Corporal punishment, including torture and degrading treatment, has been a long-standing issue within armed forces around the world. While military discipline is vital for maintaining order and structure within the ranks, the fine line between lawful military practices and violations of fundamental human rights often becomes blurred. The use of corporal punishment, particularly when it crosses into torture or degrading treatment, raises profound ethical and legal concerns. This article explores the relationship between international law, corporal punishment, and human rights violations in the military context, with particular focus on the practice of torture and degrading treatment.
International law plays a significant role in protecting human rights, including those of military personnel, both in peacetime and during conflict. Various treaties and conventions, particularly the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Geneva Conventions, have established clear standards for the treatment of individuals within the military. These legal instruments are designed to ensure that even in military settings, individuals are protected from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), adopted in 1984, is a cornerstone of international human rights law. The treaty explicitly prohibits torture, defining it as any act where severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person to extract information, punish, intimidate, or coerce. Article 2 of the CAT clearly states that no exceptional circumstances—whether in times of war, political instability, or any other public emergency—can justify the use of torture. This means that even in military settings, where discipline is often enforced through force, torture and degrading treatment are strictly prohibited under international law.
In addition to the CAT, the Geneva Conventions further strengthen protections for individuals in the military, particularly during armed conflicts. The Third Geneva Convention specifically addresses the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), ensuring that they are treated humanely, without threat of physical abuse or violence. Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the use of torture or any form of degrading treatment of POWs. The Fourth Geneva Convention extends these protections to civilians, mandating that military forces treat all individuals with respect and dignity, regardless of their status. Violations of these provisions are considered war crimes, subject to prosecution in international courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Despite these international legal protections, corporal punishment has remained a practice within many military institutions around the world. Historically, corporal punishment was widely used to enforce discipline among soldiers, including physical punishments such as flogging, caning, or other forms of corporal correction. While these methods were once considered acceptable means of maintaining order, they have increasingly come under scrutiny due to their potential to violate human dignity and inflict lasting harm on individuals.
The impact of corporal punishment on soldiers is far-reaching. Physical punishments can cause severe injuries, but the psychological effects are often more damaging. Soldiers subjected to corporal punishment may suffer from trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. The sense of humiliation and loss of dignity caused by such treatment can undermine a soldier’s morale and loyalty, both to their comrades and their superiors. These effects not only harm the individual soldier but can also have broader implications for the cohesion and effectiveness of the military as a whole.
Corporal punishment often crosses the line into torture or degrading treatment, especially when it is used in extreme cases. International law clearly distinguishes between lawful punishment and torture. Torture involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, often for punitive or coercive purposes, whereas degrading treatment, while not as extreme as torture, still humiliates or diminishes a person’s dignity. In recent years, numerous cases of military personnel using corporal punishment as a form of discipline have led to international condemnation. For instance, a viral video showing an army officer publicly flogging a soldier highlighted the persistence of corporal punishment in certain military ranks. Such actions are clear violations of both national laws and international human rights standards, demonstrating the need for greater accountability within military institutions.
Addressing the issue of corporal punishment within the military requires holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. International law provides mechanisms for investigating and prosecuting violations, particularly through the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, including the use of torture and degrading treatment by military personnel. If a soldier or officer is found guilty of violating international law by inflicting torture or degrading treatment, they can be prosecuted by the ICC. In addition to international legal mechanisms, national courts—both military and civilian—have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute human rights violations within their armed forces. However, enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly in countries where military regimes or weak judicial systems hinder the prosecution of offenders.
In order to prevent corporal punishment and ensure accountability, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Countries must implement robust training programs within their military institutions that emphasize the importance of human rights and the legal obligations of military personnel. Soldiers must be educated not only about the legal consequences of torture and degrading treatment but also about the psychological and ethical harm caused to victims. Furthermore, independent oversight bodies, such as human rights commissions or military ombudsman offices, should be empowered to monitor and investigate incidents of abuse, ensuring that any violations are promptly addressed.
The use of corporal punishment, torture, and degrading treatment within the military remains a significant challenge for international human rights law. While global conventions like the CAT and the Geneva Conventions provide a framework for protecting individuals from such abuses, the implementation of these laws remains inconsistent across different countries and military institutions. As the international community pushes for greater accountability, it is essential to continue scrutinizing military practices and advocating for reforms that prioritize human dignity and prevent torture and degrading treatment. Only through comprehensive legal, institutional, and cultural reforms can the practice of corporal punishment within the military be eradicated, ensuring that the rights of all individuals—whether soldiers or civilians—are upheld during both peacetime and conflict.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
