Is Self Defense A Human Right? The UN Doesn't Think So.........

[Andy Moynihan]

This came up in another thread but I believe, this being a martial arts forum with a self defense subforum, that this would be a topic of interest.

The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf


Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.


Seeing this quote has for obvious reasons left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Discuss.

 

[Jai]

I think I threw up in my mouth a little after reading that... I'm at a loss for words, honestly...

 

[Dave Leverich]

Kick whoever wrote that in the nads (sorry, I'm feeling less than eloquent after reading that crap). Every living being on the planet has a right to try to stay alive, it's fundamental to LIFE ;p.

 

[michaeledward]

Every living being on the planet has a right to try to stay alive, it's fundamental to LIFE ;p.

I don't believe the language in the quoted paragraph says anything other than that.



P.S. and I note the Original Poster has updated his location to slur the cradle of American liberty.
The irony is just too think. "People's Republic of Massachusettstan, USA", indeed.

 

[Big Don]

I don't believe the language in the quoted paragraph says anything other than that.

Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

Then you, apparently don't understand what the word proscribed means. You also apparently skipped right past this sentence:

There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.

Dishonest much?

 

[Cruentus]

I think that it is very clear from the ideologies of some (particularly in heavily socialist countries) that they believe that the state (police, etc.) is responsible for the defense of the individual, and therefore self-defense is not ones right. In their minds, saying "self-defense" is a right to a certain extent is bad for the 'greater social good,' as then people may do things to ensure self-defense that they believe is bad for society, such as carry a weapon.

I, of course, think that this mode of thinking is a slippery slope to totalitarianism and an erosion of human rights. That is why I am glad I live in the United States, despite the problems we may have here.

 

[michaeledward]

I just took a visit over to the UN Web Site. Gee, they have all sort of informative language there... such as this..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I guess, security of person doesn't mean actual security of person after all ...... wait, .... that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Tames D]

Let's keep the discussion respectful guys.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I think that it is very clear from the ideologies of some (particularly in heavily socialist countries) that they believe that the state (police, etc.) is responsible for the defense of the individual, and therefore self-defense is not ones right. In their minds, saying "self-defense" is a right to a certain extent is bad for the 'greater social good,' as then people may do things to ensure self-defense that they believe is bad for society, such as carry a weapon.

I, of course, think that this mode of thinking is a slippery slope to totalitarianism and an erosion of human rights. That is why I am glad I live in the United States, despite the problems we may have here.

Hmmmm. Is there any particular countries you'd be referring to with that? Most cases Ive heard of regarding "dodgy" decisions in self defence cases have been in the States, it seems there is alot of room for interpretation there legally, possibly due to differences in legislation from state to state?

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

The present
report concludes that the principle of self-defence has an important place in international human
rights law, but that it does not provide an independent, legal supervening right to small arms
possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian
possession.

The document only refers to self defence in how it effects the ownership of weapons. The entire theme of it is that the principle of gun ownership for the purpose of self-defence does not absolve a government of its duty to prevent gun abuse.

 

[Cruentus]

Hmmmm. Is there any particular countries you'd be referring to with that? Most cases Ive heard of regarding "dodgy" decisions in self defence cases have been in the States, it seems there is alot of room for interpretation there legally, possibly due to differences in legislation from state to state?

It's a simple ideology that is promoted by many different countries from Europe to Africa to Asia; all over the world. I am not pinpointing 1 particular country.

 

[michaeledward]

And, interestingly, this report is a report based on Q & A submitted to nations around the globe. It is not, as the Original Poster seems to be intimating, a policy written by the United Nations.

1. The present final report of the Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons is submitted pursuant to Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2002/25, decision 2003/105, decision 2004/123 and decision 2005/110, as well as Commission on Human Rights decision 2003/112. Annexed to the present report are a summary and an analysis of States’ responses to the questionnaire elaborated by the Special Rapporteur pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 2003/105 and Commission decision 2004/124.
​

And, the basis of paragraph 20 is explained in the omitted paragraph 21.

21. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human Rights. According to one commentator, “The function of this provision is simply to remove from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State”.

So, if one wish to argue with the first statement, let's start with an honest understanding of the position. And defend your supposition.

Here, we see that the United Nations has reviewed "primary sources of international law" as the basis of their report.

What is the foundation of your opinion?​

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

It's a simple ideology that is promoted by many different countries from Europe to Africa to Asia; all over the world. I am not pinpointing 1 particular country.

Well, is there any you could provide as examples?

 

[Cruentus]

You (this means all of you) needs to read at the very least the introduction and conclusion/recommendation sections of the document. It is clear that the document surveyed a number of countries regarding small arms violence, and developed a conclusion and recommendation for states to take actions against small arms violence.

It is clear that their recommendation consists of making the state responsible for the enforcement and protection of society, via "promoting law enforcement" and "suppressing private violence." One of the ways they recommend in doing this, among other things, is to regulate and suppress civilian possession of firearms. They also state that protection of the individual is not a priority of the state or a right of that individual.

Basically, read the damn thing, because it is all there.

They're solution is a state based regulation on firearms. Ideologically, this clashes with our 2nd amendment rights. Furthermore, it is clear that they believe that the greater good of the state takes precidence over the individual. Here in America, most of us believe in protecting the rights of the individual, thus another clash of ideologies.

This goes back to what I have been talking about here and in other related threads.

I am not going to split hairs over wording or argue. Either one disagree's or agree's with the ideology and the solutions proposed; I happen to disagree.

 

[Tames D]

[playnice]Tim Jacobsen[/playnice]

 

[Cruentus]

Well, is there any you could provide as examples?

O.K., Germany is one. Russia is another. How about China? Really, the list is quite large. In these countries, the interest of the state (which poponents claim is there to promote a "greater good") takes precidence over the rights of the individual. China is a particularly bad example:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

You (this means all of you) needs to read at the very least the introduction and conclusion/recommendation sections of the document. It is clear that the document surveyed a number of countries regarding small arms violence, and developed a conclusion and recommendation for states to take actions against small arms violence.

It is clear that their recommendation consists of making the state responsible for the enforcement and protection of society, via "promoting law enforcement" and "suppressing private violence." One of the ways they recommend in doing this, among other things, is to regulate and suppress civilian possession of firearms. They also state that protection of the individual is not a priority of the state or a right of that individual.

Basically, read the damn thing, because it is all there.

They're solution is a state based regulation on firearms. Ideologically, this clashes with our 2nd amendment rights. Furthermore, it is clear that they believe that the greater good of the state takes precidence over the individual. Here in America, most of us believe in protecting the rights of the individual, thus another clash of ideologies.

This goes back to what I have been talking about here and in other related threads.

I am not going to split hairs over wording or argue. Either one disagree's or agree's with the ideology and the solutions proposed; I happen to disagree.

I did read the document. The document seems to advocate gun control, not the banning or prohibiting of fire-arms. As I live outside of the US, could you explain why the concept of gun control seems so unreasonable? I would have thought a basic background check, and then weapon safety instruction, would be logical steps?

 

[Rich Parsons]

This came up in another thread but I believe, this being a martial arts forum with a self defense subforum, that this would be a topic of interest.

The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf


Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.


Seeing this quote has for obvious reasons left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Discuss.

Hmmm The responsibility to be informed. Thanks for sharing the link.

The difference between a subject and citizen and the idea, of having weapons and protecting oneself versus England (* search MT for an thread on this *) where a person who collected Replica Guns not functional just replica's and had his collection impunded and was brought up under charges. This is a different state of mind and or point of view.

 

[Cruentus]

I did read the document. The document seems to advocate gun control, not the banning or prohibiting of fire-arms. As I live outside of the US, could you explain why the concept of gun control seems so unreasonable? I would have thought a basic background check, and then weapon safety instruction, would be logical steps?

Sorry, I was formulating another response before I saw your "provide examples" response, and well, you know...

Your question opens up pages and pages worth of debate and explination, of which I sadly don't have time for right now. I actually have to get off-line and do some work that will take me away from the computer again. But, luckily these explinations and arguments have already been formulated here on MT. I think it would be good to read those, and then bring any points of contention you have up for debate.

Here is a good one which brought up your exact questions:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33604&highlight=gun+control

Take care!

C.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

O.K., Germany is one. Russia is another. How about China? Really, the list is quite large. In these countries, the interest of the state (which poponents claim is there to promote a "greater good") takes precidence over the rights of the individual. China is a particularly bad example:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

Not disputing in anyway that China is dodgy. But in some countries the emphasis on social order has a number of positive results. I would consider the best approach obviously a balancing of the two, the good of society versus the good of the individual. In Germany I would agree that the emphasis tends to be on social order, but its currently beneficial. Very nice country to live in.