Description
This paper analyses the links between the production of knowledge on human rights violations and broader contestation around security, counterterrorism and human rights. While research on norm contestation has produced important findings on the strength of global norms, I argue that this literature would benefit from a greater focus on degrees of contestation (not types) and how states often seek to avoid substantive contestation around ‘strong’ jus cogens norms such as the prohibition of torture. The paper suggests that an analysis of the political struggle for the command of credible information on human rights is necessary for a fuller understanding of norm contestation dynamics. This argument is developed though an analysis of human rights organisations’ efforts to highlight Spain’s use of torture during its campaign against the Basque militant group, ETA. In response, Spanish officials used denial and what I call ‘inverse shaming’ to undermine the credibility of their accusers. The analysis shows how these rhetorical moves can effectively impoverish public debate on torture and enable the continuation of human rights violations. The paper demonstrates that (non)knowledge production and different degrees of contestation have important implications for human rights, counterterrorism and the relative strength of international norms in diverse local contexts.
