Emily Kanstroom: Justifying Torture—
Explaining Democratic States' Noncompliance with International Humanitarian Law

The following abstract was adapted from Emily Kanstroom's full-length paper, which was submitted to The Forum on Education Abroad.

One day a Moroccan girl in one of Emily Kanstroom’s classes at Paris’s renowned Institut d’Études Politiques (Sciences Po) asked how Americans could be proud of their country, given its recent string of disturbing human rights abuses in the War on Terror. Though Emily explained to the class that not all Americans agree with the actions of their government, she was unsatisfied with her own response. The Moroccan girl had a point, she thought. How could the United States—the historically great champion of human rights and democracy—fail to observe international humanitarian law during a war that was set up to deliver it?

Emily had planned on writing her thesis on the U.S. Global War on Terror prior to leaving for France on her Brown University study abroad program. She chose Sciences Po because of her interest in French culture and politics as well as for the international, rigorously intellectual flavor of the institution. Through the connections she made with knowledgeable faculty, students, and institutions, Emily found a wealth of resources specializing in political science, sociology, history and law. When one of her professors suggested that she look into France’s analogous record of human rights protection and violation, Emily finally had her research topic. After returning to Brown, focusing her questions and securing a grant, she returned to France to complete her thesis.

Specifically, Emily compared U.S. noncompliance with international humanitarian law during its Global War on Terror with that of France in the French-Algerian War. “Although the Geneva Conventions banned torture over 50 years ago, compliance is not universal,” she writes. She identifies three main explanations for the disregard for human rights by these two great liberal democracies. These include the state’s perception of the enemy, the belief that the human rights violations will increase security, and the idea that reputation is less vital than the concerns of the conflict. She finds that disregard for international law has varied with direct proportion to how much the states consider their enemies as “uncivilized” or “terrorist.” On the U.S. side, her case studies analyze the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the lack of due process for the detainees in Guantanimo Bay, and other abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Emily, pressure from NGOs and individual activists is crucial in confronting state-justified torture. She hopes that her research will help encourage changes and updates to international humanitarian law. In particular, she notes the need to address the “paradigm of terrorist warfare,” in which states deem that human rights standards do not apply to combatants of terrorist regimes.

“This is not an American problem, nor is it a French problem; it is a systemic failure,” Emily now says. “International humanitarian law in the modern era has not successfully prohibited torture even among the world’s most liberal democracies. This affects every country in the world now.”

 

Q&A with Emily Kanstroom

AV: How did you become interested in international law and human rights?

Emily Kanstroom: My father is an immigration lawyer, and from the time I was a child, I can remember people from all over the world appearing in our living room, asking for his help. When I was 16, I volunteered in a legal clinic designed to help immigrants in detention centers with political asylum claims. From that point on, human rights became a passion. It was at Brown that I gained the academic skills to pursue the research I ultimately completed.

AV: At what point did you focus your research on the French-Algerian War and the U.S. Global War on Terror?

EK: Before I left for France, I had planned to write a thesis about the Global War on Terror, which raged during the four years I spent at Brown, but I did not know from what angle I wanted to tackle the issue. My thesis topic found me one day in class at Sciences Po.

A Moroccan girl in one of my classes asked, "How can anyone be proud to be an American given how badly the country has abused human rights in the past few years?"

The maître de conférence (the French equivalent of an American teaching assistant) asked hesitantly, "Are there any Americans here?"

I raised my hand tentatively. "Yes," I said, my American accent suddenly more pronounced, "I'm an American."

I told her, "Being an American does not mean necessarily agreeing with everything the government decides to do."

But I was as unsatisfied with my answer as she was. I spent the rest of the class wondering-was America different than other countries in its observance of international law? Known as one of the great protectors of human rights, how could abuses like this happen? What could explain this? After class, the professor pulled me aside. He asked me what I knew about the French-Algerian war, and suggested I do some research. He said I might find that America was not the only historically great protector of human rights that also violated the law.

AV: What makes the French-Algerian and U.S. case studies special or particularly illustrative of international humanitarian law (IHL) concerns?

EK: These two case studies are particularly illustrative of IHL concerns, namely noncompliance with the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture, because these are two democracies historically considered among the greatest protectors of human rights, for their actions as well as for the international documents they have signed and supported. The fact that countries with these reputations are committing these types of crimes is grave cause for concern. I was shocked into my thesis topic not only by U.S. actions but by the subsequent, and not at all unfounded, fear that these are not only U.S. actions. This affects every country in the world now. American actions are currently casting a shadow over entire regions of the world that have now passed their own aggressive anti-terror laws leading to grave abuses of human rights.

AV: Describe a typical day of research. What were the most important resources you utilized and how did you discover them?

EK: When I wasn't in classes, I spent much of my time researching. I was immediately discouraged by the major libraries and bookstores that did not have the particularly "inflammatory" books I knew existed from my discussions with professors. An Algerian friend pointed me in the direction of the Institut du Monde Arabe (Institute of the Arab World) where I found a research gold mine. I spent my days there, since the Institute does not circulate many of its resources, making photocopies of pictures of torture, typing translations and citations into my laptop, and noting phrases I did not understand. Later on, I would ask French friends for translation help or to explain certain notions I could not grasp. When I conducted interviews, I would spend days preparing, to make sure I didn't accidentally insult my interviewee by asking an intrusive or poorly phrased question. I tape-recorded and then transcribed each interview. This way I didn't miss a word, and if I didn't understand something I could ask a friend later.

These types of resources have to be discovered. When you embark on this type of research project in a foreign country, no one can provide you with a list of which buildings, archives, libraries, and individuals you will need. I just kept asking. Each person I spoke with, I would ask if they knew anyone or anywhere else I should go.

AV: What difficulties did you face?

EK: It was hard to stay motivated, to keep searching, to look at the pictures of torture, and to listen to interviewees tentatively broach a topic that has, for so long, been silent in France. But I remember sitting in a section of the Institut's archives one day with a book it had taken me weeks to find, falling to the floor as I looked at a particularly disturbing picture and whispering to myself aloud, "This is why I'm doing this." Though there were plenty of moments filled with this type of passion, there were others filled with apathy, annoyance, and an intense desire to drop the whole thing. In the end, the passion won out.

AV: What advice would you give other researchers for keeping their momentum?

EK: The most important thing to realize is when to take a step back, when to leave the library, walk around the glorious city, sit by the river, have coffee in a little café; when to rejoin the world outside the research. I think it's also important to share your research with friends. They can not only talk you through difficult moments but also guide you out of "research mode" and back into "incredible experience in a foreign country" mode. Finding the medium between these two is critical.

AV: How do you hope your research will affect the IHL scene?

EK: I hope that my research will contribute to the effort in countries all over the world for stronger and enforceable humanitarian law. I hope if it reaches those in decision-making capacity in the U.S., it will join in the choir of research papers, books, articles, and speeches telling those in charge that U.S. actions are not only illegal, but are weakening humanitarian law and human rights protection worldwide-a travesty for a country with a proud reputation as a protector of human rights. I hope my research points out that we as an international community have a problem on our collective hands, that torture still exists in the world though international documents banned its use decades ago, and that this torture is being practiced by our most liberal democracies.

AV: How has this experience shaped your future personally?

EK: Before I studied abroad, I felt reliant on my family, friends, and advisers. Studying and researching abroad taught me a kind of independence I'm not sure I would have found elsewhere. It gave me confidence in my ability to adapt and to take care of myself, to create a life somewhere new, to figure things out, and make things work. This feeling is invaluable. I adore Paris and my life here. Two days after I graduated from Brown, I moved back to continue working on human rights issues. I can honestly say that studying abroad and doing this research changed the course of my life, and I couldn't be happier about that!