A Zemiology of Torturous Violence and the Limits of Law

Abstract Social and legislative responses to torture remain dominated by legal definitions and debates around what constitutes ‘torture’. Although narratives are progressing contemporarily, the fact remains that definitions of torture continue to be situated in the narrow confines of the United Nations Convention against Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This article argues that the implications of this is a sidelining of survivor needs when people are subjected to forms of violence that fall beyond narrow definitions, but impact in ways which parallel the severity and intensity of torture. By focussing on bordering processes as a case study, two key issues are exposed. Firstly, that the intensification and militarization of bordering enable the infliction of torture and torturous violence; and secondly, by employing a zemiological lens, we can more meaningfully examine impacts of multifarious forms of torturous violence and their relationship with wider avoidable social harms in the aftermath of such abuses.