Post by Asairia on Feb 7, 2019 17:31:10 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY SECURITY COUNCIL
RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
DELEGATE IS VOTING: AGAINST ☒
FINAL RESULTS:
5,577 FOR
10,530 AGAINST
Overview
Right to Self-Defense seeks to, "Affirm the right [to the] self-defense of oneself and/or his or her family ... affirm member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense ... and clarify that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection."
Author's Justification
The author of this resolution, Nueva Rico of Ridgefield, is, "Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and [their] family from an imminent threat." They further express their disappointment by stating that, "Some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace." Because of these two factors, Nueva Rico believes this resolution is needed to protect the right to self-defense.
My Decision
This resolution is the reincarnation of a previous one (also proposed by Nueva Rico) that was adopted and later repealed by the World Assembly for, "Being too broad and [seemingly permitting] persons suspected of breaking the law ... to employ self-defence measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties."
While I believe that there are situations where self-defense is necessary to ensure the safety of oneself and one's family, I do not believe this resolution is a fitting method to guarantee it. This resolution, despite its length, is still too broad for comfort; specifically, there are only three clauses that provide direction and regulation, none of which adequately cover what 'excessive force' really entails.
3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:
a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,
b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,
c) The force used is not agin law enforcement or any other lawful force that does not infringe upon the rights established by this Assembly.
a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,
b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,
c) The force used is not agin law enforcement or any other lawful force that does not infringe upon the rights established by this Assembly.
Each nation has different tolerances and laws on this subject, and so far, each one-size-fits-all attempt to address them has failed. All in all, this would be best regulated by member states on an individual level. I have cast my vote against this resolution.
Current Regional support at time of publication.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.