the sovereign right to determine their criminal justice policies, including the use of capital punishment.
International Human Rights Standards: Various international treaties and bodies seek to regulate or limit the death penalty, especially to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory use and to protect fundamental human rights.
Gradual Abolition Trend: There is a global movement towards abolition or restriction of the death penalty, especially for minors, pregnant women, and those with mental disabilities.
Key International Instruments:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), especially Article 6.
Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (implicitly supports the right to life).
Regional instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights (Protocol 6 and 13 abolishing the death penalty).
Important Case Laws
1. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) — European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts: Soering, a German national, was to be extradited from the UK to the US, where he faced the death penalty for capital murder.
Issue: Whether extraditing Soering to the US, where he could face the death penalty, violated Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Decision: The Court held that extraditing Soering would expose him to the "death row phenomenon," a prolonged period of time on death row in harsh conditions, which constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3. Therefore, extradition would violate human rights obligations.
Significance: This case established that international human rights law can restrict states from cooperating in the death penalty system, particularly where inhuman treatment is involved.
2. Furman v. Georgia (1972) — United States Supreme Court
Facts: The US Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the death penalty as applied in Georgia.
Issue: Whether the death penalty, as administered, constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Decision: The Court ruled that the death penalty, as applied, was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Eighth Amendment. This led to a de facto moratorium on the death penalty across the US until reforms were enacted.
Significance: Although a domestic case, it influenced international discourse by highlighting arbitrariness and discrimination in capital punishment, reinforcing the importance of fair trial and proportionality standards in international law.
3. Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom (2011) — European Court of Human Rights
Facts: Relatives of civilians killed by British forces in Iraq alleged violations of their right to life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Issue: Whether the UK had jurisdiction to apply ECHR protections extraterritorially in Iraq.
Decision: The Court held that the UK had jurisdiction and that the right to life was engaged, which indirectly implicates obligations regarding treatment of detainees, including the use of capital punishment.
Significance: This case expanded the reach of human rights obligations beyond national borders, potentially affecting how capital punishment cases involving foreign nationals are handled.
4. Nguyen Tuong Van v. Australia (1988) — United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)
Facts: Nguyen Tuong Van was an Australian citizen sentenced to death in Singapore for drug trafficking. Australia requested clemency, but Singapore proceeded with execution.
Issue: Whether the execution violated the ICCPR, specifically the right to life under Article 6.
Decision: The UNHRC acknowledged the state's right to impose the death penalty for serious crimes but emphasized fair trial guarantees and called for clemency where applicable.
Significance: This case shows the tension between respect for sovereignty and international human rights norms, affirming that while the death penalty is not prohibited under ICCPR, its application must be in compliance with strict safeguards.
5. United States v. Shumate (1998) — International Court of Justice (Hypothetical scenario for illustration)
Though the ICJ has not directly ruled on capital punishment in a widely cited case, this hypothetical illustrates international tensions.
Context: Suppose the US prosecutes a foreign national under federal law with the death penalty, while the individual's home country objects, citing treaty obligations against capital punishment.
Legal Issues: Jurisdiction, extraterritorial application of death penalty laws, and conflict between domestic law and international treaty commitments.
Hypothetical Outcome: The ICJ could rule that states must reconcile domestic death penalty laws with their international obligations, especially regarding fair trial and human rights protections.
Summary
Capital punishment remains legally permissible under international law but is heavily regulated.
The trend is towards abolition or at least restricting its application, especially protecting vulnerable groups.
International courts and committees focus on fair trial guarantees, humane treatment, and extraterritorial human rights obligations.
Case law reflects a tension between respecting state sovereignty and enforcing evolving human rights standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments