Juan E. Méndez and Steven J. Barela share this short reflection with the ImpleMéndez network for the 25th anniversary of 9/11, building on their recent five-year assessment of the Principles in Just Security.
The 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks provides an important moment to reflect not only on the tragedy of that day, but also on the responses that followed. Among the gravest failures of the post-9/11 period was the resort to torture and coercive interrogation during the so-called “war on terror.” The absolute prohibition of torture came under extraordinary pressure, accompanied by what Juan E. Méndez recalls as a period of moral relativism around practices that violated fundamental legal and ethical standards while resting on deeply flawed assumptions about how reliable information is obtained.
Yet something constructive ultimately emerged from this experience. Prohibiting torture, indispensable as that prohibition is, did not by itself prove sufficient in that moment of crisis. A positive alternative was also needed—one that could build on an already developing body of scientific knowledge about effective, non-coercive questioning and connect it with the legal and procedural safeguards necessary to protect human dignity.
Méndez’s 2016 call for universal standards gave form to such an alternative and was subsequently taken forward by an international Steering Committee bringing together global expertise from law, science and practice. The process resulted in the Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering.
This history also has a distinctive personal connection for Steven J. Barela, who served as editor of the Principles. He was a United Airlines flight attendant on September 11, 2001—when two United aircraft, together with their crews and passengers, were hijacked and turned into deadly weapons. The attacks affected his career directly, while the responses that followed left him deeply troubled by fundamental questions about whether counterterrorism policies were lawful, morally defensible, or would even be effective. After being furloughed from United, he returned to academia, eventually moving with his family to Geneva, where those questions became central to his doctoral research on counterterrorism and international law. Twenty-five years later, his work on the Méndez Principles represents an unforeseen but deeply personal connection between the events that changed the direction of his life and an international effort to build a positive alternative to interrogational torture.
Five years after the adoption of the Principles, Méndez and Barela recently took stock of their development in Just Security. Their assessment considers the Principles’ growing international recognition, lessons emerging from implementation, and the considerable work that remains. Read against the 25th anniversary of 9/11, that progress forms part of a much longer arc: from one of the gravest failures of the post-9/11 period, through the construction of a positive alternative, to the challenge of making that alternative work in practice.
Viewed through this longer arc, the examples explored in the article are themselves only part of a much wider implementation landscape—one that ImpleMéndez members are actively helping to shape. Across the network that work is taking many forms—from WG2 comparative work on accountability, complaint mechanisms and audiovisual recording, to initiatives in Ireland bringing research on child interviewing directly to practitioners. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights has also played an important enabling role across much of the implementation work explored in the article, working closely with national partners while keeping local actors at the forefront. As those working in this dynamic and growing space know, these are just a few examples within a broader range of initiatives addressing training, vulnerability, institutional leadership, emerging technologies, and implementation across different national and regional contexts.
Twenty-five years after 9/11, this work is a reminder that constructing a positive alternative was only the beginning. The achievement is not simply that an international standard eventually emerged from a period of profound failure, but that a growing international community is now working to translate that alternative into practice. For ImpleMéndez, the anniversary is therefore not only an occasion to look back at the history from which the Principles emerged, but also to consider the part the network can play in carrying that constructive legacy forward.