Hubbry Logo
Indefinite detentionIndefinite detentionMain
Open search
Indefinite detention
Community hub
Indefinite detention
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Indefinite detention
Indefinite detention
Indefinite detention
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency for an indefinite amount of time without a trial. The Human Rights Watch considers this practice as violating national and international laws, particularly human rights laws, although it remains in legislation in various liberal democracies.[1]

In recent years, governments have indefinitely incarcerated individuals suspected of terrorism, often in black sites, sometimes declaring them enemy combatants – a notable example being the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[2] Formalized forms of indefinite detention also exist in some countries around the world in the form of government-mandated administrative detention.[3]

Views by country

[edit]

While laws that allow indefinite detention are present in many countries, including liberal democracies, human rights groups hold unfavorable views towards the practice.[1][4]

Australia

[edit]
Main article: Immigration detention in Australia

In Australia, indefinite detention is unlawful and violates the Constitution.[5]

In 1992, in the case of Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, the High Court of Australia ruled that detention by the government can only be used to punish crimes.[6] However, it found exceptions for non-citizens and possibly during non-peacetime.

In 1994, indefinite detention was introduced for Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian refugees; previous laws had imposed a 273-day limit.[7] The constitutional validity of this was challenged in the 2004 case of Al-Kateb v Godwin. It found that the indefinite detention of a stateless person is lawful.[8] In 2023, this position was overruled in the case of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration.[5] Instead, the High Court of Australia held that the indefinite detention of stateless persons is unlawful. Detention prior to deportation is only permitted when there are real prospects of successful deportation.[9]

China

[edit]

Human rights groups claim a history of forced labour, arbitrary arrest, and detention of minority groups, including Falun Gong members, Tibetans, Muslim minorities, political prisoners and other groups in the People's Republic of China.[10][11] Notably, since at least 2017, more than one million Uyghurs and other minorities have been overwhelmingly detained without trial for the purposes of a "people's war on terror".[12][13] In the case of the Falun Gong in particular, there have been claims of extraordinary abuses of human rights in concentration camps, including organ harvesting and systematic torture.[14]

Israel

[edit]
Main article: Palestinian prisoners in Israel § Administrative detention
Further information: Criticism of Israel

It was reported in July 2016 by Haaretz that 651 Palestinians were in Israeli jails without having been given due process, and that the number of Palestinians being detained in Israel without trial was on the rise.[15] In October 2021, it was reported that Israel's Police Commissioner, Kobi Shabtai, was personally pushing for the use of detentions without trial, or "administrative detentions," by the Shin Bet security service to police Israel’s Arab communities.[16]

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem reported that as of December 2024, Israeli authorities held 3,327 Palestinians in administrative detention, 1,881 Palestinians as illegal combatants, and 2,323 Palestinians under detention until the conclusion of legal proceedings.[17]

Malaysia

[edit]

The Internal Security Act, enacted in 1960, allowed indefinite detention without trial for two years, with further extensions as needed. It was repealed in 2012 amid public pressure for political reform. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was introduced in March 2015 after a series of terrorist acts were committed in Malaysia. POTA allows authorities to detain terrorism suspects without trial but stipulates that no person is to be arrested for their political beliefs or activities.[18][19][20]

Singapore

[edit]
Main article: Internal Security Act (Singapore)

In Singapore, the Internal Security Act allows the government to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals who pose a threat to national security. It is often used in the context of terrorism, particularly when concerning individuals who are about to engage in Islamic terrorism or hold Islamic extremist views.[21] Opposition politician Chia Thye Poh was held under the Internal Security Act for 23 years from 1966 to 1989, followed by 9 more years of house arrest until 1997, for a total of 32 years without trial or charge.[22]

Switzerland

[edit]

In Switzerland, local laws related to 'dangerousness' can be invoked to incarcerate persons without charge. This was controversially effected in the case of Egyptian refugee Mohamed El Ghanem, who was detained without trial for years for refusing to spy on Muslim community leaders in Geneva.[23]

Thailand

[edit]

Arnon Nampa was detained without trial in 2020 for 6 days, but after Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha declared to use all laws, including lese majeste, against the protesters in November 2020. He had been detained for 110 days in the first round of remanding. Since 2023, Arnon Nampa has been serving a four year prison sentence.[24]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2004, the House of Lords ruled that indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects under Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 violated the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] Under Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the detention of a terrorism suspect may be prolonged upon application of a warrant for further detention by a Crown prosecutor (in England and Wales), the Director of Public Prosecutions (in Northern Ireland), the Lord Advocate or procurator fiscal (in Scotland), or a police superintendent (in any part of the United Kingdom).[25] The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 also allows for indefinite detention as a maximum penalty.

United States

[edit]

In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants,[26] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[27] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[28][29][30][31]

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens, leading to criticism that the right of habeas corpus had been undermined.[32][33] The House of Representatives and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011, and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[34] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[35] The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."[36]

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[37] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[38][39][40][41][42] In September 2012, the Obama administration called on the federal appeals court to reverse the "dangerous" ruling of the lower court, supporting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and arguing that the rule was so vague that it could be used against US citizens and journalists.[43] On July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The appellate court ruled that "plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre-enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction ruling that the American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President's authority to detain American citizens.[44] The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case.[45]

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate[46] reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act after amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of U.S. citizens were defeated in both chambers.[47] On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Indefinite detention

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Indefinite detention is the state practice of confining individuals without a predetermined duration or criminal , predicated on preventive rationales to avert future threats rather than retribution for committed offenses, and applied in domains such as , , and armed conflict. This form of custody contrasts with punitive by lacking a fixed sentence tied to judicial findings of guilt, instead hinging continuation on ongoing assessments of , such as inability to effect removal in immigration cases or persistence of hostilities in wartime scenarios. In legal frameworks, indefinite detention has been curtailed in specific contexts by judicial oversight; for instance, the U.S. in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) ruled that post-removal-order detention of non-citizens presumptively exceeds six months absent special justification, interpreting statutes to avoid constitutional conflicts. Similarly, under , security internment during non-international armed conflicts permits prolonged holding only with regular reviews to confirm necessity, as prolonged unchecked detention risks violating protections against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Controversies center on empirical tensions between security imperatives—where empirical data on recidivism among released high-risk detainees underscores preventive utility—and documented psychological harms from extended isolation, alongside debates over procedural safeguards like access, which courts have mandated for U.S. enemy combatants to balance liberty and national defense. While proponents cite causal links to reduced escapes and attacks, critics highlight systemic overreach in implementations like prolonged holds, prompting statutory reforms and international scrutiny under covenants prohibiting arbitrary detention.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Indefinite detention constitutes the prolonged custody of individuals by state authorities without a predetermined release date, criminal charges, or of guilt through . This practice typically occurs when governments determine that immediate release would endanger public safety, , or administrative processes, such as during ongoing hostilities or unresolved deportation logistics. Unlike fixed-term following conviction or temporary with time limits, indefinite detention lacks a defined endpoint, relying instead on periodic reviews or external events like conflict cessation for potential resolution. In contexts, the scope encompasses the of enemy combatants or suspected terrorists captured in armed conflicts, authorized under to neutralize threats until they no longer exist, potentially spanning the conflict's duration without trial. For instance, the Third Geneva Convention permits detention of prisoners of war for security reasons without fixed terms, provided humane treatment and reviews are maintained. Domestically, frameworks like Section 1021 of the U.S. for Fiscal Year 2012 codify authority to detain non-citizens (and potentially citizens) affiliated with groups like until the end of hostilities, as determined by executive certification rather than judicial timeline. This extends to administrative certifications of threat, bypassing traditional criminal for operational necessities in . Within , indefinite detention applies to non-citizens pending removal whose faces barriers, such as uncooperative home countries or lack of documents, leading to custody without foreseeable end post-final removal orders. In the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act permits such detention, but the in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) ruled it presumptively unconstitutional beyond six months if removal is not significantly likely, mandating release under supervision otherwise; however, during removal proceedings, Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018) upheld statutory authority for detention without mandatory bond hearings, allowing potentially extended periods absent congressional or regulatory limits. This scope affects tens of thousands annually, with data showing increases in post-order detentions lacking removal prospects, particularly amid diplomatic hurdles. Internationally, similar practices arise under asylum or migration controls, though instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights emphasize necessity and proportionality to avoid arbitrariness.

Distinction from Preventive and Administrative Detention

Preventive detention is authorized to avert anticipated criminal behavior by individuals deemed a danger to the community, typically within frameworks that impose temporal constraints and judicial oversight. In the United States, for example, federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 permits only after a judicial hearing establishing clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or danger, with detention limited to the pendency of proceedings, which are governed by requirements averaging under 100 days from to disposition. This contrasts with indefinite detention, which eschews fixed endpoints or routine procedural ties to , often extending until subjective conditions like threat neutralization or cessation of hostilities are deemed met, as seen in the prolonged holding of alien enemy combatants under the Authorization for Use of Military Force without statutory release timelines. Administrative detention, by contrast, serves non-criminal regulatory purposes such as ensuring compliance with laws or public order, executed via executive or administrative orders rather than judicial warrants, yet it incorporates presumptive duration caps and review mechanisms to forestall permanence. Under U.S. , post-removal-order detention is confined to a 90-day removal period, extended only if removal remains foreseeable; the in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) ruled that beyond approximately six months, continued custody violates absent special justifications, mandating supervised release otherwise. Similarly, in security contexts like Israel's of occupied territories, administrative orders are initially capped at six months but renewable upon periodic judicial confirmation of ongoing necessity, providing structured intervals absent in pure indefinite regimes. Indefinite detention diverges by lacking these embedded review cadences or feasibility-based endpoints, prioritizing executive discretion in high-stakes security scenarios where administrative goals may prove unattainable indefinitely, such as repatriation to hostile states. While overlaps exist—particularly where administrative or preventive measures extend through repeated renewals—the core distinction lies in indefinite detention's structural openness to perpetual confinement without mandatory protocols, rendering it more susceptible to prolonged liberty deprivations untethered from empirical progress toward resolution. permits (a form of ) during armed conflict until hostilities conclude, which can mimic indefiniteness, but emphasizes individualized threat assessments and proportionality absent in broader indefinite practices. Empirical data from U.S. post-Zadvydas shows average detention durations under 60 days for most cases, underscoring administrative bounds that indefinite security detentions routinely exceed.

Historical Development

Early Precedents in Warfare and

In the laws of preceding modern codifications like the , enemy combatants captured during hostilities were routinely detained without trial or fixed release date, with retention justified by the need to prevent their return to the until the cessation of active conflict. This practice, rooted in customary international norms, allowed for potentially prolonged holding periods contingent on the war's duration, as evidenced by historical detentions during extended European conflicts where exchanges or paroles were not always feasible. Such detention served a preventive function, neutralizing threats without immediate judicial process, though durations varied and were generally shorter than some contemporary examples due to logistical constraints and diplomatic pressures. Colonial powers adapted similar internment strategies against insurgent populations to disrupt guerrilla support networks, marking early large-scale applications beyond formal prisoner-of-war status. In during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and intensified under Spanish General in 1896, the reconcentración policy forcibly relocated rural civilians—estimated at over 1.5 million people—into guarded fortified towns, where they were held under military control without specified release terms to isolate rebels from food and intelligence supplies. Non-compliance resulted in , and camp conditions led to approximately 100,000 to 400,000 deaths from starvation, disease, and exposure by 1898, demonstrating the policy's role in administrative control rather than punitive sentencing. A parallel precedent emerged in the British Empire's response to Boer commandos in the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), where from late 1900 onward, over 150,000 Boer civilians, primarily women and children, were interned in 45 white and 66 black concentration camps across to deny sustenance to irregular fighters. Detainees faced indefinite confinement without trial, dependent on the war's progress or oaths of allegiance for release, with mortality rates reaching 28,000 in white camps alone—over 20% of interned —attributed to inadequate sanitation, overcrowding, and supply shortages. These measures, while framed as protective segregation, exemplified colonial use of mass to enforce submission in asymmetric conflicts, influencing later frameworks despite their high human cost.

20th Century Internments and World Wars

During , several belligerent nations implemented policies targeting enemy aliens, often without fixed release dates, effectively rendering detentions indefinite pending the war's outcome or individual assessments of loyalty. In Britain, following the Aliens Restriction Act of and subsequent policy shifts, approximately 32,440 civilian internees—primarily German and Austro-Hungarian males of military age—were held by November 1915 in camps such as those on the Isle of Man and in mainland facilities, with releases occurring sporadically but most enduring until the in November 1918. , after entering the war in 1917, authorities registered over 480,000 German enemy aliens and interned about 6,300 deemed high-risk in facilities like , where detention lacked trial provisions and continued for the war's duration unless parole was granted based on perceived non-threat status. These measures were justified as preventive security against , though empirical evidence of widespread by internees remained scant. World War II saw expanded internment practices among Allied powers, frequently indefinite in scope due to reliance on executive discretion rather than judicial timelines. In the United States, , issued by President on February 19, 1942, authorized the exclusion and internment of approximately 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry—roughly two-thirds U.S. citizens—from the West Coast, confining them in War Relocation Authority camps until loyalty reviews or the war's end in 1945, with an initial policy in July 1942 allowing limited indefinite leaves that few utilized amid travel restrictions and societal hostility. The Justice Department also oversaw the internment of over 31,000 German and Italian civilians, including about 11,000 Germans, held without trial in sites like , for durations extending years based on intelligence assessments of potential disloyalty. Britain, responding to fears post-Dunkirk in 1940, interned around 27,000 Germans, Austrians, and Italians under Defense Regulation 18B, with initial mass roundups leading to temporary camps before many were released or deported after tribunals, though some remained detained until 1945. In Axis-controlled territories and the , indefinite detention scaled to ideological and punitive extremes, encompassing millions without legal recourse or end dates tied to hostilities. Nazi Germany's concentration camp system, operational since 1933 but vastly expanded during WWII, imprisoned over 1.6 million individuals by 1945 in facilities like Dachau and Auschwitz for indefinite terms based on categories such as , , or perceived racial inferiority, with no trials and releases rare absent or evacuation. The network, intensified during the war, held an estimated 1.5 million prisoners by 1940 and swelled to several million more through 1945 via Article 58 convictions for counter-revolutionary activities, enforcing indefinite labor sentences often exceeding 10 years without appeal, contributing to roughly 2 million total across the system's history. These practices reflected causal priorities of regime survival over individual rights, contrasting with Allied security-focused internments by lacking even nominal loyalty-based releases.

Post-9/11 Expansion in Counterterrorism

The U.S. response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks included the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress on September 18, 2001, which authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, including and the . This legislation was broadly interpreted by the Bush administration to encompass the indefinite detention of individuals captured in operations as "enemy combatants," without immediate recourse to criminal trial, on the grounds that traditional models were insufficient for non-state actors in an asymmetric conflict. The in was repurposed as a primary detention site in early 2002, with the first 20 detainees—suspected members captured in —arriving on January 11, 2002. Over the subsequent years, approximately 780 individuals were held there, sourced mainly from battlefields in and , with many subjected to indefinite detention for purposes or as precautions against risks, as formal charges were pursued in only a fraction of cases via military commissions established under a 2001 and later legislation. Detainees were classified as "unlawful enemy combatants" to bypass certain Geneva Convention protections afforded to state-affiliated prisoners of war, enabling prolonged holding without fixed timelines for release or trial. Legal challenges tested these practices, notably in (2004), where the ruled 8-1 that the AUMF permitted detention of U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants—such as Yaser Hamdi, captured in in late 2001 and held without charges—but required procedural safeguards, including notice of reasons for detention and a meaningful opportunity to contest factual assertions through review before a neutral decisionmaker. This decision affirmed the executive's counterterrorism detention authority while imposing constitutional limits, influencing subsequent Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo, though implementation faced criticism for evidentiary standards favoring government assertions. The framework expanded with the (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, signed by President Obama on December 31, 2011, which in Section 1021 explicitly affirmed the AUMF's detention powers, allowing indefinite military custody without trial for covered persons—including those who substantially supported , the , or associated forces—applicable to non-citizens and, per statutory language, potentially U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents apprehended abroad or in limited domestic scenarios. Obama issued a expressing reservations about applying it to Americans domestically but did not the measure, reflecting bipartisan consensus on perpetuating detention as a tool in the global counterterrorism campaign amid ongoing threats from groups like , which emerged later. By 2012, hundreds of Guantanamo detainees had been transferred or released based on Periodic Review Board assessments weighing threat evidence against alternatives like rehabilitation, yet dozens remained in indefinite status due to insufficient prosecutable evidence or foreign refusal to repatriate.

Rationales and Empirical Justifications

National Security Imperatives in

In , characterized by conflicts between state militaries and non-state actors such as terrorist groups, traditional mechanisms for identifying and prosecuting combatants prove inadequate due to the adversaries' use of irregular tactics, lack of uniforms, and integration into populations. Under the laws of war, indefinite detention serves as a core tool to neutralize individuals who directly participate in hostilities, particularly when prosecutable is scarce or intelligence-derived, preventing their immediate return to the . This approach aligns with provisions allowing of enemy fighters until active hostilities cease, a duration that extends indefinitely in protracted non-international armed conflicts like the global campaign against and affiliates, where no formal surrender occurs. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by the U.S. Congress on September 18, 2001, explicitly authorizes the President to detain members of and the who planned the or harbored those responsible, framing such detention as essential to disrupting ongoing threats in an asymmetric context where conventional prisoner-of-war exchanges are infeasible. Facilities like Guantanamo Bay, established in January 2002, have held over 780 detainees, many captured on battlefields in and , with the rationale centered on removing high-value operational planners and fighters whose release could enable reconstituted attacks, as evidenced by post-capture reductions in specific al-Qaeda command structures. Empirical data underscores the imperative: among the 714 Guantanamo detainees released by January 2017, 121 were confirmed to have re-engaged in terrorist activities or provided support, yielding a rate of approximately 17%, with earlier assessments citing rates up to 27% for battlefield returns or suspected involvement. This detention paradigm mitigates risks by sustaining pressure on decentralized networks, where short-term incarceration or release under monitoring has historically failed to deter , as seen in cases like the plot by former detainee Abdullah Mehsud to kidnap foreigners in . Comparative practices in other asymmetric conflicts, such as Israel's administrative detentions under orders in the —holding over 1,000 annually since 1967 without trial based on secret evidence—demonstrate sustained threat reduction, with data indicating prevented attacks through prolonged holds of militants affiliated with groups like . While critics question long-term efficacy, the causal logic holds that removing validated combatants from circulation directly curtails operational capacity, a necessity amplified in environments where adversaries exploit legal releases to regenerate, as quantified by intelligence assessments linking ex-detainee actions to over 100 post-release incidents by 2017.

Immigration Control and Deportation Challenges

In immigration enforcement, authorities often resort to prolonged or indefinite detention for non-citizens subject to removal orders when deportation proves infeasible due to diplomatic, logistical, or legal barriers, thereby maintaining control over individuals who pose flight risks or public safety threats if released. A primary obstacle is the refusal or delay by origin countries—termed "recalcitrant" by U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—to issue travel documents or accept repatriation, affecting thousands of cases annually. For instance, as of mid-2020, DHS identified 13 such countries and territories, including China, Cuba, Eritrea, and India, which systematically hinder returns despite final removal orders. This non-cooperation stems from factors like strained bilateral relations, internal policies against accepting criminals, or incentives to retain skilled nationals, complicating enforcement and necessitating sustained detention to prevent absconding, where released individuals historically fail to report for removal in high percentages. In the United States, and Customs Enforcement () encounters these challenges acutely with criminal non-citizens; for example, a 2016 congressional hearing highlighted thousands of deportable aliens with convictions released into communities because home countries refused , underscoring risks of without custody. To counter this, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes visa sanctions against non-compliant nations under section 243(d), pressuring cooperation—such as restrictions imposed on and as recently as January 2025—yet barriers persist, leading to prolonged holds where removal remains foreseeable but delayed. A 2019 DHS Office of report detailed ICE's struggles with timely , including appeals and documentation refusals, which extend detentions beyond initial expectations and justify continued custody over supervised release, given empirical patterns of non-compliance among similar populations. Similar dynamics prevail in other jurisdictions. In the , policy permits detention without a statutory when removal is imminent, but obstacles like uncooperative governments or claims prolong cases, with official statistics indicating that extended holds correlate with enforcement needs amid high absconding rates among non-detained subjects. Australia's mandatory detention regime for unlawful non-citizens explicitly allows indefinite periods until or visa grant, driven by challenges in repatriating boat arrivals or those from nations like or that delay acceptance, ensuring in a system where alternatives like community supervision have proven inadequate against re-entry attempts. These practices reflect causal necessities: absent detention, efficacy drops, as evidenced by U.S. data showing over 70% of detainees lacking criminal convictions yet facing removal hurdles, amplifying incentives for evasion if at large.
Key Recalcitrant Countries (U.S. DHS Designation, circa 2020)Examples of Obstacles
, , Refusal of travel documents; diplomatic tensions
, , Delays in verifying nationality; policy against criminal returns
, Suspension of repatriation agreements
Overall, these deportation impediments—rooted in sovereign non-cooperation rather than domestic policy failures—empirically validate indefinite detention as a tool for control, prioritizing verifiable removal prospects over premature release amid documented risks of community harm.

Evidence of Threat Mitigation

Indefinite detention in contexts, such as at Guantanamo Bay, has mitigated threats by containing individuals assessed as high-risk for reengagement in terrorist activities, particularly those unprosecutable due to insufficient or uncooperative host nations for . The U.S. Director of National Intelligence's summary as of October 1, 2024, reports that of 739 former detainees transferred from Guantanamo, 137 (18.5%) confirmed reengagement in or , with 97 (13.1%) suspected, but rates were lower for post-2009 releases (7.2% confirmed and 8.7% suspected), reflecting enhanced periodic reviews that segregated persistent threats for ongoing detention. This process has kept approximately 30 detainees—deemed too dangerous for transfer—incapacitated, preventing potential attacks analogous to those by reengaged peers, such as planning or facilitating operations for groups like or the . Comparisons to general recidivism underscore the targeted nature of indefinite holds: released Guantanamo detainees exhibited a roughly 14% rate of post-release terrorist involvement, far below the 60-70% three-year rearrest rates for U.S. violent or drug offenders, indicating that detention periods facilitated intelligence-driven risk stratification rather than broad rehabilitation failures. For unreleasable high-value detainees like , architect of the , 2001, attacks, prolonged containment has directly neutralized capabilities for renewed plotting, as evidenced by the absence of successful operations traceable to current indefinite detainees and the documented roles of reengaged releases in attacks like the 2015 assault. In immigration enforcement, indefinite or prolonged detention of non-removable criminal noncitizens—such as those with aggravated felony convictions barring —has reduced public safety risks by preventing during holds, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement prioritizing such cases to avert community harms from prior offenders like murderers or . Although empirical data specific to released non-removable aliens is limited, the agency's focus on detaining over 100,000 criminal noncitizens annually, including those posing ongoing threats, aligns with statutory mandates under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) to incapacitate dangers pending removal feasibility, thereby averting crimes that occurred pre-apprehension in thousands of documented cases.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Alleged Violations of Due Process and Human Rights

Critics contend that indefinite detention contravenes protections by depriving individuals of the opportunity to contest the basis of their confinement through prompt or trial. In the United States, the in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed constitutional rights, determining that Congress's attempt to suspend the writ via the unconstitutionally impeded access to federal courts for challenging indefinite military detention without charge. This decision highlighted how extraterritorial indefinite holds, absent adequate substitute procedures, undermine the Suspension Clause and core guarantees against arbitrary executive power. Under , indefinite detention is frequently alleged to breach Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates that no one shall suffer arbitrary arrest or detention and requires judicial oversight of any deprivation of liberty. The UN Committee's General Comment No. 35 (2014) clarifies that prolonged or indefinite detention without individualized justification or periodic review constitutes arbitrariness, even in non-criminal contexts like or . UN experts have applied this standard to specific cases, such as deeming certain ISIL-suspect detentions in arbitrary due to lack of and indefinite duration affecting thousands without trial. In , prolonged civil detention without bond hearings has been challenged as violating substantive and , with reports documenting cases where non-citizens, including those with removal obstacles, endure years-long holds akin to punishment. A 2011 analysis by Physicians for argued that such indefinite inflicts unconstitutional punitive harms, including psychological deterioration, absent criminal convictions or flight risks warranting it. Federal circuits have since mandated bond hearings after six months in some instances to avert breaches, though rulings like Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018) have limited class-wide relief, perpetuating allegations of systemic overreach. Human rights organizations further allege that indefinite detention facilitates broader violations, such as coerced interrogations and isolation, contravening prohibitions on and cruel treatment under instruments like the UN Convention Against . At Guantanamo, where over 700 men have been held since 2002—many without charges— International's 2021 report detailed ongoing arbitrary detentions exacerbating crises and eroding fair rights, despite post-Boumediene reviews. These claims underscore tensions between security rationales and evidentiary thresholds for prolonged deprivations, with UN rapporteurs urging or trials to align with global standards against indefinite limbo.

Documented Abuses and Psychological Impacts

In counterterrorism contexts like the detention facility, opened in January 2002, detainees held indefinitely without trial have endured documented physical abuses, including beatings, stress positions, and exposure to extreme temperatures, as corroborated by U.S. military investigations and detainee testimonies reviewed in human rights assessments. Sexual humiliation and coerced sexual acts were also reported among early arrivals, contributing to a pattern of mistreatment that persisted despite policy reforms. In systems, such as U.S. facilities in , abuses include excessive use of force, denial of medical care leading to untreated injuries, and prolonged isolation, with over 200 substantiated complaints of physical and psychological mistreatment recorded between 2020 and 2024. Prolonged , frequently applied in indefinite detention settings to manage perceived high-risk individuals, has been linked to and s; for instance, records show detainees isolated for months or years, exacerbating vulnerability to guard violence. Medical neglect compounds these issues, with detainees denied timely treatment for chronic conditions or injuries from , as evidenced in centers where waits for care averaged 72 hours for urgent cases, resulting in preventable complications like infections and untreated fractures. These practices often violate international standards prohibiting cruel treatment, though official inquiries attribute some incidents to lapses in oversight rather than systemic policy. Psychological impacts of indefinite detention manifest primarily as heightened prevalence of (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, with a systematic review of 25 studies finding these symptoms in up to 80% of detainees after six months or more without resolution of their status. Uncertainty over release fuels , leading to sleep disturbances, , and cognitive impairments; cross-sectional data from U.S. detainees held over six months showed PTSD rates exceeding 50%, doubling the baseline risk compared to shorter detentions. Longitudinal analyses indicate persistent effects post-release, including elevated attempts and functional disabilities, as detention disrupts neural pathways associated with threat perception and emotional regulation. Detention duration directly correlates with severity, with peer-reviewed evidence from asylum seeker cohorts revealing that beyond 90 days, risks of rise by 40%, compounded by isolation and loss of . In high-security indefinite settings, cumulative stressors like interrogations without contribute to states and , effects documented in clinical evaluations of former detainees where 60% met criteria for complex PTSD involving relational . These outcomes challenge causal assumptions in advocacy reports, as pre-existing trauma from migrants' origins confounds attribution, yet controlled studies affirm detention's independent exacerbation through enforced idleness and powerlessness.

Rebuttals to Overstated Risks and Alternatives Assessed

Critics of indefinite detention often emphasize potential abuses and psychological harms, yet empirical data indicate that the risks of release—particularly and threat reengagement—frequently exceed those of continued containment. For instance, assessments of former Guantanamo Bay detainees reveal rates ranging from 13.1% suspected reengagement to approximately 30% confirmed or suspected involvement in post-release, underscoring how indefinite holding neutralizes threats that periodic reviews or releases might revive. These figures, drawn from U.S. summaries, demonstrate that while isolated abuses have occurred, the systemic benefits of detention—preventing attacks by high-value combatants captured in asymmetric conflicts—outweigh overstated narratives of pervasive harm, especially given oversight mechanisms like annual reviews under the . In , similar patterns emerge, with releases of criminal noncitizens correlating to substantial subsequent offenses. A 2016 congressional analysis documented that over 86,000 criminal aliens released by the Department of Homeland Security since 2013 committed 231,074 additional crimes, including serious violent acts, highlighting the causal link between premature release and public safety risks. operational data further corroborates this, reporting multiple instances of reoffending by released detainees, such as violations of conditions leading to new arrests for or drug trafficking after capacity constraints forced reductions in facilities like Adelanto. Claims of indefinite detention's disproportionate psychological toll are thus contextualized by these outcomes: containment averts rates that rival or exceed general prisoner rearrest figures (around 70% within five years), prioritizing causal prevention over abstract ideals when is infeasible due to non-cooperative home countries. Alternatives to indefinite detention, such as full criminal trials or alternatives-to-detention programs, prove often infeasible or suboptimal in practice. In , the model falters against non-state actors captured abroad, where relies on classified that cannot be disclosed without compromising sources and methods, rendering standard trials impractical without endangering operations. Military commissions offer a hybrid but face protracted delays and evidentiary hurdles, as seen in Guantanamo cases spanning years without resolution. For , community supervision or bond releases exhibit high absconding and reoffense risks, particularly for those with criminal histories, lacking the enforceability of physical detention amid backlog-prone removal proceedings. Preventive , with periodic status reviews, thus emerges as a pragmatic necessity in scenarios where immediate or prosecution stalls, empirically mitigating threats more reliably than release-based options.

Laws of War and Geneva Conventions

The laws of war, as reflected in international humanitarian law (IHL), permit the detention of enemy combatants captured during international armed conflicts to neutralize their capacity to resume hostilities, with release typically tied to the cessation of active fighting rather than a fixed timeline. This framework, rooted in customary IHL and treaties such as the 1907 Hague Regulations, authorizes internment of prisoners of war (POWs) without criminal charges, provided they meet POW criteria under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (GC III), including membership in an opposing armed force, carrying arms openly, and adherence to war laws. Such detention remains lawful until the end of hostilities, as stipulated in GC III Article 118, which mandates prompt release and repatriation "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," allowing for potentially indefinite holding if conflicts persist without formal armistice. GC III imposes strict conditions on POW internment, requiring humane treatment (Article 13), equivalent labor and living conditions to the detaining power's forces (Articles 25–27), and protections against reprisals or collective punishments (Article 13). Detaining powers must facilitate ICRC visits (Article 126) and provide periodic reviews of detention necessity, though not periodic trials, emphasizing over punitive measures. For individuals whose POW status is in doubt, GC III Article 5 establishes a process to determine eligibility, preventing arbitrary denial of protections. Failure to qualify as a POW—such as for irregular fighters not complying with combatant privileges—does not preclude detention under IHL if based on imperative grounds, though such cases invoke additional scrutiny to avoid conflation with civilian under GC IV. In non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), Common Article 3 across the four sets baseline protections, prohibiting violence to life, , and humiliating treatment for persons taking no active part in hostilities, including detained fighters, but implicitly permits detention to maintain order until conflict resolution. Unlike GC III's detailed POW regime, Common Article 3 lacks explicit duration limits, relying on customary IHL to justify holding captured combatants until they no longer pose a threat, with Additional Protocol II (Article 5) adding requirements for fair trials if prosecuted but not barring . This structure balances operational necessities in asymmetric or protracted wars against abuses, though interpretive disputes arise in applying it to non-state actors, where detaining powers must demonstrate combatant status to legitimize indefinite holding under IHL principles. Empirical application in conflicts like saw millions of POWs held for years without violating IHL, underscoring the framework's acceptance of extended detention tied to conflict endpoints rather than individual timelines.

Human Rights Instruments and Their Limitations

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the on December 10, 1948, prohibits arbitrary , detention, or in Article 9, establishing a foundational norm against unfettered state power over personal . Similarly, the (ICCPR), which entered into force on March 23, 1976, elaborates in Article 9 that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or detention, entitling individuals to prompt , information on reasons for detention, and either within a reasonable time or release, with a presumption against . These provisions apply universally to state actions, including in contexts of or , but distinguish between arbitrary and lawful deprivation of , requiring detention to be proportionate, necessary, and subject to periodic judicial oversight to avoid . Despite these safeguards, human rights instruments permit limitations that enable prolonged or indefinite detention under specific conditions. The ICCPR's Article 4 allows from Article 9 during public emergencies threatening the life of the nation, provided measures are strictly necessary, non-discriminatory, and officially proclaimed, with notification to the UN Secretary-General; Article 9 is not listed among non-derogable rights like freedom from . The UN Committee, in General Comment No. 35 (2014), clarifies that security-based detention must include individualized assessment and regular review, but acknowledges that ongoing threats—such as in —may justify extended periods if proportionality is maintained, though truly indefinite detention without foreseeable end or review constitutes . Reservations by states upon , such as the ' non-self-executing status for the ICCPR, further dilute direct enforceability domestically. Enforcement remains a core limitation, as these instruments lack binding coercive mechanisms; the UDHR is declaratory, and while the ICCPR enables individual complaints via the Committee (post-ratification and exhaustion of domestic remedies), its views are non-binding recommendations, often ignored by states prioritizing security imperatives. For instance, in cases, states interpret "reasonable time" flexibly, allowing for or threat neutralization despite committee findings of violations, as seen in critiques of practices in democratic nations where empirical threat data justifies extensions beyond strict timelines. This gap reflects causal realities: absolute bans risk impairing state capacity to manage existential s, leading to interpretive leeway rather than outright prohibition, though overuse invites documented abuses without universal .

UN Resolutions and Global Standards

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and entering into force on March 23, 1976, establishes in Article 9 that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, mandating prompt notification of charges, judicial review within a reasonable time, and either trial or release with no prejudice to subsequent proceedings. The UN Human Rights Committee, tasked with monitoring ICCPR implementation, elaborated in General Comment No. 35 (December 16, 2014) that arbitrary detention encompasses indefinite or prolonged deprivation of liberty without legal basis or periodic review, emphasizing that such practices undermine the right to liberty and security of person, even in national security or immigration contexts, unless strictly necessary, proportionate, and subject to effective remedies. Complementing treaty obligations, the UN General Assembly's Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or , adopted via resolution 43/173 on December 9, 1988, stipulates in 10 that all detained persons retain without distinction, while 39 requires that be justified by specific, exceptional reasons and subject to regular to prevent indefinite prolongation. For asylum seekers and refugees, the UN for Refugees (UNHCR) Revised Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers, issued in 1999 and reaffirmed in subsequent updates, assert that detention must be non-arbitrary, used only as a last resort for compelling reasons such as identity verification or flight risk, with indefinite detention deemed inherently arbitrary and requiring statutory maximum durations alongside individualized judicial assessments. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, established by UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1991/42 on March 5, 1991, and continued under Human Rights Council auspices, investigates complaints of indefinite detention worldwide, classifying it as arbitrary under ICCPR categories when lacking legal authorization, pursued for impermissible purposes, or disproportionate to objectives like public security. The group has issued opinions condemning practices such as prolonged or detention without charge, recommending alternatives like or electronic monitoring, though its findings are advisory and non-binding. These instruments and mechanisms form aspirational global standards, yet their efficacy is constrained by the non-self-executing nature of many resolutions and the absence of universal enforcement mechanisms, allowing states to invoke derogations under ICCPR Article 4 during public emergencies while maintaining core non-derogable protections against arbitrary detention. Compliance varies, with the Committee documenting persistent violations in state reports, underscoring reliance on domestic legislation for periodic reviews rather than absolute prohibitions on indefinite holding in exceptional cases like unreturnable deportees or high-risk security detainees.

National Practices and Case Studies

United States

In the , indefinite detention is primarily authorized under the law of war framework for individuals designated as enemy belligerents or combatants in armed conflicts against non-state actors, such as those stemming from the , 2001, terrorist attacks. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on September 18, 2001, empowers the President to detain persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, or harbored those responsible, as well as members of organizations like or the engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its allies. This authority has been interpreted by the executive branch and upheld by courts to permit detention without criminal charges until the cessation of active hostilities, a condition that persists due to ongoing threats from associated forces. The (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, Section 1021, explicitly reaffirms this detention authority, extending it to persons who substantially supported , the , or associated forces in hostilities, including potential U.S. citizens or lawful residents captured abroad or domestically under specific circumstances. Detainees are held at facilities like the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, , established in January 2002 to house captured combatants from and other theaters, where approximately 780 individuals have been detained since inception. As of October 2025, 15 detainees remain at Guantanamo, with nine approved for transfer subject to security arrangements and others facing ongoing military commission proceedings or periodic reviews. U.S. rulings have imposed constraints on these practices while affirming the core authority. In (2004), the Court held that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants are entitled to notice of the factual basis for detention and a meaningful opportunity to contest it before a neutral decision-maker, rejecting purely executive determinations without review. (2008) extended rights to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo, ruling that the Military Commissions Act of 2006's suspension of habeas unconstitutionally denied access to federal courts for challenging indefinite detention, though it did not mandate immediate release or trial. These decisions require periodic Combatant Status Review Tribunals or Administrative Review Boards for non-citizens to assess continued threat, but do not preclude detention absent criminal prosecution if lawful under of war principles. In contrast, civil immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act is not indefinite following Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), where the interpreted statutory authority to limit post-removal-order detention to a presumptively reasonable period of six months; beyond that, release under supervision is required unless removal is foreseeable or special circumstances—like risks under terrorism-related grounds—justify continued custody. Thus, while holds over 61,000 individuals as of August 2025, they are subject to bond hearings and statutory time limits, distinguishing them from law-of-war detentions. No U.S. citizen has been held indefinitely as an since Hamdi's release in 2004 after habeas proceedings, reflecting judicial safeguards against unchecked executive power.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, indefinite detention without was introduced under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) following the , targeting foreign nationals certified by the as suspected international terrorists posing a threat to . This allowed their indefinite in high-security facilities such as Belmarsh Prison, where nine men were held starting December 19, 2001, without charge or access to criminal due to sensitivities. In December 2004, the ruled in A v for the Home Department that this regime violated Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the , as it discriminated against non-nationals without adequate justification and lacked proportionality, quashing the associated derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998. The ATCSA regime was repealed in 2005, replaced by control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which imposed restrictive measures on both foreign and British suspects without full detention, though some orders included 18-hour curfews amounting to . These evolved into Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) via the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, which permits the Secretary of State to impose notices on individuals reasonably suspected of -related activity, including obligations like residence requirements, electronic monitoring, and travel bans, but not routine physical incarceration. TPIM notices initially last up to two years and are renewable only upon evidence of new -related activity, with an overall five-year cap absent such evidence, subject to annual review by an independent reviewer; as of 2025, around 10-15 TPIMs remain in force, emphasizing disruption over prolonged confinement. In immigration enforcement, the UK maintains no statutory time limit on administrative detention under Schedule 3 of the , used to facilitate removal or of individuals lacking or remain, including failed asylum seekers and visa overstayers. Detention must align with the Hardial Singh principles established in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh EWHC 250 (Admin): it requires a statutory purpose (e.g., effecting removal), must not exceed a reasonable duration given the goal, demands release if removal is not practicable within that time absent exceptional factors, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. These constraints prevent truly indefinite holding, with courts granting or to order release when prospects of removal diminish, as in cases involving obligations or uncooperative home countries. Empirical data indicate affects tens of thousands annually, with 19,335 entries in the year ending September 2024 and an average daily population of about 1,800 as of June 2024, primarily in Immigration Removal Centres with a capacity of around 2,200 beds. While most detentions last under 29 days (66% in the year ending March 2024), prolonged cases persist: 34% exceeded 28 days, and historical extremes reached several years before judicial intervention, though post-Hardial Singh, durations over two years are rare due to oversight. The expanded detention powers for certain inadmissible arrivals, codifying aspects of Hardial Singh while shifting deference to the Secretary of State on "reasonable" timelines, but retaining scope for challenge; costs exceeded £200 million annually in recent years, with vulnerable groups (e.g., those with issues) prioritized for alternatives under Adults at Risk policy.

Australia

Australia's indefinite detention policy primarily targets unlawful non-citizens, including unauthorized maritime arrivals seeking asylum, under the Migration Act 1958. Sections 189 and 196 mandate detention of such individuals until their removal from or the grant of a visa, with no statutory time limit, allowing for potentially indefinite periods if removal proves infeasible due to , non-cooperation, or third-country refusals. This framework, introduced in 1992 to deter unauthorized entries and , applies mandatory detention without initial individualized assessment of flight risk or necessity. The policy's constitutionality was upheld in the 2004 High Court decision , where a 4-3 majority ruled that detention of a stateless Palestinian man, with no foreseeable removal prospect, remained lawful as its purpose aligned with the Act's removal objective, even absent a visa grant. This precedent enabled prolonged detentions, with some individuals held for years in onshore facilities or offshore centers in and Papua New Guinea's [Manus Island](/page/Manus Island), established under the 2013 "" to process boat arrivals externally. Offshore arrangements, funded by Australia, involved indefinite holding until resettlement or return, amid documented logistical and health challenges, though arrivals by boat dropped sharply post-implementation, from over 20,000 in 2013 to near zero by 2014. A pivotal shift occurred on November 8, 2023, when the High Court in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration unanimously overturned Al-Kateb, declaring indefinite detention unlawful where no real prospect of removal exists in the reasonably foreseeable future, as it exceeds statutory purpose and violates implied constitutional limits on executive power. The case involved a stateless Rohingya man detained since 2013; the ruling prompted the release of approximately 150 detainees via bridging visas with conditions like reporting and residence limits, though community detention alternatives persist for high-risk cases. Subsequent 2024 rulings, such as ASF17 v Commonwealth, affirmed lawful continued detention where eventual removal remains viable, despite delays, emphasizing case-specific prospects over blanket indefiniteness. As of August 31, 2025, 1,005 individuals remained in facilities, including 935 men and 68 women, down from peaks due to post-NZYQ releases, with 124 held over five years per August 2023 data reflecting pre-ruling long-term cases. Offshore, fewer than 100 asylum seekers lingered in by mid-2024, with retaining legal responsibility despite host-nation operations; a January 2025 UN Human Rights Committee finding deemed these detentions arbitrary, citing inadequate safeguards, though contested the assessment's scope. Detention now requires periodic ministerial reviews for non-removability, balancing border security with judicial constraints on permanence.

Israel

Israel authorizes administrative detention primarily against Palestinians in the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza, as a preventive measure against individuals deemed security threats based on classified indicating potential future involvement in . This practice derives from the 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations, retained post-independence and extended via orders in occupied territories, empowering commanders to issue detention orders without criminal charges or trial. Orders are initially valid for up to six months for adults, renewable in three- to six-month increments indefinitely if the threat persists, with separate provisions limiting minors to four months initially. The process mandates prompt judicial confirmation: detainees must appear before a military within 96 hours (or up to 12 days under recent amendments for certain cases), with periodic reviews every three to six months thereafter. Appeals proceed to higher military courts and ultimately the Israeli sitting as the , though reviews rely heavily on secret evidence inaccessible to detainees or counsel, constraining effective challenges. The has upheld the mechanism's , emphasizing proportionality and necessity in countering asymmetric threats from non-state actors, while occasionally ordering releases where evidence of ongoing danger is deemed insufficient. As of October 2025, held approximately 3,544 in , a sharp increase from pre-October 7, 2023 levels, amid heightened operations following Hamas's attack that killed over 1,200 and involved mass hostage-taking. This figure represents a subset of broader detentions, including under the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law applied to Gazans captured in combat zones, totaling over 11,000 Palestinian security detainees by mid-2025. Empirical assessments in studies indicate has contributed to reducing terrorist incidents by preempting attacks without disclosing intelligence sources, a critical factor in 's environment of persistent threats including suicide bombings, stabbings, and rocket fire. While organizations criticize the opacity and duration—citing cases exceeding years without charges— authorities maintain releases occur routinely upon threat abatement, with judicial oversight mitigating abuses in a context where alternatives like trials risk endangering informants and civilians.

China

China maintains several mechanisms enabling indefinite detention, particularly under the guise of and counter-, bypassing standard judicial oversight and trial requirements. The Criminal Procedure Law, amended in 2012 and effective from 2013, authorizes Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) for suspects accused of endangering , , or major , permitting up to six months of isolation without family or access, often in undisclosed facilities. This system, which expanded post-2013, has been applied to dissidents, lawyers, and ethnic minorities, with reports documenting over 50,000 uses between 2015 and 2020, frequently resulting in coerced confessions due to and tactics. In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, authorities have operated a vast network of internment facilities since 2017, detaining over one million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities without formal charges or trials, ostensibly for "vocational education and training" to combat extremism. Independent analyses, including satellite imagery and leaked government documents, have identified more than 380 such sites, including high-security camps with watchtowers and barbed wire, where detainees undergo political indoctrination, forced labor, and surveillance-driven selection based on algorithms assessing "risk" from behaviors like praying or overseas contacts. A 2022 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights assessment concluded these practices may constitute crimes against humanity, citing patterns of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and torture risks, with no significant reforms by 2025 despite international pressure. Historically, the system permitted of up to three years without trial for minor offenses, , or social control, affecting millions from the 1950s until its formal abolition by the Standing Committee on December 28, 2013. Although laojiao was eliminated amid rule-of-law rhetoric, equivalent functions persist through RSDL, community correction programs, and Xinjiang's extrajudicial camps, enabling prolonged holds justified by vague statutes that prioritize state stability over individual . These practices reflect a legal framework where organs hold broad discretion, often without , contrasting with China's constitutional guarantees of rights while subordinating them to imperatives.

Other Notable Examples

In , security certificates issued jointly by the Ministers of Public Safety and Immigration allow for the indefinite detention without charge or of non-citizens deemed a threat to , relying in part on classified evidence not fully disclosed to the detainee. The process, governed by the , permits detention until or release conditions are met, with but no automatic time limit; as of 2015, certificates required Federal Court referral for reasonableness assessment. In 2007, the ruled the prior system unconstitutional for violating liberty rights under section 7 of the , prompting amendments for special advocates to challenge secret evidence, though critics argue it still enables prolonged isolation and risks to . India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), amended in 2019, authorizes detention without bail for up to 180 days during investigation for terrorism-related offenses, with no presumption of innocence and stringent bail conditions requiring courts to presume guilt unless proven otherwise, often resulting in years of pre-trial detention due to investigative delays and low conviction rates below 3% in some years. The law has been applied to activists and protesters, such as student Umar Khalid, detained since September 2020 on sedition charges under UAPA without trial as of 2025, highlighting its use for extended holds without evidence presentation. Preventive detention provisions under related laws like the National Security Act further enable up to two-year holds renewable indefinitely for public order threats, upheld by courts but criticized for vagueness enabling arbitrary application. Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA) of 1960 permits indefinite preventive detention without trial for individuals suspected of subversion or terrorism, with initial two-year detention orders renewable by the President on cabinet advice, justified as necessary for maintaining racial and political stability in a multi-ethnic society. As of 2023, the ISA has been invoked in cases like the 2017 arrest of 22 Bangladeshi men for planning attacks, held without charge based on intelligence, with no right to legal counsel during initial interrogation. The law lacks judicial oversight for initial detentions, relying on an advisory board with non-binding recommendations, and has detained over 1,000 people historically, including suspected communists in the 1960s-1980s, with releases conditional on rehabilitation rather than acquittal.

References

  1. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7403&context=jclc
  2. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/context/ils/article/1129/viewcontent/vol_85_XIV_goodman_rationales_for_detention.pdf
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-7791
  4. https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/detention-1/
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/03-878
  6. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_857_2.pdf
  7. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45915
  8. https://www.unhcr.org/us/sites/en-us/files/legacy-pdf/631f449d4.pdf
  9. https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/indefinite-detention-exec-summ-june2011.pdf
  10. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/civil-rights-civil-liberties/indefinite-detention
  11. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/faculty_scholarship/228/
  12. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11343
  13. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/increase_in_indefinite_ice_detention_without_foreseeable_removal_dates_jan_2021.pdf
  14. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/678/
  15. https://addameer.ps/israeli_military_judicial_system/administrative_detention
  16. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/irrc_858_pejic.pdf
  17. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/jenks_jensen.pdf
  18. https://guides.loc.gov/world-of-1898/reconcentration-policy
  19. https://sahistory.org.za/article/women-and-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902
  20. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/prisoners-of-war-and-internees-great-britain-1-1/
  21. https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/ww1
  22. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-108hdoc226/pdf/GPO-CDOC-108hdoc226-2-3.pdf
  23. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/timeline-japanese-americans-during-world-war-ii.htm
  24. https://encyclopedia.densho.org/German_and_Italian_detainees/
  25. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/internees/
  26. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camps
  27. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/types-of-camps/concentration-camps/
  28. https://gulag.online/articles/historie-gulagu?locale=en
  29. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/YLS_PowertoDetain.pdf
  30. https://www.cfr.org/article/guantanamo-bay-twenty-years-counterterrorism-and-controversy
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/guantanamo-bay-detainees.html
  32. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/507/
  33. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-6696
  34. https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ81/PLAW-112publ81.pdf
  35. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
  36. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/59/27129/Just-War-Theory-amp-the-Conduct-of-Asymmetric
  37. https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/2022-12/Re-Offending-by-Released-Terrorist-Prisoners.pdf
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265784913_Predictors_of_Release_from_Guantanamo_Bay_and_Detainee_Recidivism_1
  39. https://www.hsaj.org/articles/114
  40. https://www.ice.gov/remove/visa-sanctions
  41. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11025/IF11025.7.pdf
  42. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/recalcitrant-uncooperative-countries-refuse-deportation
  43. https://www.fairus.org/issue/factsheet/recalcitrant-countries-diplomatic-obstacles-deportation
  44. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/recalcitrant-countries-denying-visas-to-countries-that-refuse-to-take-back-their-deported-nationals/
  45. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-03/OIG-19-28-Mar19.pdf
  46. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/96711/html/
  47. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-Indefinite-detention-submission-RCOA.pdf
  48. https://tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/
  49. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/061225-Report-Summary-GTMO-Reengagement.pdf
  50. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/prisoners-released-guantanamo-bay-how-does-their-recidivism-rates-compare-us-criminals
  51. https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/criminal-alien-program
  52. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-announces-results-latest-operations-targeting-criminal-aliens
  53. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/723/
  54. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-1195
  55. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/35
  56. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-experts-urge-end-isil-related-arbitrary-detention-north-east-syria-and
  57. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/detained-without-due-process-is-indefinite-immigration-detention-unconstitutional/
  58. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/01/usa-report-human-rights-violations-guantanamo/
  59. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/06/usa-un-special-rapporteurs-findings-reinforce-urgent-need-to-close-guantanamo-and-provide-redress-for-past-and-present-detainees/
  60. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/22-years-of-justice-denied/
  61. https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/publications/the-united-states-compliance-with-the-united-nations-convention-against-torture-with-respect-to-guantanamo-bay-detainees-and-the-cumulative-impact-of-confinement-the-abuse-of-detainees-post/
  62. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/21/you-feel-like-your-life-is-over/abusive-practices-at-three-florida-immigration
  63. https://phr.org/our-work/resources/psychological-torture-in-detention/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6282296/
  65. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829506
  66. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1420
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12069434/
  68. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762%2821%2900131-9/fulltext
  69. https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/commentary/trump-wisely-keeping-really-bad-dudes-guantanamo-bay
  70. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/criminal-aliens-released-by-the-department-of-homeland-security/
  71. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/criminal-aliens-violate-release-conditions-reoffend-after-ice-forced-reduce-adelanto
  72. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/
  73. https://csrr.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/analyzing-the-criminal-justice-and-military-models-of-counterterrorism.pdf
  74. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/protected-persons-prisoners-war-and-detainees
  75. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-treatment-prisoners-war
  76. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.32_GC-III-EN.pdf
  77. https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopdQk_e2QU7Oz-jB77rcbLx9IrQQ7a83SRDoNr_vuMIyKRUJTHi
  78. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  79. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
  80. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrc29.html
  81. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Detention/DraftBasicPrinciples/IOM3.pdf
  82. https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/wg-arbitrary-detention
  83. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/208/07/pdf/g2420807.pdf
  84. https://www.ohchr.org/en/detention/international-standards-detention
  85. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
  86. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42143.html
  87. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-7791.ZS.html
  88. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/uk/1.htm
  89. https://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/law-policing-forensics/2021/12/10/the-famous-belmarsh-case-twenty-years-since-the-detention-of-a-and-others-in-breach-of-their-human-rights/
  90. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-5.htm
  91. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=jil
  92. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/contents
  93. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/section/5
  94. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/terrorism-prevention-and-investigation-measures-act
  95. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management/detention-general-instructions-accessible
  96. https://freemovement.org.uk/what-are-the-hardial-singh-principles/
  97. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management/adults-at-risk-in-immigration-detention-accessible
  98. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2024/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
  99. https://sdv.org.uk/latest-news/what-do-the-latest-detention-statistics-tell-us-1
  100. https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/immigration-blog-the-expansion-of-immigration-detention-in-the-illegal-migration-act-2023/
  101. https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s196.html
  102. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/6-australias-immigration-detention-policy-and-practice
  103. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-2000-current/al-kateb-v-godwin
  104. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/detention-australia-statistics/2/
  105. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/decided/case-s282023
  106. https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2023-11-08-indefinite-detention-overruled/
  107. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/refugee-council-welcomes-the-historic-high-court-ruling-finding-indefinite-immigration-detention-unlawful/
  108. https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2024-05-28-high-court-ruling-in-asf17-v-commonwealth-of-australia/
  109. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visa-statistics/live/immigration-detention
  110. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/01/australia-responsible-arbitrary-detention-asylum-seekers-offshore-facilities
  111. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/briefing_note/join/2012/491444/EXPO-AFET_SP%282012%29491444_EN.pdf
  112. https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
  113. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/55/NGO/82
  114. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/45VandJTransnatlL639.pdf
  115. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol45/iss3/1/
  116. https://hamoked.org/prisoners-charts.php
  117. https://addameer.ps/statistics
  118. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/10/un-expert-calls-israel-end-practice-administrative-detention-and-immediately
  119. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1294&context=jil
  120. https://safeguarddefenders.com/sites/default/files/pdf/FACTSHEET%2520RSDL.pdf
  121. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/22/china-stepping-up-use-secret-detention-without-trial-report-warns
  122. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/28/thousands-detained-in-chinas-residential-surveillance-system
  123. https://ishr.ch/defenders-toolbox/resources/briefing-paper-un-experts-documentation-of-residential-surveillance-at-a-designated-location-rsdl-in-china/
  124. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights
  125. https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/explainers/exploring-xinjiangs-detention-facilities/
  126. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01/chinas-algorithms-repression/reverse-engineering-xinjiang-police-mass
  127. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
  128. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/china-still-no-accountability-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-xinjiang-three-years-after-major-un-report/
  129. https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/asia/china-one-child-policy-official
  130. https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/08/china-fully-abolish-re-education-through-labor
  131. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=hrbrief
  132. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/12/china-s-re-education-through-labour-camps-replacing-one-system-repression-another/
  133. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/scrt-crtfcts-en.aspx
  134. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/security-certificates-and-secret-evidence-1.777624
  135. https://www.icj.org/ebulletin/canada-supreme-court-rules-indefinite-detention-under-security-certificates-unconstitutional/
  136. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/16/india-uapa-terror-law-scrutiny
  137. https://www.icj.org/india-joint-statement-urging-indian-authorities-to-immediately-and-unconditionally-release-human-rights-defender-and-student-activist-umar-khalid/
  138. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/india
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.