The (de)legitimation of torture: rhetoric, shaming and narrative contestation in two British cases
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066120950011 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Author | Frank Foley |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120950011
European Journal of
International Relations
2021, Vol. 27(1) 102 –126
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066120950011
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
The (de)legitimation of
torture: rhetoric, shaming
and narrative contestation
in two British cases
Frank Foley
Department of War Studies, King’s College London, UK
Abstract
Existing studies on democracies’ involvement in torture emphasise how governments
have been able to circumvent the international anti-torture norm and shape public
discourse on the issue through powerful rhetorical strategies of denial and exception.
Less attention has been paid, however, to the rhetoric of opponents of torture and how
it impacts on governments and security agencies. This article proposes a typology of
four common arguments against torture, which make use variously of ethical, utilitarian
and ‘shaming’ rhetoric. These arguments often take a narrative form and are extensively
contested by governments. Drawing on the literature on rhetorical coercion, I argue
that anti-torture narratives can play an important role in constraining democratic
states and significantly reducing their perpetration of torture. Yet the multiplicity of
narratives at play opens up opportunities for governments to accept some messages
against torture while simultaneously contesting others in a way which enables them to
continue their involvement in torture. I develop this argument through a comparative
analysis of the role of torture in two British counterterrorism campaigns – against Irish
republican terrorism in the 1970s and against jihadist violence after 9/11. Differences
in the content and salience of the narratives advanced by critics of the government
during the two time periods explain much about why the British government contested
some arguments against torture, but accepted others. This variation helps to explain in
turn why British security agencies carried out coercive interrogations on a wide scale
during the 1970s, while their perpetration of torture was significantly reduced in the
post-9/11 case.
Keywords
Human rights, torture, narrative, constructivism, shaming, counterterrorism
Corresponding author:
Frank Foley, Department of War Studies, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.
Email: frank.foley@kcl.ac.uk
950011EJT0010.1177/1354066120950011European Journal of International RelationsFoley
research-article2020
Article
Foley 103
Torture is a site of intense contestation at the intersection of human rights and security
practice. To torture is to engage in one of the most egregious violations of human dignity.
Yet torture has also long been represented as a useful means of gaining not only intelli-
gence but even ‘truth’ (Wisnewski, 2010). In the face of these contradictions, democratic
governments do not respond consistently. This article seeks to shed light on their varied
approaches to the question of torture through a comparative analysis of two British cases.
Facing Irish terrorism during the 1970s, the UK’s security agencies carried out coercive
interrogations on a wide scale. In their campaign against jihadist violence after 9/11, by
comparison, there was a significant reduction in the British agencies’ perpetration of
coercive interrogation, although they did collude in torture by foreign intelligence ser-
vices. Why does the extent of British involvement in torture vary between the two
campaigns?
In addressing this question, I develop a theoretical analysis of anti-torture narratives
and government efforts to contest them – a rhetorical struggle referred to here as the ‘(de)
legitimation’ of torture. The article introduces insights from the literatures on rhetoric
and ‘shaming’ in International Relations (IR) to understand the dynamics of torture dis-
course. A central focus is on the role of ‘rhetorical coercion’ in this area; in other words,
the strategic use of language for the purpose of denying an opponent sufficient ‘rhetori-
cal materials. . . to craft a socially sustainable rebuttal’ (Krebs and Jackson, 2007: 42).
One type of rhetorical coercion is ‘shaming’ which involves condemning a target actor
for violating its own international commitments with a view to motivating a change in
the target’s behaviour (Friman, 2015; Schimmelfennig, 2001). This article proposes a
typology of four common anti-torture narratives, which make use variously of ethical,
utilitarian and shaming rhetoric. It also analyses the effects of each narrative on rhetori-
cal struggles over coercive interrogation. I argue that under certain conditions, anti-tor-
ture narratives can play an important role in constraining democratic states and
significantly reducing their perpetration of torture. Yet the multiplicity of narratives at
play opens opportunities for target governments to engage in strategic rhetorical manoeu-
vres – to accept some messages against torture while simultaneously contesting others in
a way which enables them to continue their involvement in torture.
Applying this framework to the British cases, the article examines the efforts of vari-
ous actors to shame and rhetorically coerce the UK government for its involvement in
torture during the 1970s and 2000s. It outlines how these actors deployed four key anti-
torture narratives in the two time periods and accounts for why their efforts had little
impact in the 1970s but proved more influential in the post-9/11 case. The authority of
the accuser and the clarity of the standard of legitimacy invoked both contributed to this
variation. But, more importantly, it was differences in the content and salience of the
narratives advanced by critics of torture, which led to a different configuration of pre-
vailing narratives within the government in the two cases. In the second (post 9/11) case,
both ‘shaming’ messages and narratives depicting the strategic ineffectiveness of torture
proved difficult for British officials to dismiss and indeed were embraced by many within
the government in a way that imposed significant constraints on interrogation practices.
Yet officials proved more resistant to two other narratives, which focused on the ethical
impermissibility and tactical ineffectiveness of torture. Attitudes within the government
on these fundamental issues essentially did not change and, in this context, officials
To continue reading
Request your trial