NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought I’d get a head start on this since it’s clear that it’s going to be up for vote very soon.


Right to Self-Protection

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

And here’s a pre-emptive response to the “dude you need to specify more” arguments that will no doubt crop up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8173553&postcount=11

The below text was re-posted here from the middle of the thread for easier viewing.

I've noticed several general trends in the opinions voiced with regard to this resolution. Instead of addressing individuals, I've decided to be efficient and use one post to address them all. I'll be ignoring people who obviously didn't read the link.

1. Concerns about my purpose in writing the resolution.

My purpose in writing this resolution was three-fold. First, it was to continue the UN tradition of promoting human rights and freedom while leaving the national sovereignty of UN member states intact. Second, it was to prevent a future resolution that might undermine those freedoms. Because of many of the resolutions being badly written (for various reasons), I was concerned that someone might accidentally remove those freedoms with a poorly-considered clause. Thirdly, this is an issue close to my heart in real life, because I have had several friends arrested or punished for trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker.

2. Concerns about the "imminent" and "reasonable force" wording.

I intentionally left those terms undefined to allow nations who desire to follow the letter of this resolution and make it fit their cultures and justice systems the freedom to do so. If you are concerned with the "imminent" term, all you need to do is to define it such that it fits your philosophy. In the case of nations who are more stringent in their philosophy, they can define "imminent" as "they have already initiated an attack against one's person". If nations wish to allow their citizens more discretion, they can define "imminent" as "one perceives a possible threat". Similar methods can be used with "reasonable force" and other terms.

3. Concerns about possible vigilanteism and abuse.

The point of the "defense of others" clause was certainly not to advocate vigilanteism. In the case of a crime being committed, there is not always a law enforcement officer nearby (unless your nation has a very high police ratio, in which case you'll be glad I provided for national sovereignty), and to enable prevention of crimes against others such as theft or rape or murder, I decided to ensure that citizens have the chance to protect their fellow citizens from such crimes. Naturally, some nations will abuse this clause. That's truly unfortunate, but the fact is that almost every UN resolution is abused in some way in some nations. Truly regrettable, but not something we can stop. Unfortunately, were I to make this resolution stronger, I would cause great damage to some nations, such as the ones with high police ratios. I decided to err on the side of freedom.

4. Concerns about national sovereignty.

Some nations will, no doubt, be against this resolution because they see it as taking away their national sovereignty. The fact is that I constructed the opening CAPSLOCK clauses with your nations in mind. You can get out of this resolution easily, and the UN still gets to enjoy its tradition of promoting freedom and human rights.

If the whole vote occurs while I'm on vacation, my regrets.
If I'm here for the beginning or end of the vote, I promise my support. Again.

If the whole vote occurs while I'm on vacation, my regrets.
If I'm here for the beginning or end of the vote, I promise my support. Again.

Thanks. :)

I checked that link, Tex, and I'm still left with one question: shouldn't you insert a clause defining reasonable force as that which has been deemed reasonable or sufficient by the laws or culture of individual nations?

I checked that link, Tex, and I'm still left with one question: shouldn't you insert a clause defining reasonable force as that which has been deemed reasonable or sufficient by the laws or culture of individual nations?
Sounds like overkill to me. Just let people be creative, but don't tell them to do so.

I checked that link, Tex, and I'm still left with one question: shouldn't you insert a clause defining reasonable force as that which has been deemed reasonable or sufficient by the laws or culture of individual nations?

Nah. It's unnecessary, unless somebody starts getting ideas. Ideas which I don't wish to give them by discussing this particular issue.

Fair enough. BTW, what's the post threshold for "Somewhat Deadly?"

If my region lets me, you have my votes.

Well, my region lets me vote however I want on a resolution, so long as it's "for". :D

Well, my region lets me vote however I want on a resolution, so long as it's "for". :D
Well, my region is pretty much apathetic when it comes to the UN so I usually get to decide for myself anyway.

This kinda seems like basic common sense, I'm guessing it will be a land slide. Has this honestly not been covered anywhere else before?

This kinda seems like basic common sense, I'm guessing it will be a land slide. Has this honestly not been covered anywhere else before?

No. It seems that common sense was running a bit late.

What's common sense?

Fair enough. BTW, what's the post threshold for "Somewhat Deadly?"
sometimes deadly in 400 post, and quite deadly in 450 posts, so I guess somewhat deadly will be at 500 posts or so.

anyway, I say again this is good proposal who have to be in the UN books.

I support the proposal, there have been occurances where homeowners found someone breaking into their home and defended it, only to either later be arrested for assault, murder, or sued by the person breaking in. The laws and needs of each nation do differ, however and this resolution offers the flexibility needed.

Excelente! Enhances rights of the inividual while at the same time managing to respect that different cultures have different ideas. Not an easy thing to do, IMHO.

The vagueness of your resolution is not a problem except for in the concept of an imminent assault. Furthermore to mention cultural considerations as your motive for not further specifying in the wording of the resolution begs the question: why write it at all? Basically all cultures have an accomodation for self defense. If there are those that do not, they are the exceptions that need to be considered, and they would be the only reason for drafting this resolution.

It is the obviousness of your assertion that makes me suspicious of your intent in proposing this resolution. Interpersonal violence and destructive behavior in general cannot be made to seem good, the only issue is with intent, if one person initiates aggression they are responsible for what happens. But to say that somehow further violence carried out as a result of an unwarranted attack is a human right is only to confuse matters. Violence in defense is a direct result of violence in offense and is part of the same chain, it doesnt make anything better and it is not a right. It is a rare and unfortunate necessity.

The one specification of defense against imminent assault makes your resolution not only confusing and useless but actually harmful. Violence in preemption is aggresion. Otherwise there would be no need for distinction between the imminent and the ongoing. Destruction of people and their property is always a tragic situation. Often there are long chains of violence that lead into one another. It may be confusing to sort out the responsible parties but when it can be done that is obviously where the blame falls. All of this I believe is contained within the bounds of the cultures you were making consideration for when you did not further specify about the extent of acceptable reprisals or what constitutes an assault.

A resolution that sets out to justify some form of violence that is not already obviously justified -- as part of an unfortunate and inevitable sequence of events originating in an identifiable act of aggression -- does nothing but justify violence. And that is something we cannot afford to do.

*thumbs up* I like.

I don't mean this as a knock or anything, but I've noticed the UN's laws are pretty expansive, at least to the point where nations could theoretically govern themselves with just UN Resolutions. It's interesting, to say the least.

The individual who did not agree with 'imminent assault' has put forward a fairly well argued point but it is fundamentally flawed in the assertion that violence in pre-emption is aggression. It suggests, logically, that aggression follows violence. That will almost never be the case. Aggression will nearly always be a premise for the assault to happen in the first place. It is also important to note that the act of assault can be complete before any sort of physical violence takes place - some jurisdictions have even held silence (ie stalker phone calls) to constitute assault. I am NOT saying that this specific resolution provides for that at all, but it is a useful example to make for conceptual clarity.

Someone who genuinely fears that physical harm will be imminently caused to them should have recourse to "violent" self-defence before they are actually harmed. Which will need to be reasonable in the circumstances. Cause and effect, as you correctly pointed out, will be very difficult to establish in some cases. However, if that is at issue, the case is for a judge and jury to decide, on consideration of all the evidence.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.


I do somewhat have a problem with this part of the resolution. For the sake of argument are you not turning the average citizen into a pretty much vigilante? I can understand if your neighbor is getting assaulted or someone is breaking in, but isn’t it then the job of the citizen that is witnessing these acts to call the police?

Just a little bit more explanation is needed, other then that you would have my full support.


James H Parrott - Head of Judicial Affairs

Leon A.D Jones - Foreign Affairs Representative

Gregg H Johnson - Domestic Affairs Representative

Although I think anyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property, I'm uneasy about the 'imminent' part of the proposal. If someone was looking at you in a funny way, would that give you the right to go and hit them in the face because you think they may be about to mug you? If there is a group of kids loitering in front of your house, would you have the right to start firing your BB-gun at them because you think they are about to break in?

If the answers to those are 'yes', then this resolution would just give violent people a cover for their crimes ("I threw the brick at him because he looked in my direction, which clearly showed intent to assault. I swear this has nothing to do with the fact that he owes me money.").

Maybe it should be rewritten as "anyone has the right to use reasonable force on an assailant once the assailant has broken the law" e.g. after they have broken in, or after they have threatened you with a beating if you don't give them your wallet.

This would have the advantages of discouraging violence, as the aggressors would always risk being harmed in the process of carrying out the crime, and being flexible for use in different cultures as it would be the laws of each country which make the resolution specific. However I suppose that now it is too late to re-word the resolution.

Believe me, I think that this proposal is very well written, but I am also a little wary about the "imminent" part.

Firstly, unlawful assaults are bound to happen, thus, as others have said, you could merely unlawfully assault another person for "suspecting" them of being about to assail you. Essentially, you would become the "assaulter," if you will, and this resolution would harm you, rather then protect you.

Again, as others have said, if there was no "imminent," and worded something like Turkey Farming's, then I would be all for it. I'm just thinking about this; this will be enacted upon nations, most with HUMAN BEINGS, and human beings are known to make mistakes, thinking they are doing the right thing. Most laws take a chance like that, as all can be contorted by someone to harm others rather then help them, and we all take a chance in passing them. If you can persuade me and others who have these thoughts of some sort of benefit that outweighs the risk, I would give you a thumbs up.

Again, I must say that it is still a wonderfully written resolution. ;)

~High King Peter

Yeah, I only really have problems with two words/phrases,

'imminent' and
'reasonable force'

'imminent' meaning, HOW early can you fight it off

'reasonable force' I don't think you'll be able to decide how many times you're gonna hit the guy when he's stealing your stuff. How will they do it in court as well?

'Well, Mr. Smith, it seems you used a baseball bat against petty theft, everyone KNOWS that petty theft requires 2 kicks, one to the groin and one anywhere else.'


It's just those two definitions I have problems with, the rest is good.

This is absolutely outside the jurisdiction of the U.N. I will be starting a campaign to get the bigger regions to vote against this resolution.

OK, I see one problem...
It has been mentioned before, but there is no definition for "reasonable." For all the UN knows reasonable could mean shooting a guy with buck shot from point blank range. Also, it could be used as a loophole and in fact incriminate the person it was trying to help.
For example, a man attacks another man, who then (legally, if this resolution is passed) attacks him. The first man shoots and kills him. He is brought to court, but pleads self defense. He can get off through the fact that technically he used what he would call "resonable" means to protect himself and his interests.

Unless a new, loophole free resolution is released, please don't expect Lantavi's support. Thank you.

Although we approve of the spirit of this resolution, we have two major concerns. One is the "imminent", which could be hard to prove in a courtcase. Secondly, is his really an issue that we should bother about? It doesn't strike us as something that isn't already in practive throughout the NSUN anyway.

It has been reported in Britian that burglers have put pans on the gas cooker and boiled water to throw over the homeowner if they come down during the robbery and attempt to stop it. With this in mind I must ask what is reasonable? I think this resolution is a step in the right direction, but I feel it doesn't go far enough!
Burglers leave all their rights behind them when they break into the property, :gundge: however I would not condone the use of leathal hidden traps.

Why? The burglars have no rights, remember.... ;)

Nope, voting against this one. We have a nil crime rate anyway, so it doesn't affect us, but I wouldn't like someone in our country to have any excuse to harm another.

This resolution is an act to undermine the authority of our fine nations. We should maintain the right to punish criminals of the law anyway we want without having to worry about them fighting back. They sold their rights out the second that they went on killing sprees.

This resolution is an act to undermine the authority of our fine nations. We should maintain the right to punish criminals of the law anyway we want without having to worry about them fighting back. They sold their rights out the second that they went on killing sprees.
Umm, what?
This proposal is giving us the authority to fight back when they try to murder us...

Did you ever actually read the proposal?

We are basically Pacifist in our Region. The current UN Resolution advocates violence by the individual in the name of civil rights. We abhor this proposition.

Should a repressive measure be deemed necessary, we prefer the government to be a greater standard for containing violence than the individual’s attempt to match violence with violence.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

Although we approve of the spirit of this resolution, we have two major concerns. One is the "imminent", which could be hard to prove in a courtcase. Secondly, is his really an issue that we should bother about? It doesn't strike us as something that isn't already in practive throughout the NSUN anyway.

Believe me, I think that this proposal is very well written, but I am also a little wary about the "imminent" part.

Firstly, unlawful assaults are bound to happen, thus, as others have said, you could merely unlawfully assault another person for "suspecting" them of being about to assail you. Essentially, you would become the "assaulter," if you will, and this resolution would harm you, rather then protect you.

Again, as others have said, if there was no "imminent," and worded something like Turkey Farming's, then I would be all for it. I'm just thinking about this; this will be enacted upon nations, most with HUMAN BEINGS, and human beings are known to make mistakes, thinking they are doing the right thing. Most laws take a chance like that, as all can be contorted by someone to harm others rather then help them, and we all take a chance in passing them. If you can persuade me and others who have these thoughts of some sort of benefit that outweighs the risk, I would give you a thumbs up.

Again, I must say that it is still a wonderfully written resolution. ;)

~High King Peter

I agree with both the above points.

I'm concerned about this, and won't be voting for it. It says people can use reasonable force to defend themselves from imminent or current assualts. No problem with that, but...

In the event of an 'imminent assualt' how will people be able to proove this? What I mean is, if an assualt is deemed imminent, it means that it is suspected but hasn't actually happened. Clearly, this proposal is suggesting that it is okay to apply force to individuals suspected, but who have not actually carried out an assualt. This could lead to a lot of innocent people getting hurt, don't you think?

There seems to be a consensus here that the 'imminent assualt' part is a little dodgy.

I think that all these posts have concluded, that whether you believe people should be allowed to defend their property or not, the resolution should not go in to the UN. It doesn't explain itself properly, it is ethno-centric and it can even be argued that the first law contradicts the second.

But of course it will win by a landslide thanks to mindless voters.

Guys, currently, votes for almost doubles votes against. Worrying, but the big regional delegates have yet to cast there vote, and there is a long way to go, so, hopefully, it will be blocked.

I urge you guys to contact your regional delegate, and encourage him to vote against.

Those with a penchant towards violence may well interpret this proposition to allow them to bring knives to fist fights.

The hurdle in this proposition that I cannot overcome is the potential to have situation where someone get shot while stealing a candy bar, especially if the shopkeeper sees a pocket knife strapped to the thief's belt.

Although this piece of legislation is well-intended, the definitions need to be bulked up, and there needs to be a provision expressly forbidding the use of "deadly force" to protect property that is not the person's residence.

Is there any reason why for most resolutions, regardless of content, votes for it is always higher than votes against it?

The reason is, they have to be approved by delegates before they are voted on by the wider UN. Usually, if a resolution can get enough delegate support, then the wider voting by non-UN delegates doesn't change that much, since UN members only get one vote each.

First off. This resolution was stated very poorly and too open to interpretation. WAY too open. My main objective is, that countries should be able to decide this on their own. A UN resolution is dumb on this issue is dumb. Maybe if it was worded better I would consider it.

At this time We cannot vote for this peice of legislation. The details of both thoughts and ideas are so wide open for debate that it is almost leaving it as the "from a certain point of veiw". However i will say you are on the right track and with a little more detail and more specifics of what you are intending i think something could come up.


James H Parrott - Head of Judicial Affairs

Leon A.D Jones - Foreign Affairs Representative

Gregg H Johnson - Domestic Affairs Representative

I've noticed several general trends in the opinions voiced with regard to this resolution. Instead of addressing individuals, I've decided to be efficient and use one post to address them all. I'll be ignoring people who obviously didn't read the link.

1. Concerns about my purpose in writing the resolution.

My purpose in writing this resolution was three-fold. First, it was to continue the UN tradition of promoting human rights and freedom while leaving the national sovereignty of UN member states intact. Second, it was to prevent a future resolution that might undermine those freedoms. Because of many of the resolutions being badly written (for various reasons), I was concerned that someone might accidentally remove those freedoms with a poorly-considered clause. Thirdly, this is an issue close to my heart in real life, because I have had several friends arrested or punished for trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker.

2. Concerns about the "imminent" and "reasonable force" wording.

I intentionally left those terms undefined to allow nations who desire to follow the letter of this resolution and make it fit their cultures and justice systems the freedom to do so. If you are concerned with the "imminent" term, all you need to do is to define it such that it fits your philosophy. In the case of nations who are more stringent in their philosophy, they can define "imminent" as "they have already initiated an attack against one's person". If nations wish to allow their citizens more discretion, they can define "imminent" as "one perceives a possible threat". Similar methods can be used with "reasonable force" and other terms.

3. Concerns about possible vigilanteism and abuse.

The point of the "defense of others" clause was certainly not to advocate vigilanteism. In the case of a crime being committed, there is not always a law enforcement officer nearby (unless your nation has a very high police ratio, in which case you'll be glad I provided for national sovereignty), and to enable prevention of crimes against others such as theft or rape or murder, I decided to ensure that citizens have the chance to protect their fellow citizens from such crimes. Naturally, some nations will abuse this clause. That's truly unfortunate, but the fact is that almost every UN resolution is abused in some way in some nations. Truly regrettable, but not something we can stop. Unfortunately, were I to make this resolution stronger, I would cause great damage to some nations, such as the ones with high police ratios. I decided to err on the side of freedom.

4. Concerns about national sovereignty.

Some nations will, no doubt, be against this resolution because they see it as taking away their national sovereignty. The fact is that I constructed the opening CAPSLOCK clauses with your nations in mind. You can get out of this resolution easily, and the UN still gets to enjoy its tradition of promoting freedom and human rights.

I cannot get over this imminent bit.

If, as you define imminent like:

"they have already initiated an attack against one's person".

You are falsely accusing the perceived assaulter. Because, an imminent attack is not one that has yet taken place.

If, you define it as the latter:

"one perceives a possible threat".

Then then the perception may or may not be accurate. If it is accurate, good. If it not accurate, however, and the perceived threat was false, then you have just applied force to an innocent person.

In my considered opnion, you should have left the word imminent out of this resolution.

I cannot get over this imminent bit.

If, as you define imminent like:

"they have already initiated an attack against one's person".

You are falsely accusing the perceived assaulter. Because, an imminent attack is not one that has yet taken place.

If, you define it as the latter:

"one perceives a possible threat".

Then then the perception may or may not be accurate. If it is accurate, good. If it not accurate, however, and the perceived threat was false, then you have just applied force to an innocent person.

In my considered opnion, you should have left the word imminent out of this resolution.

Understood. I originally added that word and others because a regionmate of mine from the Netherlands suggested that I needed to specify that the defense was taking place at a point in time parallel to the assault. He was concerned that people would use the resolution to attack someone who had assaulted them a week ago or a year ago as a sort of revenge action.

And if you don't like the word imminent because it's open to abuse, there's not much I can do about it. The fact is that almost every UN resolution is open to abuse in some way, so you'll be opposed to most UN resolutions if that's your concern.

Well, I have to say, your friend from the Netherlands is wrong. If you were to use force as a revenge action, then it would clearly not be reasonable force, and certainly not an act of self-defence.

Somebody goofed up again.

Foir fear of labouring a point....

An intentionally vague resolution (for good reason) will of course have differing intepretations, and one can create any number of interpretations to fit one's particular point of view.

If I were to define imminent as 'being put in apprehension of immediate unlawful force' that will naturally involve a subjective judgement, but in my view would also prevent the instant criminalisation of someone who chooses to deal the first punch in circumstances were violent force in self-defence appears to be reasonably necessary. In ALL cases any subjective interpretation of a situation needs to be viewed with "reasonable" eye glasses. 'Reasonable man' tests are objective by their very nature. In a disputed case what is reasonable will be decided not by the defendant or claimant, but by a jury or judge on a consideration of their evidence and the evidence of potential eye witnesses.

In implementing this legislation I would choose to interpret this resolution in a manner that took proper account of my nation's legal system and social and cultural conditions, and probably adopt the above definition of 'imminent' and attitude towards 'reasonable force'. This resolution isn't a blank cheque.. it is INTENTIONALLY vague to prevent being one. It establishes a principle that I believe is worthy of the label 'human right' which can then be construed by nations as they wish in a way that is sensible to them.

We have not been aware of this proposal, so we will be reviewing the matter, taking the discussion here into account.

We will observe, however, that if one takes a dictionary definition of the term "assault" into account, then it could be applied to property. Perhaps not the most artful and clear use of the verb, but enough so to convey the concept of imminent damage or interference to the right of ownership or lawful possession.

I will also observe that there is a difference even in common law jurisdictions in real life over whether the right to defense of self or others necessary extends to the property of others. Where is Professor Prosser when you need him?

I'm not as concerned about the use of the word "reasonable" per se. It is often used in legal concepts to convey, an evaluation that is rationally made in the context of all the circumstances and would reflect objectively what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would conclude under the same circumstances.

At the moment, however, we are undecided, and will continue to monitor the debate.

Well, I have to say, your friend from the Netherlands is wrong. If you were to use force as a revenge action, then it would clearly not be reasonable force, and certainly not an act of self-defence.

Somebody goofed up again.

But some people could try to abuse it in that way. The prevention of abuse was your concern, yes?

In my opnion, if you are, as Mickey put it:

'being put in apprehension of immediate unlawful force'

Then the best thing to do is run, and get the hell out of there, not strike the guy. Clearly, if you were to do so, then this would START a fight, not prevent one and lead to both people getting hurt. This resolution is encouraging that you do just that, which, I quite frankly find wrong.

But some people could try to abuse it in that way. The prevention of abuse was your concern, yes?

The resolution clearly states that force be applied in self-defence only, not revenge. Therefore, it cannot be abused in the manner your friend put it.

I don't think this is the place for in-depth consideration for the 'fight or flee' dilemma that I'm sure you've all heard about. What this resolution does is prevent criminalisation of someone who, in the heat of the moment, chooses to fight, rather than flee. That is not to say that it was a sensible decision to fight, but that at least insult won't be added to injury to a man who has suffered a beating because he (stupidly?) chose not to run, and THEN gets prosecuted for doing so.

This resolutionn is, essentially, sanctioning the use of reasonable force against individuals who you believe will attack you but have not yet done so.

For example, if you are in a pub, and you been playing snooker with somebody. You beat him in the game (of snooker that is), and then go of and have a few drinks with him. He gets slightly drunk, you remind of him of the defeat he took in snooker and he gets angry. He starts to shout and scream, insists he is still the better snooker player. Starts waving fists. You are scared, is he going to attack you or not?

What do you do? I know, I'll strike the guy, and knock him out. Then they'll be no risk. Besides, I'm legally protected to do so, because of the recently passed UN resolution!

Does that sound good to you?

Just noticeing that for all the hooplah that's being made about the vagueness of this resolution, it doesn't require any state to do anything. It specifically says "Urges" member states to enact the following. This is very much how a real-world UN resolution might be: rather generalized, probably vaguely worded, and non-binding. I'm not sure whether or not I'll vote for this, yet, but I thought I'd bring that point up.

It doesn't sound like anything at all to me, because it's a simplistic argument. And I won't be drawn to provide a hypothetical example to rebut yours (although both you and I know that would be possible) because they serve no purpose conducive to good debate. In fact, by employing a hypothetical example you're in fact vindicating the use of 'reasonable force' if understood (which I expect it would in many jurisdictions) as the right of a jury to decide what was reasonable in the circumstances. In the example you laid out I think a jury would have a hard time sanctioning the force used precisely for the reason that anyone who read your example on this board (me included) would have thought the force unreasonable. Hence there is NO legal protection for that our snooker-playing poor winner. Now, please, let's leave the fiction behind...

The resolution clearly states that force be applied in self-defence only, not revenge.

Where was it explicitly stated?

No legal protection, perhaps, but the losing snooker player still got hurt because the other chap thought that it was within his rights to apply force in the name of defence. Clearly, in the hypothetical situation provided, it would have been better for the guy to leave the bar.

But, the resolution encourages force, in the name of self-defence. Because of this, people might use force in a situation where restraint may have been better.

I don't think there's much to add in this little spat and maybe it's about time others got a word in.. (OOC and I got to go anyway!) . If you genuinely think that it implicitly encourages violence then I see your point but must emphatically disagree. It is in my view a much greater evil to undermine the right of an individual to protect their bodies and their property where it is reasonable to do so, than save a fist-waving abusive losing snooker-player from a black eye and become a criminal in the process.

Surely you can understand, Texas, that revenge is not self-defence. This resolution is talking about the use of 'resonable force' in relation to self-defence. Clearly, going on a revenge mission against somebody who has wronged you is not self-defence, and is deeply unchristian.

Now, If you ask me, this resolution encroaches on the individual government to rule its own lands. This is definately a matter for local laws, not UN legislation, although that is an opinion open to discussion.

Sovereign individuals? What are those? Only thing that has sovereign power in our nation is the government, everyone else has to follow laws.

Perhaps most alarming, picture this: two friends go find a man walking in the street late at night. Nobody else is around. They assault and kill the man, then place a knife in his dead hand. The two men may say that the deceased attacked one of them, and the victim had a right to self defense. The other man had a right to act in the interests of his friend's self defense. This legislation leaves a huge loophole for conspired murders. The whole second part of this resolution is an excuse to come help your friend beat a man if you see them fighting.


Please join me in voting Against Right to Self-Protection.


While the first part of this resolution is still unwelcome in Peruvilantonica, it does not create such a compromise of security by bestowing policing powers on the common citizenry. We would be willing to abstain on such a resolution.

Surely you can understand, Texas, that revenge is not self-defence. This resolution is talking about the use of 'resonable force' in relation to self-defence. Clearly, going on a revenge mission against somebody who has wronged you is not self-defence, and is deeply unchristian.

I can understand that. Others may not understand it, however. They may not be as smart or moral as you are, Adamsgrad.

Now, If you ask me, this resolution encroaches on the individual government to rule its own lands. This is definately a matter for local laws, not UN legislation, although that is an opinion open to discussion.

Sovereign individuals? What are those? Only thing that has sovereign power in our nation is the government, everyone else has to follow laws.

Perhaps most alarming, picture this: two friends go find a man walking in the street late at night. Nobody else is around. They assault and kill the man, then place a knife in his dead hand. The two men may say that the deceased attacked one of them, and the victim had a right to self defense. The other man had a right to act in the interests of his friend's self defense. This legislation leaves a huge loophole for conspired murders. The whole second part of this resolution is an excuse to come help your friend beat a man if you see them fighting.


Please join me in voting Against Right to Self-Protection.


While the first part of this resolution is still unwelcome in Peruvilantonica, it does not create such a compromise of security by bestowing policing powers on the common citizenry. We would be willing to abstain on such a resolution.

You didn't read the full post, did you?

No legal protection, perhaps, but the losing snooker player still got hurt because the other chap thought that it was within his rights to apply force in the name of defence. Clearly, in the hypothetical situation provided, it would have been better for the guy to leave the bar.

But, the resolution encourages force, in the name of self-defence. Because of this, people might use force in a situation where restraint may have been better.
how much I know, stupidity is legal. in addition, I don't think that people with poor logic, wan't do it because of the law. if you could consider the law effect, you would consider what the right action to make (even without laws).
however, I think this is part of the things that texan let the nations to decide.

I have voted against this resolution and urge all other members of the UN to do the same. This resolution provides no limits on the amount of force an individual may use in order to protect themselves or their loved ones or property from intrusion. In my opinion this resolution will bring with it an increase in crime in all of our nations as people will "Defend" themselves in ways not intended by this resolution. If someone comes up to another person in a bar and says "I don't like the way you look" and the second person assualts them, I believe that this resolution would be used as the defense. This is a very Thin and not very well written Resolution. Again, I urge Memebers of the UN to vote this resolution down.

-President Chris Johanning

I have voted against this resolution and urge all other members of the UN to do the same. This resolution provides no limits on the amount of force an individual may use in order to protect themselves or their loved ones or property from intrusion. In my opinion this resolution will bring with it an increase in crime in all of our nations as people will "Defend" themselves in ways not intended by this resolution. If someone comes up to another person in a bar and says "I don't like the way you look" and the second person assualts them, I believe that this resolution would be used as the defense. This is a very Thin and not very well written Resolution. Again, I urge Memebers of the UN to vote this resolution down.

-President Chris Johanning

You didn't read the post, either, I take it. You do understand that you can use your own national laws to define this resolution such that it will be effective at preventing abuse in your nation, right?

Due to complaints from my supporters within the region I am obliged to change my vote to against. I also can see the points they have raised! This is not a UN issue. This is not an international issue, but a national one. My region feels that this resolution eats away at their right to make their own laws with regards to law and order.

Due to complaints from my supporters within the region I am obliged to change my vote to against. I also can see the points they have raised! This is not a UN issue. This is not an international issue, but a national one. My region feels that this resolution eats away at their right to make their own laws with regards to law and order.

You and your region didn't read the post either, I see.

4. Concerns about national sovereignty.

Some nations will, no doubt, be against this resolution because they see it as taking away their national sovereignty. The fact is that I constructed the opening CAPSLOCK clauses with your nations in mind. You can get out of this resolution easily, and the UN still gets to enjoy its tradition of promoting freedom and human rights.

Oh good more pointless laws that I will have to redfine to get around, thank you soooo MUCH!

Oh good more pointless laws that I will have to redfine to get around, thank you soooo MUCH!

You don't have to redefine. The URGES makes it non-obligatory. If I would have put DECLARES, then you would have to redefine some things.

You didn't read the post, either, I take it. You do understand that you can use your own national laws to define this resolution such that it will be effective at preventing abuse in your nation, right?


Then why not leave it up to the countries to define their own Self-Defense laws. This Resolution has nothing to do with the security of the world or the Security of the UN. It seems to me that its just another attempt by the UN to dig its claws even deeper into the nations it is supposed to serve.

Then why not leave it up to the countries to define their own Self-Defense laws. This Resolution has nothing to do with the security of the world or the Security of the UN. It seems to me that its just another attempt by the UN to dig its claws even deeper into the nations it is supposed to serve.

I have left it up to the nations. And I have continued the UN tradition of promoting human rights.

URGES = You don't have to, but we would really like it if you would.

I read it, and i most certainly support it. :)

I read it, and i most certainly support it. :)

Thank you. :)

The only problem I have with the proposal is that it does not define "reasonable." In order for this to be a good proposal, you need to say that reasonable includes maiming an attacker and avoiding murder at all costs.

The only problem I have with the proposal is that it does not define "reasonable." In order for this to be a good proposal, you need to say that reasonable includes maiming an attacker and avoiding murder at all costs.

All you have to do is define "reasonable" in that manner for your own justice system and you'll be set.

wait your proposal says that

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

I don't agree with that because i don't wanna see people maiming each other to protect a strangers rights

Hey Texan, Do you get the feeling you're doing this :headbang:?

wait your proposal says that

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

I don't agree with that because i don't wanna see people maiming each other to protect a strangers rights

Then don't comply with the resolution. That's why I used URGES. It means that you don't have to, but we'd really like it if you did.

In theory I support this resolution. However, I am still undecided as to how I will vote. What is the UN's role in this other than urging member nations to support the spirit and intent of this resolution in their governing laws and directives? Is there any recourse for an individual wrongfully jailed for following this resolution? Is there an appeal process where the UN will arbitrate? Is there any UN sanctions against a member nation that adopts but does not enforce this resolution?

It seems to me something like the UN urging the consumption of chocolate. If member nations do eat it that's fine, if member nations choose not to eat it, no big deal. Am I missing something here?

Hey Texan, Do you get the feeling you're doing this :headbang:?

Yeah. Except harder.

In theory I support this resolution. However, I am still undecided as to how I will vote. What is the UN's role in this other than urging member nations to support the spirit and intent of this resolution in their governing laws and directives? Is there any recourse for an individual wrongfully jailed for following this resolution? Is there an appeal process where the UN will arbitrate? Is there any UN sanctions against a member nation that adopts but does not enforce this resolution?

It seems to me something like the UN urging the consumption of chocolate. If member nations do eat it that's fine, if member nations choose not to eat it, no big deal. Am I missing something here?

Not really. Thank you for being understanding. By the way, the UN really has no way, as a game mechanics issue, to enforce sanctions or arbitrate. And the recourse a person has for being wrongfully jailed is laid out by the "Definition of a Fair Trial" resolution, as I recall.

Why are we posting here instead of in the official topic? Mods, I humbly request for the awesome powers of THREADLOCK to be unleashed.

Why are we posting here instead of in the official topic? Mods, I humbly request for the awesome powers of THREADLOCK to be unleashed.

I already requested a merge.

Thank you for your quick response. My cabinet has discussed this issue at length and based on the fact that there will be no UN intervention per se have recommended that I support it. I will vote in favor of this resolution.

Thank you for your quick response. My cabinet has discussed this issue at length and based on the fact that there will be no UN intervention per se have recommended that I support it. I will vote in favor of this resolution.

Thank you. :)

Stick with it, Texan.

Finally decided to vote for this too - I said LOOOONG time ago that I was a bit iffy on the whole national sovereignty thing but I've reconciled that with the importance of the principle now. Also, having spent so much time dealing with the same arguments (where the words 'reasonable' and 'imminent' almost invariably seem to feature) over and over and over and over and over and over and over I thought it would be a bit stupid to wear out my keyboard like that and then bugger off and vote against/abstain anyway.

Looks good on the vote so far, let's hope it goes all the way.

PS I honestly think this resolution would have met with less opposition if the proposer had been called 'French Renault' or something equally non-contentious or safety-tested, rather than conjure up images of gun-toting, cowboy-hat wearing fuel-guzzling V8-driving Texans... generalisations, moi??! ;)

Then don't comply with the resolution. That's why I used URGES. It means that you don't have to, but we'd really like it if you did.

That would be nice, but that's not how the UN works. The resolution is implemented in all UN nations whether they like it or not. I don't think that one word is going to spare us. I also have the same problem with statement 2. If that wasn't there, I'd vote for it, but I don't know...

So, I was just like, you know, wondering how this affects National Sovereignty and stuff?

What do you mean by urges, that word is totally weird and confusing to me?

Just kidding, keep up the good work Texan. I suggest putting on a helmet, that brick wall looks pretty solid.

That would be nice, but that's not how the UN works. The resolution is implemented in all UN nations whether they like it or not. I don't think that one word is going to spare us. I also have the same problem with statement 2. If that wasn't there, I'd vote for it, but I don't know...

That's not how the UN works? Do you think honestly there is a "self-defense=legal" statistic for your nation? And if there is no such statistic, then the portion of compliance that constitutes actual policy is roleplayed.

So, I was just like, you know, wondering how this affects National Sovereignty and stuff?

What do you mean by urges, that word is totally weird and confusing to me?

Just kidding, keep up the good work Texan. I suggest putting on a helmet, that brick wall looks pretty solid.

Good point. My cowboy hat doesn't seem to be providing enough protection.

If this resolution is rewritten with a definition of "reasonable violence", then I'll reconsider it.

I think you'll find that reasonable violence is a contradiction in terms whereas reasonable force is an entirely sensible statutory device.. please read the entire thread for arguments as to why 'reasonable force' does not need definition.

Good night, folks.

It is hard to come up with a clear cut definition for reasonable force, because there are a myriad of different factors in each situation. That is why it has to be left up to the courts to decide if the use of force was reasonable enough. I really like this resolution. I endorsed it when it was a proposal and as long as the majority of my region supports it, I will support it now too. It looks like this is the case. I really think that this was a necessary act that noone really thought of before.

The problem seems to be in an understanding of what is meant, in the context of the resolution, by the term "reasonable." Since the language of the resolution seems to be drawn from the common law tradition, which is case-by-case, fact oriented in developing legal concepts, "reasonable" has also been defined and applied in that same context. But that alone seems to be too vague for some. The answer to that vagueness, I suspect, is the so-called "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" standard, under which the finder of fact measures the conduct and circumstances in question by the conduct of a hypothetical "reasonable person" in the place of the actor, and asks whether the "reasonable person" would have acted in the same manner. Texan HotRoadders, am I reading this correctly? I'm noticing discussion in some reasons finding the resolution too vague to support, and my suspicion is that what I'm describing seem to be a crux of the issue.
I've not yet totally made up my mind on this, but I thought I would give you an opportunity to comment.

The problem seems to be in an understanding of what is meant, in the context of the resolution, by the term "reasonable." Since the language of the resolution seems to be drawn from the common law tradition, which is case-by-case, fact oriented in developing legal concepts, "reasonable" has also been defined and applied in that same context. But that alone seems to be too vague for some. The answer to that vagueness, I suspect, is the so-called "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" standard, under which the finder of fact measures the conduct and circumstances in question by the conduct of a hypothetical "reasonable person" in the place of the actor, and asks whether the "reasonable person" would have acted in the same manner. Texan HotRoadders, am I reading this correctly? I'm noticing discussion in some reasons finding the resolution too vague to support, and my suspicion is that what I'm describing seem to be a crux of the issue.
I've not yet totally made up my mind on this, but I thought I would give you an opportunity to comment.

Common Law thought is the legal tradition I was raised in, and that may be the reason I chose the word reasonable. I honestly haven't given that much thought. I actually think the problem most people are having is that they like things concrete and laid out for them. It's a product of their Western formal schooling, IMO. They need to be given specific guidelines or they feel lost. They don't feel free to be creative and use what they have to construct their own frameworks. That's just speculation on my part, however.

The problem is, you're assuming that by leaving the details out, individual nations would pick up the slack and modify their laws to ensure that the UN resolution does not get abused. But this is only an assumption. Freedom is a good thing, but you actually have no idea if individual nations have that much political will to fine-tune the resolution to suit their country. And the end result might be worse, especially in lawless states. And all of this does not take into account the amount of corruption the law enforcers might be under, and the difficulty caused in enforcing the law.

The problem is, you're assuming that by leaving the details out, individual nations would pick up the slack and modify their laws to ensure that the UN resolution does not get abused. But this is only an assumption. Freedom is a good thing, but you actually have no idea if individual nations have that much political will to fine-tune the resolution to suit their country. And the end result might be worse, especially in lawless states. And all of this does not take into account the amount of corruption the law enforcers might be under, and the difficulty caused in enforcing the law.

Welcome to the UN.

No UN resolution is ironclad. And even if they were, so many of us have iron-piercing weapons these days. :cool:

OK, I see one problem...
It has been mentioned before, but there is no definition for "reasonable." For all the UN knows reasonable could mean shooting a guy with buck shot from point blank range. Also, it could be used as a loophole and in fact incriminate the person it was trying to help.
For example, a man attacks another man, who then (legally, if this resolution is passed) attacks him. The first man shoots and kills him. He is brought to court, but pleads self defense. He can get off through the fact that technically he used what he would call "resonable" means to protect himself and his interests.

Unless a new, loophole free resolution is released, please don't expect Lantavi's support. Thank you.

Very much agreed. Without stating what is "reasonable" and what is not, it could end up wasting court time for smaller cases. If this resolution was rewritten to include a definition of it, it would help. Since this is not the case however, Hathoria cannot support this resolution.

Very much agreed. Without stating what is "reasonable" and what is not, it could end up wasting court time for smaller cases. If this resolution was rewritten to include a definition of it, it would help. Since this is not the case however, Hathoria cannot support this resolution.
Please read the previous pages of this thread.

Very much agreed. Without stating what is "reasonable" and what is not, it could end up wasting court time for smaller cases. If this resolution was rewritten to include a definition of it, it would help. Since this is not the case however, Hathoria cannot support this resolution.

I wonder how many times I've addressed this point already. I should go count.

Welcome to the UN.Well, thanks a lot for the tongue-in-cheek welcome. But if you've taken a look at any real UNSC resolutions, you would have seen that they are a lot more specific than what you've actually offered. Like many others who have voted for your resolution, I support the basic underlying idea of the right to self-defense, but I also understand that what is more important than the basic concept is exactly how such a ideal concept is to be put into practice. Leaving out the details may make for more democratic choice in implementing the resolution in individual states, but as I've said before your resolution would cause more harm than good if the governments of the states involved are corrupted, inefficient at enforcing law etc.

As I've said before your resolution would cause more harm than good if the governments of the states involved are corrupted, inefficient at enforcing law etc.

Well, that's more of a problem for the nation itself than for the UN, isn't it?

The thing is, any nation which has the means within their judicial system to argue for the defense of those who retaliate under assault clearly does not need the resolution itself. On the other hand, countries which do not possess such a privilege remind me of those countries where law and order are not the first priorities. Implementing such a resolution in those nations merely encourages abusers to search for loopholes in the resolution (ambiguity is a great gift to them) and exploit them, worsening the situation. While I agree that every nation has to resolve its own internal problems, the UN should not in any way accentuate the problems by forcing the resolution down their throats. You can't say, it's your problem, not the UN's and then proceed to make it more of a problem.

It is deplorable to allow untrained citizens to take law into their own hands, they could hurt themselves. Perhaps a better way to go about this is to assign a federal armed guard at each household, residence, business, ect. This would be much more effective at reducing crime plus has the added bonus of reducing the incentive to commit a crime. People always behave better when they know they are being watched. A few tax hikes in key areas (food, gas, "mature" films) would cover the expense.

It is deplorable to allow untrained citizens to take law into their own hands, they could hurt themselves. Perhaps a better way to go about this is to assign a federal armed guard at each household, residence, business, ect. This would be much more effective at reducing crime plus has the added bonus of reducing the incentive to commit a crime. People always behave better when they know they are being watched. A few tax hikes in key areas (food, gas, "mature" films) would cover the expense.

So far as I can tell, the only thing this resolution would do is to defend themselves without fear of legal reprisal. How is this a negative thing? Not that Krioval needs to worry overmuch about this, since our laws already allow people immunity from prosecution when defending life or property. Yes, they may get hurt, but letting a robber or kidnapper into the house without resisting is far more likely to result in an innocent victim being harmed.

Just noticeing that for all the hooplah that's being made about the vagueness of this resolution, it doesn't require any state to do anything. It specifically says "Urges" member states to enact the following. This is very much how a real-world UN resolution might be: rather generalized, probably vaguely worded, and non-binding. I'm not sure whether or not I'll vote for this, yet, but I thought I'd bring that point up.

This is a key point. So is the fact that the resolution authorizes ONLY that force which is "reasonable." It makes no provisions allowing for the unreasonable exercise of force, whatsoever.

Last, this resolution, while not committing any state to a definite course of action, and not constraining any state in its implementation of this program, puts the UN on record as endorsing the principle of a right to self-defense. My nation thinks one of the greatest values of this resolution consists in its reaffirmation of the right of citizens to use force to defend themselves against unlawful assaults by their governments--that is, those assaults that run counter to the duly enacted laws of the UN, or the constitutions by which their governments are bound.

We plan to vote FOR.

I'm sure this, like all resolutions, will pass. Nonetheless, I am appalled that more nations haven't objected to this. It condones (if not promotes) violence in response not just to violence (which is bad enough) but also to "assaults" perceived against one's property or other people's property.

As for the arguments that the ambiguities in the resolution and the fact it merely "urges" nations to act make it acceptable to all, that begs the question of why it should be enacted at all. Clearly nations are free to ignore it or define the terms within so that the resolution is meaningless. What then is the point? On the other hand, it gives at least symbolic support for violence in general and vigilantism specifically.

I do not mean any personal attack, but the author stated one of the reasons for the bill was:

this is an issue close to my heart in real life, because I have had several friends arrested or punished for trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker.

This is disturbing. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming this occured in the US, but every state has well defined provisions for self-defense, protection of others, etc. It is true these provisions are not as broad and vague as the resolution here (which is why they are more rational and acceptable), but it is extremely rare that one "trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker" would be convicted and punished -- unless there is more to the story. This simply wouldn't have happened several times where individuals were using reasonable force in self-defense.

The sentiments of those who think that anyone found on their property without permission has "given up their rights" and can be "blown away" are exactly why this proposal is scary.

I would ask the representatives from The Cat-Tribe if they think so little of foreign justice systems that anybody claiming self-defense is automatically acquitted of all charges. Most nations have provisions for self-defense, this is true, however, this resolution would neutralize any penalties if the self-defense claim is validated. That means no civil suits for injuries, for example, and it's something I strongly support. As Kriovalians will visit other nations, we would at least like some level of protection from frivolous legal claims in UN member nations when one of our citizens is put in danger.

For those societies that claim to abhor violence to the point of condemning a pointy stick as a potential weapon, Krioval would like to announce that we are considering a colonization program, having achieved space capability for these past several months. Please indicate your planet and geographic location so that our effort can begin in earnest. Isn't extremism silly?

The thing is, any nation which has the means within their judicial system to argue for the defense of those who retaliate under assault clearly does not need the resolution itself. On the other hand, countries which do not possess such a privilege remind me of those countries where law and order are not the first priorities. Implementing such a resolution in those nations merely encourages abusers to search for loopholes in the resolution (ambiguity is a great gift to them) and exploit them, worsening the situation. While I agree that every nation has to resolve its own internal problems, the UN should not in any way accentuate the problems by forcing the resolution down their throats. You can't say, it's your problem, not the UN's and then proceed to make it more of a problem.

On the contrary. Texan Hotrodders' resolution ensures that the attacked are protected in some way, even if that protection is very small, so no nation could use the Resolution to undo it. Nations could theoretically make this protection very small, but the protection still exists. I understand that the ambiguity could lead to deliberately unfavourable situations, but I think that the ambiguity is probably the best way to go so that you don't get people harranging the Hotrodders over details.

We still find this resolution pointless no matter how much the parties argue about rights, wrongs or whatever of imminent, supposed or actual threat.

The resolution does nothing to reduce the probability of violence, it does however profess to allow an escalation of any problem that may arise between people.

Please do not be unaware that this resolution does not only encompass the burglar in the bedroom with the children asleep, it may also be reasonably applied to the passer by in the street who may through genuine interest stare for a little longer than the "victim" is comfortable with. Who then is reasonably allowed to verbally respond. That response could be so offensive to the passer by that they could respond by shaking a fist. I hope you appreciate my drift by now.

Everyone already has the right to respond to violence, however they choose to respond is totally a matter for their conscience, the problem arises firstly if their response fails or the initial assailant makes a claim legally against the victim if either party finds that the legal response brings a judgement that a party in the case finds unjust, we logically develop a problem that this resolution is unable to answer.

Because the convicted then have the right to respond to the sentence as a threat against their person, in a manner that must be protected as potentially "reasonable".

If this resolution passes, then legally within the great variety of judical codes the UN encompasses the sentence could vary from slightly less than death to being taken to a butterfly house, either of which a person may find more or less threatening.

So vote for this resolution if it makes you feel more secure, but be prepared that it will bring the aggressor double the confidence with a legal argument against any action you take that they conceive as a threat.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves a blind man washing the dentures of his family.

I like the idea of being able to protect yourself and others from bodily harm without having to be worried about being accused of a crime by the police.
in that aspect I am for this resolution.
but when you speak of reasonable force to theft or loss/damage of property then i think this is turning into the WILD WEST! :mp5:

Saving yourself and others in trouble you can always used enough force nessisary to accomplish this goal,
saving your belongings... how much force is needed? :sniper:

last month a woman was getting into her car, a kid (+/- 16) was on a moped and stole her purse, she quickly started her car and went into pursuit.

Eventually she was able to run him over.

She got her purse back and was thrown into jail for manslaughter.

Point of this (real) story is if he were raping her sure kill him but as soon as he's running away your not in any danger and therefore should not be the judge, jury and executioner.

If you can change the parameters of this resolution I'll vote with you, otherwise I can not agree with it.

I'm sure this, like all resolutions, will pass. Nonetheless, I am appalled that more nations haven't objected to this. It condones (if not promotes) violence in response not just to violence (which is bad enough) but also to "assaults" perceived against one's property or other people's property.


That is what courts are there for. And while it condones the ability of someone to stand up for themselves, it doesn't go any further and indicate you have a right to kill under this. Which is good.

I like the idea of being able to protect yourself and others from bodily harm without having to be worried about being accused of a crime by the police.
in that aspect I am for this resolution.
but when you speak of reasonable force to theft or loss/damage of property then i think this is turning into the WILD WEST! :mp5:

Saving yourself and others in trouble you can always used enough force nessisary to accomplish this goal,
saving your belongings... how much force is needed? :sniper:

last month a woman was getting into her car, a kid (+/- 16) was on a moped and stole her purse, she quickly started her car and went into pursuit.

Eventually she was able to run him over.

She got her purse back and was thrown into jail for manslaughter.

Point of this (real) story is if he were raping her sure kill him but as soon as he's running away your not in any danger and therefore should not be the judge, jury and executioner.

If you can change the parameters of this resolution I'll vote with you, otherwise I can not agree with it.

Why? This proposal is exactly the sort of thing your story applies to. It permits the use of reasonable force, and I am pretty sure most people would say running over someone who is running away is not reasonable force, and as such would not be protected under this.

Given a different formulation, keeping the spirit intended by the original framers, Iabastan might have voted in favour of this proposal. Leaving many of the essential points open to interpretation by the individual nations quite spoils is, however. Notwithstanding the elaborations offered by Texan Hotrodders regarding the vagueness of the terms "reasonable force" and "imminent", the Iabastanian parliament has voted against this proposal. After all, it is only the letter of the law that has any meaning; all the rest is fluff, no matter how noble the sentiment. In its present form, it is felt that this proposal would make for a useless piece of legislation at best; a carte blanche for wanton violence at worst.

With regrets,

Iabastan

Given a different formulation, keeping the spirit intended by the original framers, Iabastan might have voted in favour of this proposal. Leaving many of the essential points open to interpretation by the individual nations quite spoils is, however. Notwithstanding the elaborations offered by Texan Hotrodders regarding the vagueness of the terms "reasonable force" and "imminent", the Iabastanian parliament has voted against this proposal. After all, it is only the letter of the law that has any meaning; all the rest is fluff, no matter how noble the sentiment. In its present form, it is felt that this proposal would make for a useless piece of legislation at best; a carte blanche for wanton violence at worst.

With regrets,

Iabastan

Ok - so suppose you define this properly. You say that if someone attacks you with a gun, you can shoot them with no comeback. That if someone is trying to rape you, you can kill them. That if someone breaks in to your home, you can kill them with no come back - no legal proceedings, no nothing. That would make for huge loophools that would lead to way more violance than it is.

Under this proposal - if someone attacks you with a gun, and you can get the gun away from them, that is what you can do. You can't then chase them down the street with it and shoot them in the back of the head, because most people would consider that unreasonable. Same with someone breaking in to your home - you can disarm and disable them, but only if they actually prove a valid threat to your life, or the life of those in your house, can you kill them.

And the definition of "reasonable" can be defined by the courts, by the government - even by your god if she so choses.

How is the alternative - having everything written down in minute detail - any better?

I can understand that. Others may not understand it, however. They may not be as smart or moral as you are, Adamsgrad.
I am flattered by your complimentary remarks, Texan.

Under this proposal - if someone attacks you with a gun, and you can get the gun away from them, that is what you can do. You can't then chase them down the street with it and shoot them in the back of the head, because most people would consider that unreasonable. Same with someone breaking in to your home - you can disarm and disable them, but only if they actually prove a valid threat to your life, or the life of those in your house, can you kill them.


With all due respect, TilEnca, if somebody attacks you with a gun, it is highly unlikely you would be able to get the gun away from them. If you attempted to get the gun of them, you would most likely be shot or have some other harm done to yourself. With regard to your second example. If you believe somebody is posing a threat to your life, I would certainly not suggest you kill them. Surely, it would be better to run like hell, not confront the guy - or you would probably get either get yourself killed or end up killing an innocent person. Do you realise how rediculous you are beginning to sound in defence of this obvious flaw within the resolution?

I have spoken before about this, but will make my position clear here. I would be in favour of this resolution, if it didn't include the word imminent in it.

It is clearly wrong to urge people to use force before an assualt has taken place. In the event that you feel you are about to be attacked or have your property assuatled in some way, it is surely better to either:

1.) Run like hell

2.) Dial 999 or whatever the number of your domestic law enforcer.

Using 'reasonable force' before an assualt has actually taken place could clearly inflame the situation, not improve it.

In the event of imminent assualt, I would urge retraint, not force. And I urge you guys not to vote infavour of this resolution because of this.

Ok - so suppose you define this properly. You say that if someone attacks you with a gun, you can shoot them with no comeback. That if someone is trying to rape you, you can kill them. That if someone breaks in to your home, you can kill them with no come back - no legal proceedings, no nothing. That would make for huge loophools that would lead to way more violance than it is.

Agreed.

Under this proposal - if someone attacks you with a gun, and you can get the gun away from them, that is what you can do. You can't then chase them down the street with it and shoot them in the back of the head, because most people would consider that unreasonable. Same with someone breaking in to your home - you can disarm and disable them, but only if they actually prove a valid threat to your life, or the life of those in your house, can you kill them.

And the definition of "reasonable" can be defined by the courts, by the government - even by your god if she so choses.

Which is exactly the problem with this proposal, as I see it. One government may define "reasonable violence" as a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue; another may define it as the use of deadly force, in all situations. These are two extremes, but should suffice to to make my point: that the definition of "reasonable" is entirely up to the member states, most of which (presumably) already have legislation dealing with self-defense and violence. Therefore this propoasal seems superfluous to me.

How is the alternative - having everything written down in minute detail - any better?

If we want to have a proper rule of law, we have to make sure our citizens not only know the law, but also understand the law. Leaving the law open to interpretation is contrary to this principle. Furthermore, having each state make its own interpretation quite defeats the principle of international law. I would rather have a detailed law, which can be open to discussion and ammendments, than a deliberately vague law, which efeefctively does nothing at all.

I want to take this opportunity to state again that I have nothing against the spirit of the proposed legislation. Unfortunately all we have in a body of law is the letter, and I feel the current wording leaves much to be desired.

With all due respect, TilEnca, if somebody attacks you with a gun, it is highly unlikely you would be able to get the gun away from them. If you attempted to get the gun of them, you would most likely be shot or have some other harm done to yourself.


That is why I used the word "AND you can get it away from them". I wasn't suggesting you could always do that. I was merely saying that if you got the gun, you would then not have any excuse under "reasonable" to chase then down the street and blow them away.




With regard to your second example. If you believe somebody is posing a threat to your life, I would certainly not suggest you kill them. Surely, it would be better to run like hell, not confront the guy - or you would probably get either get yourself killed or end up killing an innocent person. Do you realise how rediculous you are beginning to sound in defence of this obvious flaw within the resolution?


So a guy breaks in to your house and instead of threatening you, threatens your five year old daughter. Would you run then?


I have spoken before about this, but will make my position clear here. I would be in favour of this resolution, if it didn't include the word imminent in it.


But if you take out the word imminent then it means this could be used to justify long term attacks. You think your neighbour may be planning to kill you two years from now, so you shoot him. This would be perfectly reasonable after you remove the word imminent.


It is clearly wrong to urge people to use force before an assualt has taken place.

So you wait until your head has been caved in, or your daughter has been raped, to take action?


In the event that you feel you are about to be attacked or have your property assuatled in some way, it is surely better to either:

1.) Run like hell


Leaving your family alone to face the consequences........


2.) Dial 999 or whatever the number of your domestic law enforcer.


And if the phone isn't working?


Using 'reasonable force' before an assualt has actually taken place could clearly inflame the situation, not improve it.

In the event of imminent assualt, I would urge retraint, not force. And I urge you guys not to vote infavour of this resolution because of this.

Three guys break in to your house, all with shot guns. They grab your wife and your children and start to hurt them. You really think restraint is the best answer? Running like hell is the best answer?

This proposal does not demand people to take action, it just says that if you act in a reasonable manner in defence of your life, your home or the lives and homes of others, you should not be punished for it. Even if you run away, you are still following the proposal because that could be classed as reasonable force :}

Which is exactly the problem with this proposal, as I see it. One government may define "reasonable violence" as a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue; another may define it as the use of deadly force, in all situations. These are two extremes, but should suffice to to make my point: that the definition of "reasonable" is entirely up to the member states, most of which (presumably) already have legislation dealing with self-defense and violence. Therefore this propoasal seems superfluous to me.


That is why the proposal is so good. The other alternative proposal I have seen defines exactly in what situations you can shoot someone dead. And that included a situation where someone could break in to your house, then knock themselves out. If you found them, you could - under the other proposal, shoot them. Under this one - well it depends on your nation. In TilEnca we don't believe in killing people, so we might well exclude shooting people from "reasonable force". In your nation - it would be up to you.



If we want to have a proper rule of law, we have to make sure our citizens not only know the law, but also understand the law. Leaving the law open to interpretation is contrary to this principle. Furthermore, having each state make its own interpretation quite defeats the principle of international law. I would rather have a detailed law, which can be open to discussion and ammendments, than a deliberately vague law, which efeefctively does nothing at all.


International Law says "You may defend yourself with reasonable force" - that means if you believe you acted reasonably, and can prove that in a court of law, you are protected under this proposal. How is that bad?


I want to take this opportunity to state again that I have nothing against the spirit of the proposed legislation. Unfortunately all we have in a body of law is the letter, and I feel the current wording leaves much to be desired.

In comparrison to the alternatives, this is by far and away the best proposal, because it leaves so much to the nations in which it operates, rather than dictating what is and isn't reasonable. For example - if it says you can shoot someone only if they are a danger, that leaves all my magic users free to do what they want because they use magic, not guns. This proposal, however, prevents such a thing from happening without my government's say so.

That is why the proposal is so good. The other alternative proposal I have seen defines exactly in what situations you can shoot someone dead. And that included a situation where someone could break in to your house, then knock themselves out. If you found them, you could - under the other proposal, shoot them. Under this one - well it depends on your nation. In TilEnca we don't believe in killing people, so we might well exclude shooting people from "reasonable force". In your nation - it would be up to you.

To remove any misconceptions: killing people is generally frowned upon in Iabastan. ;)

International Law says "You may defend yourself with reasonable force" - that means if you believe you acted reasonably, and can prove that in a court of law, you are protected under this proposal. How is that bad?

In the sense that this proposal doesn't name specifics, it leaves it to the individual governments to name them. Supposedly, any government that is concerned with its citizen's well-being already has laws in effect that regulate the use of violence in self-defense situations. That's why I think that this proposal is superfluous, and since I have too much respect for the U.N. and the international body of law I would rather not have such frivolous legislation passed.

In comparrison to the alternatives, this is by far and away the best proposal, because it leaves so much to the nations in which it operates, rather than dictating what is and isn't reasonable. For example - if it says you can shoot someone only if they are a danger, that leaves all my magic users free to do what they want because they use magic, not guns. This proposal, however, prevents such a thing from happening without my government's say so.

That is indeed a good point, but once again this is handled much better by national law rather than international. It is my philosophy that the U.N. is better off dealing with legislation of a truly international nature (e.g. regarding trade agreements, disarmament agreements, or the recently repealed Global Library plan) than to make suggestions in nations' internal policy.

Iabastan

That is indeed a good point, but once again this is handled much better by national law rather than international. It is my philosophy that the U.N. is better off dealing with legislation of a truly international nature (e.g. regarding trade agreements, disarmament agreements, or the recently repealed Global Library plan) than to make suggestions in nations' internal policy.

Iabastan

(grin) Aren't human rights something the UN should be involved in?

(grin) Aren't human rights something the UN should be involved in?

Yes, but the current proposal does nothing to grant human rights, precisely because it is so vague. To go back to an example I posted earlier: under this proposal a hypothetical government may define "reasonable violence" as "a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue". Clearly, this proposal would do nothing to further the human rights in that country, and therefore I consider it flawed. The same goes, of course, for the other extreme that any sort of violence is acceptable.

I would definitely want to see a a piece of international law that grants the right of self-defense. I'm just saying that the proposal under scrutinage is not satisfactory there.

Yes, but the current proposal does nothing to grant human rights, precisely because it is so vague. To go back to an example I posted earlier: under this proposal a hypothetical government may define "reasonable violence" as "a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue". Clearly, this proposal would do nothing to further the human rights in that country, and therefore I consider it flawed. The same goes, of course, for the other extreme that any sort of violence is acceptable.

I would definitely want to see a a piece of international law that grants the right of self-defense. I'm just saying that the proposal under scrutinage is not satisfactory there.

I could explain a hypothetical situation whereby a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue could disarm someone holding a rocket launcher, but I do get your point. I don't agree with it though :}

But if you take out the word imminent then it means this could be used to justify long term attacks. You think your neighbour may be planning to kill you two years from now, so you shoot him. This would be perfectly reasonable after you remove the word imminent.

If you take out the word imminent from this resolution, it does not mean the resolution could be used to justify long term attacks. Clearly, by very definition, a long-term attack is not an act of self-defence.

If you think your neighbours going to attack you in two years time, you ring the police and inform them. Clearly killing somebody you think (know even) will kill you in two years time (extremely strange) would be illegal, and the force completely unreasonable.

There is no need to include the word imminent to prevent such an event from becoming legal by passing this resolution.

If you know you are going to be attacked, clearly, you ring the police, inform them, ask for protection. In any case, if you actually knew that somebody was going to attemp to kill you in two years time (again, an extremely strange hypothetical situation) then you would surely be able to plan necessary countermeasures in advance - though not murder! And, in such a situation, applying legal countermeasures would not be such a bad thing, don't you think? Your hypothetical situations are becoming all the more absurd.

Note the resolution applies to current unlawful assualts. An assualt that will take place in two years is not current or imminent.

If you were to remove the word imminent, the resolution would make much more sense.

If you know you are going to be attacked, clearly, you ring the police, inform them, ask for protection. In any case, if you actually knew that somebody was going to attemp to kill you in two years time (again, an extremely strange hypothetical situation) then you would surely be able to plan necessary countermeasures in advance - though not murder! And, in such a situation, applying legal countermeasures would not be such a bad thing, don't you think? Your hypothetical situations are becoming all the more absurd.

You do realize that some nations have time travel technology, yes?

Note the resolution applies to current unlawful assualts. An assualt that will take place in two years is not current or imminent.

If you were to remove the word imminent, the resolution would make much more sense.

Not for me. A current assault is one which is in progress, which means that it has already started. An imminent assault would be a case where you see the person you are having a dispute with pulling a weapon from their jacket. If someone starts to pull a weapon, I'm not going to wait for them to start to swing it at me to take defensive measures. I'm going to disarm them before they can start the assault and cause me harm.

This proposal is definetly a step in the wrong way. Any justice to be dealt is the responsibility of the state. NOT the individual. I don't want to pass a law that enacts gun-nuts to behave like they want.

Yes, but the current proposal does nothing to grant human rights, precisely because it is so vague. To go back to an example I posted earlier: under this proposal a hypothetical government may define "reasonable violence" as "a slap on the wrist with a damp tissue". Clearly, this proposal would do nothing to further the human rights in that country, and therefore I consider it flawed. The same goes, of course, for the other extreme that any sort of violence is acceptable. I would definitely want to see a a piece of international law that grants the right of self-defense. I'm just saying that the proposal under scrutinage is not satisfactory there.

Well, considering your earlier post mentioning that this is not something the UN should be legislating on because it's a domestic (not international) issue, I'm a bit surprised at your objection to the vagueness and what you may see as uselessness of the proposal. The quandary you have here is that you have three options.

1. You can support a well-defined resolution that completely violates what you see as the appropriate legal scope of the UN.

2. You can support a vague resolution that promotes rights and freedoms while not violating national sovereignty by legislating a well-defined legal construct into your domestic policy.

3. You can support the UN never even promoting human rights because it's a domestic issue.

My personal opinion is that it is not appropriate for the UN to violate national sovereignty by truly guaranteeing rights, but that it is appropriate for the UN to promote said rights through international legislation that does not violate a nation's right to determine it's own domestic policy. You seem to be (based on your posts in this thread) trying to hold to 1 and 3, which are rather contradictory.

This proposal is definetly a step in the wrong way. Any justice to be dealt is the responsibility of the state. NOT the individual. I don't want to pass a law that enacts gun-nuts to behave like they want.

So you hold to the belief that the state should have a monopoly on violence?

I2. Concerns about the "imminent" and "reasonable force" wording.

I intentionally left those terms undefined to allow nations who desire to follow the letter of this resolution and make it fit their cultures and justice systems the freedom to do so. If you are concerned with the "imminent" term, all you need to do is to define it such that it fits your philosophy. In the case of nations who are more stringent in their philosophy, they can define "imminent" as "they have already initiated an attack against one's person". If nations wish to allow their citizens more discretion, they can define "imminent" as "one perceives a possible threat". Similar methods can be used with "reasonable force" and other terms.

Allthough I approve your explanation and it has taken away my concerns, there is the interesting question on the effect of this. Theoretically, what would happen if one of my citizens decides that the national definition of "imminent" and "reasonable" is too strict, and points to the UN resolution? Could that potentially overrule a national decision?

(just wondering, really. without a UN court of justice, it probably doesn't matter. But suppose one comes into existence, how is this interpreted?)

Allthough I approve your explanation and it has taken away my concerns, there is the interesting question on the effect of this. Theoretically, what would happen if one of my citizens decides that the national definition of "imminent" and "reasonable" is too strict, and points to the UN resolution? Could that potentially overrule a national decision?

(just wondering, really. without a UN court of justice, it probably doesn't matter. But suppose one comes into existence, how is this interpreted?)

That's a very hypothetical concern, because the Mods seem to be deleting proposals that attempt to establish a UN court of justice. Naturally, the interpretation of the law would depend upon the person doing the judging, and there's really no way for me to predict something like that with the limited data I have.

Please do not call my views silly simply because they do not agree with yours. I will try to extend the same courtesy, although I realize my arguments can be put too strongly.

I would ask the representatives from The Cat-Tribe if they think so little of foreign justice systems that anybody claiming self-defense is automatically acquitted of all charges. Most nations have provisions for self-defense, this is true, however, this resolution would neutralize any penalties if the self-defense claim is validated. That means no civil suits for injuries, for example, and it's something I strongly support. As Kriovalians will visit other nations, we would at least like some level of protection from frivolous legal claims in UN member nations when one of our citizens is put in danger.

The question answers itself. Do the representatives from Krioval think so little of foreign justice systems that they assume those asserting valid self-defense claims will be subject to penalties and/or "frivilous legal claims" in those systems?

Given that the range of NS governments include everthing from anarchy to Nazi dictatorships, I do not, in fact, assume every other nation has legal systems I would agree with or would be safe for my citizens to visit. This resolution does nothing to change that because -- as you all keep repeating as a virtue -- it is so open to interpretation it is meaningless. Its symbolic impact, however, will be to embolden the use of violence -- particularly by those who think they have a right to use violence when they do not (which is exactly what happens in RL with most "self-defense" claims).

I note that nothing in the resolution will prevent "frivilous" legal charges or lawsuits being brought against an individual who exercised a right to self-protection because that individual would still have to establish the right applied (i.e., that it was a valid case of self-protection).

For those societies that claim to abhor violence to the point of condemning a pointy stick as a potential weapon, Krioval would like to announce that we are considering a colonization program, having achieved space capability for these past several months. Please indicate your planet and geographic location so that our effort can begin in earnest. Isn't extremism silly?

There is nothing silly about seeking to avoid or minimize violence. Non-violence is not weakness or stupidity. The U.S. civil rights movement provides copious excellent examples. More to the point, one need not be a pacifist to wish to limit (rather than glorify) violence among one's citizens.

Your threat of invasion is simply not relevant to a discussion of individuals' use of violence. I assume, however, you do not believe The Cat-Tribe would be justified in attacking Krioval because of your imminent threat. Would nukes be reasonable force?

So you hold to the belief that the state should have a monopoly on violence?

Uh, yeah, essentially. And the state should use violence as little is possible. And why would this ideal be bad? Do you want your citizens to use violence?

Name all the hypotheticals you want, but I have not seen one where violence would be justified and (a) the use of reasonable force in the hypothetical situation would not be protected under the RL law of any US state and (b) The Cat-Tribe does not already have sufficient legal provisions for self-defense to protect the individual.

Finally, I can see that Texan Hotrodders worked hard on this resolution and it is carefully crafted. I still think the resolution is flawed in that (a) because of the ambiguities -- which I recognize have many virtues -- it has no effect, (b) most of those supporting this resolution do so because they imagine effects -- many of which are objectionable, and (c) the symbolic effect of the resolution is to imply excuses for violence and promote violence where it might be avoided.

A Statement from the Intricately Baubled Grand Ducal Court of His Delicacy the Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv presented by his Supreme Pantalooness Lord Phlepenov, Minister of Yesmanery and Napkins

His Delicacy Linoleum II, Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv wishes to declare our support for this proposal. He also wished to extend our future support for any repeals and subsequent reworded resubmissions of this proposal.

My concern with this law is fourfold. I agree on the issue of vagueness. There is really no clarity on what definition there is for "reasonable force" or Imminent attack.

Also, there is no mention of what ways this law would be enforced. You can't make a law without a way to enforce it. Will this be enforced through international blockade, sanctions, or will it follow the recent proposal that allowed UN military intervention in countries that violate human rights laws.
In light of that, I will not vote for this law inasmuch as due to its vagueness and that I might not follow them precisely, an enemy country of mine could in fact use this very law to force an occupation in my country. I didn't like the last human rights law that passed and I don't like this one.

Lastly, as has been said, (and I'm probably repeating the concerns of many since i didnt read this whole forum) there is no need for an international organazation such as the UN to be addressing (albeit vaguely and suspect) areas such as right to sefl protection. At the least it should come up in a better written bill.

Why does this have to be mandated? This should be left to each nation, independantly, to decide within their own nations.

Why? This proposal is exactly the sort of thing your story applies to. It permits the use of reasonable force, and I am pretty sure most people would say running over someone who is running away is not reasonable force, and as such would not be protected under this.

I think that was the point of the story, while you and Nan Og agree the lady did NOT use reasonable force I (as a soverign country) may think otherwise.

Maybe that poor lady just closed her bank account and had her entire live savings in her purse! that's worth killing someone over!

ok fine I'm playing devils advicate but that's the point, this proposal is too broadbased for a UN resolusion! countries will be allowed to interpret this as they see fit.

Also how does tourism apply, I mean if someone from an Anarchistic state may use any and all force nessisary to protect him/her self and belongings. What if this person is traveling to your nation and kills someone under this proposals protection ... "i was just defending my belongings".

Let's also turn it around...
This proposal allows people to act back without reprisal but what if they don't ... isn't it like the Good Samaratain laws in Mass.?
If you see a crime and don't do anything about it your just as guilty as the criminal!!!

This is opening up pandoras box and we may not be able to close it if this proposal is passed.

Why does this have to be mandated? This should be left to each nation, independantly, to decide within their own nations.

You didn't read the first post either, I take it.

Uh, yeah, essentially. And the state should use violence as little is possible. And why would this ideal be bad? Do you want your citizens to use violence?

I want citizens to use violence when it is necessary to do so to protect themselves and other citizens or their property. Naturally, if your government protects the citizens so well that such measures are unnecessary, then this proposal won't affect you at all.

Name all the hypotheticals you want, but I have not seen one where violence would be justified and (a) the use of reasonable force in the hypothetical situation would be protected under the RL law of any US stateand (b) The Cat-Tribe does not already have sufficient legal provisions for self-defense to protect the individual.

None of those are the point or purpose of the proposal. If you disagree with the point or purpose of the proposal, then simply say so and have done with it. That's a respectable position to take.

A Statement from the Intricately Baubled Grand Ducal Court of His Delicacy the Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv presented by his Supreme Pantalooness Lord Phlepenov, Minister of Yesmanery and Napkins

His Delicacy Linoleum II, Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv wishes to declare our support for this proposal. He also wished to extend our future support for any repeals and subsequent reworded resubmissions of this proposal.

We wish to thank His Delicacy for his support.

If you take out the word imminent from this resolution, it does not mean the resolution could be used to justify long term attacks. Clearly, by very definition, a long-term attack is not an act of self-defence.

If you think your neighbours going to attack you in two years time, you ring the police and inform them. Clearly killing somebody you think (know even) will kill you in two years time (extremely strange) would be illegal, and the force completely unreasonable.

There is no need to include the word imminent to prevent such an event from becoming legal by passing this resolution.

If you know you are going to be attacked, clearly, you ring the police, inform them, ask for protection. In any case, if you actually knew that somebody was going to attemp to kill you in two years time (again, an extremely strange hypothetical situation) then you would surely be able to plan necessary countermeasures in advance - though not murder! And, in such a situation, applying legal countermeasures would not be such a bad thing, don't you think? Your hypothetical situations are becoming all the more absurd.

Note the resolution applies to current unlawful assualts. An assualt that will take place in two years is not current or imminent.

If you were to remove the word imminent, the resolution would make much more sense.

I could use a real world example to prove how wrong you are about this. But since that is frowned on, I won't.

When you define an assult as current? Someone hitting you with an axe, or someone coming towards you with an axe? Given that they might not attack you when they come up to you, it can't possibly be a current attack, and yet the moment they hack your head off you are pretty incapable of defending yourself any further, what with the having no head and all.

This proposal is definetly a step in the wrong way. Any justice to be dealt is the responsibility of the state. NOT the individual. I don't want to pass a law that enacts gun-nuts to behave like they want.

And I totally agree with you. But this is not about justice, this is about saving lives. The court can still deal with it, and punish someone if they step over the line. So if the gun-nuts go mental and shoot everyone, you can put them in jail.

I posted this in a new thread - just wanted to get it out there Im really trying to get people to rethink this resolution and vote NO.

Vote No On Self Defense Resolution!!
Probably a lot of the people who voted yes on this issue read it and thought, "self defense, i like that, sounds good to me, ill vote yes." An understandable reaction, and i respect that the burden is on me to argue against a resolution that at first look merely supports something most people are in favor of.

I made a post earlier that was maybe a bit wordy and convoluted but I was at the time still thinking through my immediate knee jerk reaction to this resolution. My objection to the self defense resolution can be summed up as follows:

It would very likely have very little or no positive effect: Any legitimate nation has a legal system that is capable of recognizing self defense and making considerations for it when recognized. This resolution adds nothing new. I agree with its defenders in that they state it is no big deal, it will probably have no real immediate impact at all since everybody knows what self defense is and can recognize it. But...

It could have any number of negative effects: Most of these would be long-term and diffuse. Firstly there is the impact on member states native legal systems which assuming they already understand what self defense is and respect it when it is reasonable and responsible it would if it had any effect at all only serve to tilt things in favor of IRresponsible UNreasonable instances of self defense. This seems incontestable to me. If you believe that your nation has a legal system that already works and already recognizes self-defense, vote NO. If you believe your judges and jurors (if you have them) can already without the U.N.'s "help" make the fine distinction between self defense and excessive violent reprisal or preemption, then vote NO. This resolution adds nothing new and if it does could only confuse matters and tilt the legal systems of sovereign nations (and more importantly the international legal system re: the actions of those nations) in favor of acts of self-defense that would have previously been found excessive.

A more abstract consequence of this resolution would be to further dilute the concept of human rights (this is where I think truly principled conservatives would agree with me). The dialogue surrounding human rights is needlessly hazy. I think we all know what our rights are and it is truly shameful to try to increase the validity of some personal agenda by raising it to the level of a fundamental right. If self defense is a right it is so only when it conforms with truly fundamental rights like free speech, property, trial, etc. whether an individual act of self-defense is justifiable and in no way infringes on any one else's human rights as of now is rightly left up to each nation's legal system to decide. If you respect the ability of your own nation's legal system to make these decisions, vote NO. If you believe we should keep our fundamental rights truly fundamental and allow them to suffer no further dilution, vote NO.

Originally Posted by Goph Ukuerselv
A Statement from the Intricately Baubled Grand Ducal Court of His Delicacy the Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv presented by his Supreme Pantalooness Lord Phlepenov, Minister of Yesmanery and Napkins

His Delicacy Linoleum II, Grand Duke of Goph Ukuerselv wishes to declare our support for this proposal. He also wished to extend our future support for any repeals and subsequent reworded resubmissions of this proposal.

We wish to thank His Delicacy for his support.

what a political answer, I support you and every change to this proposal.. hmmm....Well call me mr. NOT PC but I only agree with the later part of GOPH UKUERSELV's message, I'll support any repeals and subsequent reworded resubmissions of this proposal

I posted this in a new thread - just wanted to get it out there Im really trying to get people to rethink this resolution and vote NO.

Vote No On Self Defense Resolution!!
Probably a lot of the people who voted yes on this issue read it and thought, "self defense, i like that, sounds good to me, ill vote yes." An understandable reaction, and i respect that the burden is on me to argue against a resolution that at first look merely supports something most people are in favor of.

I made a post earlier that was maybe a bit wordy and convoluted but I was at the time still thinking through my immediate knee jerk reaction to this resolution. My objection to the self defense resolution can be summed up as follows:

It would very likely have very little or no positive effect: Any legitimate nation has a legal system that is capable of recognizing self defense and making considerations for it when recognized. This resolution adds nothing new. I agree with its defenders in that they state it is no big deal, it will probably have no real immediate impact at all since everybody knows what self defense is and can recognize it. But...

It could have any number of negative effects: Most of these would be long-term and diffuse. Firstly there is the impact on member states native legal systems which assuming they already understand what self defense is and respect it when it is reasonable and responsible it would if it had any effect at all only serve to tilt things in favor of IRresponsible UNreasonable instances of self defense. This seems incontestable to me. If you believe that your nation has a legal system that already works and already recognizes self-defense, vote NO. If you believe your judges and jurors (if you have them) can already without the U.N.'s "help" make the fine distinction between self defense and excessive violent reprisal or preemption, then vote NO. This resolution adds nothing new and if it does could only confuse matters and tilt the legal systems of sovereign nations (and more importantly the international legal system re: the actions of those nations) in favor of acts of self-defense that would have previously been found excessive.

A more abstract consequence of this resolution would be to further dilute the concept of human rights (this is where I think truly principled conservatives would agree with me). The dialogue surrounding human rights is needlessly hazy. I think we all know what our rights are and it is truly shameful to try to increase the validity of some personal agenda by raising it to the level of a fundamental right. If self defense is a right it is so only when it conforms with truly fundamental rights like free speech, property, trial, etc. whether an individual act of self-defense is justifiable and in no way infringes on any one else's human rights as of now is rightly left up to each nation's legal system to decide. If you respect the ability of your own nation's legal system to make these decisions, vote NO. If you believe we should keep our fundamental rights truly fundamental and allow them to suffer no further dilution, vote NO.


:) :) :) :)
Finally some sense in this discussion!

Totally agree

There is nothing silly about seeking to avoid or minimize violence. Non-violence is not weakness or stupidity. The U.S. civil rights movement provides copious excellent examples. More to the point, one need not be a pacifist to wish to limit (rather than glorify) violence among one's citizens.


And yet nearly every single political battle of the 20th century has been settled with the barrel of a gun.

I am all for peace and love and harmony. It is the corner stone of TilEncan belief. But when someone is swinging an axe at the head of your daughter, do you tell them you love them, that peace is the way, or do you hit them with a brick to stop them?

I think that was the point of the story, while you and Nan Og agree the lady did NOT use reasonable force I (as a soverign country) may think otherwise.


Then in your nation she gets a round of applause, and in my nation she gets sent to jail.


Maybe that poor lady just closed her bank account and had her entire live savings in her purse! that's worth killing someone over!


That is a whole different thing from self-defence.


ok fine I'm playing devils advicate but that's the point, this proposal is too broadbased for a UN resolusion! countries will be allowed to interpret this as they see fit.


Well duh!!! That's why I like it so much.


Also how does tourism apply, I mean if someone from an Anarchistic state may use any and all force nessisary to protect him/her self and belongings. What if this person is traveling to your nation and kills someone under this proposals protection ... "i was just defending my belongings".


Every person in TilEnca knows that when they leave the protection of my nation, they leave the protection of my laws, and are instead under the laws of the nation they are in.


Let's also turn it around...
This proposal allows people to act back without reprisal but what if they don't ... isn't it like the Good Samaratain laws in Mass.?
If you see a crime and don't do anything about it your just as guilty as the criminal!!!


No. Because it doesn't say you must act, it just says you have the right to act.


This is opening up pandoras box and we may not be able to close it if this proposal is passed.

I really think it isn't.

That is a whole different thing from self-defence..

let's take this point of yours... NO THIS ISN'T SELF-DEFENSE and that's my problem with this proposal!

Not only does it encompas selfdefense and the defense of others but it also covers loss of property or the loss of other peoples property!

This should be removed from the proposal!


no matter how you slice it, there is never justification to chase someone down to deal out justice!
Protect yourself YES, Get revenge NO!

And yet nearly every single political battle of the 20th century has been settled with the barrel of a gun.

I am all for peace and love and harmony. It is the corner stone of TilEncan belief. But when someone is swinging an axe at the head of your daughter, do you tell them you love them, that peace is the way, or do you hit them with a brick to stop them?

To be quite honest, if that is what it is like to live in your great nation, I pity you. Clearly, your country is failing somewhere.

Sometimes it is obvious when you are going to be attacked, sometimes it is not so obvious. It is the not so obvious cases that concern me. A reminder of history (forgive me).

For example, when the Tsar mobilised his forces on the Russian border in 1914, he was doing so as a defensive measure. However, the Germans read this as an offensive measure, and used force against Russia. Attack is imminent, they said - Cue world war 1.

By the way, I want to hear your real life example.

I posted this in a new thread - just wanted to get it out there Im really trying to get people to rethink this resolution and vote NO.

If you're trying to get them to vote against it, you're not trying to get them to rethink it, you're just trying to get them to think like you.

Probably a lot of the people who voted yes on this issue read it and thought, "self defense, i like that, sounds good to me, ill vote yes." An understandable reaction, and i respect that the burden is on me to argue against a resolution that at first look merely supports something most people are in favor of.

Quite true, and well put.

It would very likely have very little or no positive effect: Any legitimate nation has a legal system that is capable of recognizing self defense and making considerations for it when recognized. This resolution adds nothing new. I agree with its defenders in that they state it is no big deal, it will probably have no real immediate impact at all since everybody knows what self defense is and can recognize it. But...

Adds nothing new? As I recall it is an instance of the UN promoting the right to protect oneself, which is certainly new, and is very much the purpose of the resolution.

It could have any number of negative effects: Most of these would be long-term and diffuse. Firstly there is the impact on member states native legal systems which assuming they already understand what self defense is and respect it when it is reasonable and responsible it would if it had any effect at all only serve to tilt things in favor of IRresponsible UNreasonable instances of self defense.

How exactly would it have all these negative effects when, because of the way I worded the resolution, the nations can choose not to follow it?

This seems incontestable to me.

Then you merely have to prove it to the rest of us.

If you believe that your nation has a legal system that already works and already recognizes self-defense, vote NO. If you believe your judges and jurors (if you have them) can already without the U.N.'s "help" make the fine distinction between self defense and excessive violent reprisal or preemption, then vote NO. This resolution adds nothing new and if it does could only confuse matters and tilt the legal systems of sovereign nations (and more importantly the international legal system re: the actions of those nations) in favor of acts of self-defense that would have previously been found excessive.

1. Naturally, some nations view the UN from a purely egocentric perspective, and ask why they should vote for it if it doesn't help them. Such nations are entitled to their selfish outlook.

2. I require substantiation of your claim that all sorts of ill effects will come from this proposal, and note that your bolded statement is problematic. You say that it adds nothing new but claim ill effects will follow if it does. If it adds nothing new, then you need not be concerned with further ill effects.

A more abstract consequence of this resolution would be to further dilute the concept of human rights (this is where I think truly principled conservatives would agree with me). The dialogue surrounding human rights is needlessly hazy. I think we all know what our rights are and it is truly shameful to try to increase the validity of some personal agenda by raising it to the level of a fundamental right. If self defense is a right it is so only when it conforms with truly fundamental rights like free speech, property, trial, etc. whether an individual act of self-defense is justifiable and in no way infringes on any one else's human rights as of now is rightly left up to each nation's legal system to decide. If you respect the ability of your own nation's legal system to make these decisions, vote NO. If you believe we should keep our fundamental rights truly fundamental and allow them to suffer no further dilution, vote NO.

So you believe in the fundamental right to property, but don't believe in the right to protect your most basic form of property (oneself) or other forms of property, from illegitimate assaults. I find that fascinating. How is property a right if you can't defend it?

No. Because it doesn't say you must act, it just says you have the right to act.

Correct but this allows for the next step.
today we are given the right to attack others who maybe attacking us, tomorrow we are forced to!

also if you just THINK someones attacking you, when are you allowed to attack back, is a preemptive strike allowed...
like another UN member said, if someones coming at you with an Ax you know they are attacking you.

Well if you 'believe' someone to be attacking you and kill them in 'self-defense' you feel justified but the law might see otherwise.
This is both confusing and unfair to our people.

If you wanna fight crime go and join the police!

Do the representatives from Krioval think so little of foreign justice systems that they assume those asserting valid self-defense claims will be subject to penalties and/or "frivilous legal claims" in those systems?

Let me just say that some legal systems in other nations leave much to be desired, from the perspective of Krioval. We have a population with telekinetics and telepaths, to list a few "differences". I don't want my citizens to feel that they can't use the full range of their powers in self-defense, just like they would at home, without having to worry that they might be sued by their assailants.

I note that nothing in the resolution will prevent "frivilous" legal charges or lawsuits being brought against an individual who exercised a right to self-protection because that individual would still have to establish the right applied (i.e., that it was a valid case of self-protection).

I would like to have sufficient faith in other nations' juries that they would accept "he was charging at me with a baseball bat, so I waylaid him" as a valid self-defense claim. Failing that, it all comes down to who has the superior diplomats, and failing that, it comes down to who has the superior military.

There is nothing silly about seeking to avoid or minimize violence. Non-violence is not weakness or stupidity.

Under the proper circumstances, I would agree. However, Krioval would not have gone from the light bulb to transdimensional space travel in eighty years if we hadn't fueled our expansion through military as well as other means. He may have been called King Sylvan the Builder, but construction wasn't the only part of his reign. Annexation of nearby territories and essentially forced assimilation of our neighbors into Krioval allowed our transformation.

More to the point, one need not be a pacifist to wish to limit (rather than glorify) violence among one's citizens.

I direct your attention to our ban of lethal projectile weapons among Kriovalian citizens. It's not as if we go around encouraging people to blast each other to hell! If someone has the desire to wreak havoc, we put discipline onto that desire, and put the person into the military.

Your threat of invasion is simply not relevant to a discussion of individuals' use of violence. I assume, however, you do not believe The Cat-Tribe would be justified in attacking Krioval because of your imminent threat. Would nukes be reasonable force?

I give this more attention than it deserves, but I find it interesting that nuclear weapons are being threatened against a nation with weapons sufficient to obliterate entire planets. But please feel free to send them anyway. I'm sure we could use the nuclear fuel to power a couple lightbulbs in Torokara with your generous gift.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
UN Ambassador - Krioval
Regional Delegate - Chaotica

Correct but this allows for the next step.
today we are given the right to attack others who maybe attacking us, tomorrow we are forced to!

Ah, the old slippery slope saw. "Today they give us freedom, tomorrow they force us to do what they want." Totally makes sense. :rolleyes:

also if you just THINK someones attacking you, when are you allowed to attack back, is a preemptive strike allowed...
like another UN member said, if someones coming at you with an Ax you know they are attacking you.

Well if you 'believe' someone to be attacking you and kill them in 'self-defense' you feel justified but the law might see otherwise.
This is both confusing and unfair to our people.

If you wanna fight crime go and join the police!

Ah, the old, "but people could abuse it" argument. Listen kid, if you plan to make your criterion for a valid resolution that it doesn't allow any abuse, then you'll have to be opposed to every UN resolution except the "UN Taxation Ban". I eagerly await watching you object to every single resolution on those grounds.

Correct but this allows for the next step.
today we are given the right to attack others who maybe attacking us, tomorrow we are forced to!

also if you just THINK someones attacking you, when are you allowed to attack back, is a preemptive strike allowed...
like another UN member said, if someones coming at you with an Ax you know they are attacking you.

Well if you 'believe' someone to be attacking you and kill them in 'self-defense' you feel justified but the law might see otherwise.
This is both confusing and unfair to our people.

If you wanna fight crime go and join the police!

So we should not allow people to defend themselves because it might turn them in to killers?

By the same extent we should not let people join the army to kill, because they might start killing everyone they see.


In my past someone has run towards with me an axe, only to chop off the head of the vampire behind me. So it's not always as clear cut as you think it is.

Ah, the old slippery slope saw. "Today they give us freedom, tomorrow they force us to do what they want." Totally makes sense. :rolleyes:

Ah, the old, "but people could abuse it" argument. Listen kid, if you plan to make your criterion for a valid resolution that it doesn't allow any abuse, then you'll have to be opposed to every UN resolution except the "UN Taxation Ban". I eagerly await watching you object to every single resolution on those grounds.

:headbang:
I believe in the goodness of humankind but the evidence is overwhelming.

This isn't about finding the loopholes of abuse but making sure we (as the UN)( deliver strong and precise legislation) some may want the vagueness to allow for interpretation but I don't. We need to be exact in what this proposal offers to us.

I mean come on Moses didn't come down from the summit with these 10 commandments:
thou shall not kinda hurt people.
thou shall not borrow without permission.
thou shall not take a break when married, to explore other opions...

NO they were clear desciesive laws...
NO KILLING
NO STEALING
NO ADULTERY

Look these may not be your laws (there was no deliberation back then, GOD just said something and everyone listend) but I believe as a UN resolution we should try to strive for this clearity.

These 10 laws were set down over 5000 years ago and we still know EXACTLY what they mean!

This current proposal may have some validity and meaning today but in 10 years or 100 years will it still make sense? And how will our prodigy look at this law?!?Again going back to Mass., they still have the old SALEM laws (anti-witchcraft) which allows for burning witches at the steak but in our time today we have no frame of reference as to why they would kill these women, not to mention it is still in the law books so some one could technically accuse someone of witchcraft and burn them.

Doesn't this fall under this proposal... "Oh no she's casting a spell, shoot her"
:headbang:

Well, considering your earlier post mentioning that this is not something the UN should be legislating on because it's a domestic (not international) issue, I'm a bit surprised at your objection to the vagueness and what you may see as uselessness of the proposal. The quandary you have here is that you have three options.

1. You can support a well-defined resolution that completely violates what you see as the appropriate legal scope of the UN.

2. You can support a vague resolution that promotes rights and freedoms while not violating national sovereignty by legislating a well-defined legal construct into your domestic policy.

3. You can support the UN never even promoting human rights because it's a domestic issue.

My personal opinion is that it is not appropriate for the UN to violate national sovereignty by truly guaranteeing rights, but that it is appropriate for the UN to promote said rights through international legislation that does not violate a nation's right to determine it's own domestic policy. You seem to be (based on your posts in this thread) trying to hold to 1 and 3, which are rather contradictory.

I see I have been unclear in stating my point, the irony of which is not lost on me.

My problem with the current issue is that it leaves so much room for interpretation to each individual nation it might as well not be there. Consider: a nation only has to define "reasonable violence" very narrowly to effectively deny its citizens the rights given in this proposal. As such, I think the whole proposal is superfluous, and I'd rather not have unnecessary legislation (as this cheapens the whole body of international law).

My point about the scope of international law was more a pragmatic one than an ideological one: proposals that are too specific probably won't get enough support; proposals that are too vague (or perhaps better: that allow for too much interpretation by the individual states) are essentially useless, since they conform to national law anyway.

As such, I see myself between options 1 and 2: a proposal has to be specific enough to have any effect, and general enough to be acceptable by a large enough group of member states. Because I feel this proposal lacks in clarity, I'm afraid I must vote against it.

I am not about to compare this resolution to religious mythology except to say that, if one is to actually analyze those commandments, it was technically "no murder", as killing was commonplace, in war and self-defense.

NO KILLING

(snip)

These 10 laws were set down over 5000 years ago and we still know EXACTLY what they mean!


Wanna bet?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass.

His bottom?
His donkey?

And only his donkey? You can want his house, his car, but not his donkey?


And let's not even get in to the honour thy father and mother, especially when one of them is beating you and the other is raping you every night.

Also - some texts say "no murder" not "no killing" which only causes more confusion and chaos.

So before you start quoting the obscure text from a book that many states don't know or haven't heard of, you could at least bother to investigate it before you try to use it to undermine someone else's arguement. Otherwise you come off looking like you have no idea what you are talking about, and totally fail to make your point.

I see I have been unclear in stating my point, the irony of which is not lost on me.

My problem with the current issue is that it leaves so much room for interpretation to each individual nation it might as well not be there. Consider: a nation only has to define "reasonable violence" very narrowly to effectively deny its citizens the rights given in this proposal. As such, I think the whole proposal is superfluous, and I'd rather not have unnecessary legislation (as this cheapens the whole body of international law).

My point about the scope of international law was more a pragmatic one than an ideological one: proposals that are too specific probably won't get enough support; proposals that are too vague (or perhaps better: that allow for too much interpretation by the individual states) are essentially useless, since they conform to national law anyway.

As such, I see myself between options 1 and 2: a proposal has to be specific enough to have any effect, and general enough to be acceptable by a large enough group of member states. Because I feel this proposal lacks in clarity, I'm afraid I must vote against it.

So you basically want a proposal that is perfect. Good luck with that.

I see I have been unclear in stating my point, the irony of which is not lost on me.

My problem with the current issue is that it leaves so much room for interpretation to each individual nation it might as well not be there. Consider: a nation only has to define "reasonable violence" very narrowly to effectively deny its citizens the rights given in this proposal. As such, I think the whole proposal is superfluous, and I'd rather not have unnecessary legislation (as this cheapens the whole body of international law).

My point about the scope of international law was more a pragmatic one than an ideological one: proposals that are too specific probably won't get enough support; proposals that are too vague (or perhaps better: that allow for too much interpretation by the individual states) are essentially useless, since they conform to national law anyway.

As such, I see myself between options 1 and 2: a proposal has to be specific enough to have any effect, and general enough to be acceptable by a large enough group of member states. Because I feel this proposal lacks in clarity, I'm afraid I must vote against it.

I think this issue would get less feedback if you were to illiminate the personal belongings part.
If your personally threatend or you see someone being attacked I think most nation would agree what is 'reasonable' but when someone is stealing your wristwatch then that term reasonable is WAY TO BROAD, some may say KILL HIM, while others would say BUY ANOTHER WATCH IDIOT.

The problem with precision is it doesn't always apply. You have to find a way for this to apply to the entire UN, and that means leaving quite a bit vague.

Also, those laws from the Bible were broken quite frequently in it, sometimes by the orders of the Judeo-Christian god. Kinda hard for those laws to be binding when you keep having examples of people ordered or allowed to break them...

I see I have been unclear in stating my point, the irony of which is not lost on me.

My problem with the current issue is that it leaves so much room for interpretation to each individual nation it might as well not be there. Consider: a nation only has to define "reasonable violence" very narrowly to effectively deny its citizens the rights given in this proposal. As such, I think the whole proposal is superfluous, and I'd rather not have unnecessary legislation (as this cheapens the whole body of international law).

My point about the scope of international law was more a pragmatic one than an ideological one: proposals that are too specific probably won't get enough support; proposals that are too vague (or perhaps better: that allow for too much interpretation by the individual states) are essentially useless, since they conform to national law anyway.

As such, I see myself between options 1 and 2: a proposal has to be specific enough to have any effect, and general enough to be acceptable by a large enough group of member states. Because I feel this proposal lacks in clarity, I'm afraid I must vote against it.

So because one nation can render it worthless, it should not apply in all the others?

What about all the other nations who welcome this?

TilEnca, would you please address the point I made to you earlier.

I have copied it below:

To be quite honest, if that is what it is like to live in your great nation, I pity you. Clearly, your country is failing somewhere.

Sometimes it is obvious when you are going to be attacked, sometimes it is not so obvious. It is the not so obvious cases that concern me. A reminder of history (forgive me).

For example, when the Tsar mobilised his forces on the Russian border in 1914, he was doing so as a defensive measure. However, the Germans read this as an offensive measure, and used force against Russia. Attack is imminent, they said - Cue world war 1.

By the way, I want to hear your real life example.

If your personally threatend or you see someone being attacked I think most nation would agree what is 'reasonable' but when someone is stealing your wristwatch then that term reasonable is WAY TO BROAD, some may say KILL HIM, while others would say BUY ANOTHER WATCH IDIOT.

:headbang: That's precisely the problem with defining what is 'reasonable'. In some nations, a wristwatch may have great religious significance and defending yourself in that case would appropriate. In other nations that are wealthier and unconcerned with timeliness, a watch might not be worth bothering to protect. If I were to define 'reasonable' according to my own standards, I would be totally screwing someone else.

Wanna bet?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass.

His bottom?
His donkey?

And only his donkey? You can want his house, his car, but not his donkey?


And let's not even get in to the honour thy father and mother, especially when one of them is beating you and the other is raping you every night.

Also - some texts say "no murder" not "no killing" which only causes more confusion and chaos.

So before you start quoting the obscure text from a book that many states don't know or haven't heard of, you could at least bother to investigate it before you try to use it to undermine someone else's arguement. Otherwise you come off looking like you have no idea what you are talking about, and totally fail to make your point.

look whether you agree with these idea or not is besides the point you know exactly what they mean.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass.

His bottom?
His donkey?

YEA BOTH, you know DON'T BE GAY and DON'T SCREW ANIMALS.. come on you can argue all you want but you know what this is all about.

And true it was no murder not no killing as death was as common as the cold back then.

I'm not trying to preach religion here but just make a point that we need to be clear with our legislation.
if you can't address that issue then don't bother responding

Til Enica, would you please address the point I made to you earlier.

I have copied it below:

If you are going to be patronising about the state of a country, at least spell it's name right.

That's pretty much my reply.

:headbang: That's precisely the problem with defining what is 'reasonable'. In some nations, a wristwatch may have great religious significance and defending yourself in that case would appropriate. In other nations that are wealthier and unconcerned with timeliness, a watch might not be worth bothering to protect. If I were to define 'reasonable' according to my own standards, I would be totally screwing someone else.

I don't want you to define reasonable, only redifine what you can resonably defend.
Personal theft is a local/state matter NOT UN MATTER, death and dismemberment we can protect.

look whether you agree with these idea or not is besides the point you know exactly what they mean.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass.

His bottom?
His donkey?

YEA BOTH, you know DON'T BE GAY and DON'T SCREW ANIMALS.. come on you can argue all you want but you know what this is all about.

And true it was no murder not no killing as death was as common as the cold back then.

I'm not trying to preach religion here but just make a point that we need to be clear with our legislation.
if you can't address that issue then don't bother responding

I was addressing the issue. I was saying that you can claim something is clear and obvious, and yet someone can - if they try, or even if they don't - find something to argue about.

So how is any UN proposal ever going to be completely clear when the Ten Commandments can be misinterpretted as easily as I did?

I don't want you to define reasonable, only redifine what you can resonably defend.
Personal theft is a local/state matter NOT UN MATTER, death and dismemberment we can protect.

The UCPL protects the intelectual property of a person. So why can't the UN protect the person property, or at least say that a person has a right to protect it?

So because one nation can render it worthless, it should not apply in all the others?

What about all the other nations who welcome this?

That's my point, it is worthless, and not just in one nation. All nations that hrespect human rights will make sure they have legislation that defines the "reasonable violence" partin such a way that citizens can occasionally use it for self-protection. But since human rights are already respected here, having this right in international law will not change anything. Nations that disregard human rights will just define it very narrowly, in such a way that this law can never be used. Again, nothing changes for the citizens inn these countries. Therefore I the whole proposal becomes superfluous.


If your personally threatend or you see someone being attacked I think most nation would agree what is 'reasonable' but when someone is stealing your wristwatch then that term reasonable is WAY TO BROAD, some may say KILL HIM, while others would say BUY ANOTHER WATCH IDIOT.

Exactly! And since each nation will probably already have laws in effect to cover this situation, the whole proposal becomes moot. All it says is essentially: "It is left to each nation how to deal with violent self-defense". Since each nation already does this, it is a quite useless law.

So you basically want a proposal that is perfect. Good luck with that.

Thank you :)

I was addressing the issue. I was saying that you can claim something is clear and obvious, and yet someone can - if they try, or even if they don't - find something to argue about.

So how is any UN proposal ever going to be completely clear when the Ten Commandments can be misinterpretted as easily as I did?

you ask how? Well by trying as much as possible NOT BEING VAGUE!!!

if we can't be clear about what we mean and how it can be interpreted TODAY then what do you think our kids and thier kids will think about it?
NOTE IF YOU PLAN ON NOT HAVING KIDS THEN THINK HYPOTHETICALLY

If you are going to be patronising about the state of a country, at least spell it's name right.

That's pretty much my reply.

Okay, I edited it. Now, please:


To be quite honest, if that is what it is like to live in your great nation, I pity you. Clearly, your country is failing somewhere.

Sometimes it is obvious when you are going to be attacked, sometimes it is not so obvious. It is the not so obvious cases that concern me. A reminder of history (forgive me).

For example, when the Tsar mobilised his forces on the Russian border in 1914, he was doing so as a defensive measure. However, the Germans read this as an offensive measure, and used force against Russia. Attack is imminent, they said - Cue world war 1.

By the way, I want to hear your real life example.

The UCPL protects the intelectual property of a person. So why can't the UN protect the person property, or at least say that a person has a right to protect it?

because it isn't.
it is a thing, LIFELESS.
a person gives importance to it, it doesn't earn the right to have importance.

A life (no matter how bad a person) has the RIGHT to protect itself and therefore be protected.

A THING does not have such rights, we don't protect property with "reasonable" force. We call the police and report a robery!

Little hint, Someones got a knife to you and askes... "you money or your life" give the guy your money and tell the police later after he leaves.
If he tries to hurt you YES DEFEND YOURSELF!!!!

I agree with you.

because it isn't.
it is a thing, LIFELESS.
a person gives importance to it, it doesn't earn the right to have importance.

A life (no matter how bad a person) has the RIGHT to protect itself and therefore be protected.

A THING does not have such rights, we don't protect property with "reasonable" force. We call the police and report a robery!

Little hint, Someones got a knife to you and askes... "you money or your life" give the guy your money and tell the police later after he leaves.
If he tries to hurt you YES DEFEND YOURSELF!!!!

So - would you accept that a person has the right to protect someone else? Or can someone only defend themselves?

The wording of this resolution is too vague. Any moron can take advantage of law that has the word "reasonable" in it. Are we talking guns, fists, rocks? This law is incomplete without specifying how we may defend ourselves.

So - would you accept that a person has the right to protect someone else? Or can someone only defend themselves?


I believe a person (or any living creature for that matter) has the right to protect themselves and BE PROTECTED.

If you believe in god then it's our god-given right.
otherwise it's our basic civil rights.

personal belonging (no matter how precious they are to you ) have not earned this right.

1. Naturally, some nations view the UN from a purely egocentric perspective, and ask why they should vote for it if it doesn't help them. Such nations are entitled to their selfish outlook.

egocentric and selfish... I just think that our legal system already covers this stuff and I cant imagine that anyone else's doesnt. Unless of course they dont want it to. In that case they have a right to their position and dont need to be made to feel that they're out of line with the U.N. Especially if you dont think they have to follow the resolution.

2. I require substantiation of your claim that all sorts of ill effects will come from this proposal, and note that your bolded statement is problematic. You say that it adds nothing new but claim ill effects will follow if it does. If it adds nothing new, then you need not be concerned with further ill effects.

well ... i said that i didnt think it added anything new, meaning in its identification of self-defense as something worthy of consideration etc. nothing new there, and IF IT DOES (add something new) ... it adds some bad stuff. Primarily tilting things towards acts of self defense that wouldnt have previously been seen as excessive or otherwise illegitimate. In the case of my country i see that as a truly negative outcome, since i think we do have a good idea of this distinction, and I can only assume most member states feel the same way about their systems. I dont see this as selfish i just think its important to stand up for the relevance of the systems already in place.

How exactly would it have all these negative effects when, because of the way I worded the resolution, the nations can choose not to follow it?

I understand that it isnt mandatory for nations to follow it, but again this just makes the whole endeavor pointless, those nations that are actually against self-defense for whatever reason would be among those that choose not to follow it, those that are already for it would be those that choose to follow it, so what is accomplished? I simply dont agree with your perception that there is some problem with legitimate acts of self defense being judged criminal, its not a problem in Present Location, and I dont see why it would be a systematic problem in any country with a healthy legal system.

So you believe in the fundamental right to property, but don't believe in the right to protect your most basic form of property (oneself) or other forms of property, from illegitimate assaults. I find that fascinating. How is property a right if you can't defend it?

Who said that you cant defend it? I just think the whole thing is silly, if we see something as a right then of course you can defend it, self defense is something that must happen when your rights are infringed upon, it is a direct consequence of a violation of your rights, its connected to your rights, but not a right in and of itself. This is a fine distinction but i dont see what meaning rights have if they are not already understood to be something that must be defended. This goes along with how i feel this adds nothing but confusion. The feeling is: "we werent allowed to defend ourselves until now? I had no idea." The only outcome of this as I see it is maybe some people who felt that they couldnt rightly "defend" themselves against something (because they really rightly could not) now may feel that they can. For Present Location, we see this as a real negative outcome. Rights must be defended at all costs against whoever would infringe upon them, of course. This goes without saying. Your resolution is needless and confusing.

Okay, I edited it. Now, please:
(smirk)


Originally Posted by Adamsgrad
To be quite honest, if that is what it is like to live in your great nation, I pity you. Clearly, your country is failing somewhere.


Firstly - we have little violance in our nation. Now, at least.

But back in the day the government was The Church of The Lords. It put people to death who did not worship The Powers and The Lords in the prescribed manner. And blasphemy - punishable by death.

Then came The Dark Review. The person in charge of The Church - a being by the name of Lucinda - decided to wipe out all opposition. In seven years twenty five THOUSAND people were killed, and that included not only those who fought back, but those who raised a voice in protest, even if it was peaceful protest. Everyone who dissented was killed for it.

The Church was overthrown by a rebellion started by two people - Toriella and Nickolas. And, because of the fact twenty five thousand people had been killed at the whim of one being, the decided peaceful protest was not going to work. So they fought, and killed.

Violance is rarely the answer, but when it is, it is generally the ONLY answer.

You wake up, you find a man raping your daughter. Are you seriously telling me that you are going to call the police and hope they arrive before he finishes and strangles her, or are you going to do something to stop him, even if that means killing him?


Sometimes it is obvious when you are going to be attacked, sometimes it is not so obvious.


That much I agree with. But if you wait until after you are attacked to act, then sometimes it is too late. Oh - is that your head lying on the ground there? Are you going to throw that at the guy who cut it off?


It is the not so obvious cases that concern me. A reminder of history (forgive me).

For example, when the Tsar mobilised his forces on the Russian border in 1914, he was doing so as a defensive measure. However, the Germans read this as an offensive measure, and used force against Russia. Attack is imminent, they said - Cue world war 1.

By the way, I want to hear your real life example.


Think back to March 2003, when most of the national powers accepted there was no threat of imminent attack but there might be one in the future, and that was apparent justification for invading, occupying and destroying a sovereign nation.

That's exactly my point TilEnca!

Most people now believe Iraq was a mistake. You see, the idea that an attack is imminent can be used to encourage uncessary violence. Not a good thing in my books.

That's exactly my point TilEnca!

Most people now believe Iraq was a mistake. You see, the idea that an attack is imminent can be used to encourage uncessary violence. Not a good thing in my books.

You missed my point entirely, but this is not the place to debate Iraq :}

Exactly, how many times did we hear ... "Weapons of Mass distruction"

And where were these weapons?
never found them.
Bush and Blair took the heat on that one but how many DIED FOR IT?!?!?

I'm tired it's getting late.



Think back to March 2003, when most of the national powers accepted there was no threat of imminent attack but there might be one in the future, and that was apparent justification for invading, occupying and destroying a sovereign nation.

Yes, you will note that they distinguished between imminent and future. A future attack (2 years say) not being imminent. And they were brought to the dock for it.

Exactly, how many times did we hear ... "Weapons of Mass distruction"

And where were these weapons?
never found them.
Bush and Blair took the heat on that one but how many DIED FOR IT?!?!?

You wish to talk about that? Go to the General forum.

You wish to continue, I'll show you weapons of mass destruction. Only, they won't be Iraqi and they will be airborne. And yes, this is IC.

You don't wanna talk about Iraq fine how about Vietnam?
you realize the original viatnamese declaration of independance from France was translated WORD FOR WORD from the US declaration of independance?!?!

They honoured the US but since France was our allies we didn't help them.
so they turned to the USSR.

NOW THEY WERE A THREAT.

They would not have been a threat if we backed them in the first place!

So back to the question what is a reasonable threat and are there other options to difuse the problem other than violence?!?

You don't wanna talk about Iraq fine how about Vietnam?
you realize the original viatnamese declaration of independance from France was translated WORD FOR WORD from the US declaration of independance?!?!

They honoured the US but since France was our allies we didn't help them.
so they turned to the USSR.

NOW THEY WERE A THREAT.

They would not have been a threat if we backed them in the first place!

So back to the question what is a reasonable threat

The U.S. lost that war and was in it to help South Vietnam defeat North Vietnam. The war was over helping someone that couldn't do it on their own.

A reasonable threat always varies, depending entirely on circumstances. Defining it is what lawyers make millions on.

I find people's lack of faith in their legal systems a bit disturbing... (and please let's not discuss Iraq)

Question 1: Do you believe in the separation of powers doctrine, at least to some extent (ie separating the judiciary, legislature and executive)?
If Yes, go on to the next question.
If No, read no further as this will not apply to you and you should consider some of the other arguments in favour of this resolution.

Question 2: Do you think that the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply legislation as passed by parliament to fit the circumstances of a case?
If Yes, go on.
If no, I would be interested in finding out what exactly you do think the proper role of the judiciary is, and why you didn't answer No to Question 1.

Question 3 (this is ethno-centric, but so is this entire post): Do you have faith in your peers (ie a jury) to judge a case on the merits of the evidence therein, and a judge to correctly direct a jury as to points of law as laid out in statute and precedent?
If Yes, and you still vote against, please justify this in some coherent way rather than saying 'It's too vague!'
If No, I worry for your legal system, especially if you've answered Yes to questions 1 and 2.

Now I recognise that there is something missing between Questions 1 and 2, namely parliament codifying the legislation (if your nation is dualist in its implementation of international 'legislation). But I honestly believe that anyone who has any faith in the separation of powers doctrine will recognise that over-specification WILL lead to unjust results in certain scenarios (of which there are plenty, but none of which will be presented here) that do not lend themselves to artificial definitions of what is reasonable or imminent and what is not. It will all depend on the facts of a case.

NB This is 'my' take on this resolution, and is in no way necessarily reflective of the intentions of the proposer - but this just shows the virtue of the flexibility of this resolution.

Hmmm...

After seeing many stances on this issue, I have begun to rethink my own stance. I see the openess of the resolution would in fact benefit us, as seperate nations, to define this resolution, and it's words and phrases, in many different ways.

My only thought is since we can rewrite the resolution to state the defenition of terms in it, would we still be allowed to change the definitions of it for our own countries? This is the first resolution I've gotten really involved with, and I'm not sure the limitations on ammendments for specific countries, etc.

If I get this clarified, and I review some other things in the thread, you have get a yes from Peloneous. ;)

Of course, I will be watching the debates this whole voting time, and will probably rethink my stance quite a few times. I'm just now reading thouroughly through the thread, and I'm already thinking about it some more. So...I'll keep in touch. :)

~High King Peter

Just reading the resolution, I was somewhat against it. But seeing your preemptive arguments, you've disabled my quarrels. The word URGES is all that Pojonia needs to instruct its puppet to vote yes. Excellent job.

What's the point to this proposal?

it feels a bit micromanaging.

what a political answer, I support you and every change to this proposal.. hmmm....Well call me mr. NOT PC but I only agree with the later part of GOPH UKUERSELV's message, I'll support any repeals and subsequent reworded resubmissions of this proposal


His Delicacy believes in the U.N. as an agent of peaceful comprehension in an otherwise incomprehensible and savage world and therefore approves of all the U.N. endeavours. Anything less would be a slap in the face of liberty.

Lord Phlepenov
His Delicacy's Loyal Minister of Yesmanery and Napkins

I congratulate Texan Hotrodders on crafting such a politically clever resolution. It is like a thaumatrope, carefully crafted to present only so much but to create an illusion of more. This slight of hand seeks to avoid all criticism while garnering unwarranted support. [Also, I truly do applaud a well-considered resolution. I disagree vehemently with its purpose and its language, but I respect the work that went into it.]

Proponents seem to believe that this resolution will somehow actually protect a right to self-protection, but when anyone criticizes such a right or its possible dimensions they are told that the resolution does not actually require anything. Proponents assume that other nations do not adequately protect rights to self-protection (i.e., do not trust their judicial systems), but also condemn any critique as a distrust of those same judicial systems's ability to apply the law.

As I have stated repeatedly and no one has responded to, this resolution is illusory (as proponents often point out with glee). The illusion, however, is dangerous. The message of the resolution promotes violence -- not just to protect oneself (or in the oft-repeated hypothetical one's daughter who is being raped) but also to protect against mere threats to property or the property of others. Misunderstanding of far more concrete self-defense laws already contribute to individual uses of unreasonable force. This will make it worse. Thus, it is possible for the law to have no good effect and still have a negative effect.

Finally, it is no wonder that many nations are turned off from contributing in these forums. Apparently one is free to threaten nations you disagree with. Not only are RL facts conveniently ignored, but one is free to make up facts about one's nation that are absurd. Thus, one can not only glorify one's ignorance but support any position with convenient "facts." This is not aimed at any nation in particular nor even at the proponents of this resolution. I have agreed with many of you on other issues. This is a problem I see with the nature of discussion of UN resolutions. Without recourse to anything concrete, it is impossible to rebut prejudices.

I respect those who disagree with my opinion, which obviously remains unchanged. I'm learning that the point of these forums seems not to be to persuade anyone of anything -- beyond how clever a nation can be in putting down those it disagrees with. I love political discourse, but doubt I'll continue to participate in such a farce.

The message of the resolution promotes violence -- not just to protect oneself (or in the oft-repeated hypothetical one's daughter who is being raped) but also to protect against mere threats to property or the property of others.


Someone is intent on burning your house down. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a car bomb next to a petrol station. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a time-bomb in a nuclear power plant. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

These mere threats against property would be far more damaging than one person attacking another, yet you would have someone stand idly by and do nothing to prevent them?


I have no desire to put people down, cleverly or otherwise, because everyone deserves their own opinion. However I will try to change their minds, using what ever means necessary. And - in the odd case that someone uses an arguement that is so fallacious it does not deserve respect then I will show the proper lack of respect for that arguement and the person who posted it (this wasn't so much aimed at you, more a general comment!)

You're both excellent speakers and wonderful debators. The U.N. needs more of you, and I for one fully respect both of your principles and your votes.

But while this argumentation might get a bit sophistrian in nature, it's not a reason to quit the U.N. entirely. There are lots of resolutions out there that could use your careful criticism, Cat-Tribe, and I don't think that you should be discouraged just because of this one proposal.

Having taking a few deep breaths and cooled down (not just from reading this thread but also a few others), I realize my "I'm gonna take my marbles and go home" reaction was overstated and childish. Thank you TilEnca for your thoughtful response. Thank you Pojonian Puppet for your kind words.

I recognize that much intelligent debate does go on in these forums. I also recognize that humor is fully appropriate. I do wish some of the threats, put-downs, and fictionalization could be minimized.

Although I promised myself I would walk away, a few points/responses:

Someone is intent on burning your house down. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a car bomb next to a petrol station. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a time-bomb in a nuclear power plant. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

These mere threats against property would be far more damaging than one person attacking another, yet you would have someone stand idly by and do nothing to prevent them?

No. Assuming the facts as you present in each hypothetical (and intervention by authorities is not imminent), I believe one (including ones other than the owner of the property in question) should use reasonable force to intervene. These hypotheticals fail the test I expressed earlier, however. In each of these situations, use of reasonable force would be legal defensible in any RL US state, in The Cat-Tribe, and presumably in any nation in favor of this resolution. In any nation that would not allow use of reasonable force in this situation, the UN resolution does nothing to change the situation because of loopholes discussed.

[OCC - one problem with managing nations in NS is one does not enact laws, etc., but merely chooses among options to issues. When it comes to UN resolutions, there is no implementation at all. So all of us have little control over (or knowledge of) our nation's legal system.]


Question 3 (this is ethno-centric, but so is this entire post): Do you have faith in your peers (ie a jury) to judge a case on the merits of the evidence therein, and a judge to correctly direct a jury as to points of law as laid out in statute and precedent?
If Yes, and you still vote against, please justify this in some coherent way rather than saying 'It's too vague!'
If No, I worry for your legal system, especially if you've answered Yes to questions 1 and 2.

This begs the question. If you trust your legal system, why do you need this resolution?

My concern is not that The Cat-Tribe's legal system will misapply this law. My concern is that citizens of The Cat-Tribe and other UN nations may well misunderstand this resolution as an invitation to violence when it is not justified. Examples within this debate illustrate that this resolution may be seen as justifying violence that is not necessarily legal under the resolution.


But I honestly believe that anyone who has any faith in the separation of powers doctrine will recognise that over-specification WILL lead to unjust results in certain scenarios (of which there are plenty, but none of which will be presented here) that do not lend themselves to artificial definitions of what is reasonable or imminent and what is not. It will all depend on the facts of a case.

:headbang: That's precisely the problem with defining what is 'reasonable'. In some nations, a wristwatch may have great religious significance and defending yourself in that case would appropriate. In other nations that are wealthier and unconcerned with timeliness, a watch might not be worth bothering to protect. If I were to define 'reasonable' according to my own standards, I would be totally screwing someone else.

I actually agree that the lack of specificity has its virtues, of which this is one of the most valuable. I think the vagueness of the resolution undermines many of the arguments put forth in its favor and invites misinterpretation, however. Moreover, one could maintain necessary vagueness while being sufficiently concrete to avoid promoting violence or vigilantism -- perhaps by modeling the language of self-defense statutes of any RL US state. [If this resolution were to fail, I would be glad to offer suggestions for such language to Texan Hotrodders.]

So because one nation can render it worthless, it should not apply in all the others?

What about all the other nations who welcome this?

Any nation that welcomes this resolution does not need it, as they could enact self-defense laws themselves. In any other nation, it can be rendered void. So what is the point?

Let me just say that some legal systems in other nations leave much to be desired, from the perspective of Krioval. We have a population with telekinetics and telepaths, to list a few "differences". I don't want my citizens to feel that they can't use the full range of their powers in self-defense, just like they would at home, without having to worry that they might be sued by their assailants.

You have illustrated my point. Setting aside the fictional facts, nothing in the resolution at hand protects your citizens abroad as you assume. The nation visited may have used the loopholes to render the resolution void. Even under the resolution, the reasonableness of your citizens' actions will be judged by the foreign nation who may not agree use of telekinetics and telepathy is reasonable force. To the extent you assume other nations would welcome the use of such force, why do they need the resolution?

I note that nothing in the resolution will prevent "frivilous" legal charges or lawsuits being brought against an individual who exercised a right to self-protection because that individual would still have to establish the right applied (i.e., that it was a valid case of self-protection). I would like to have sufficient faith in other nations' juries that they would accept "he was charging at me with a baseball bat, so I waylaid him" as a valid self-defense claim. Failing that, it all comes down to who has the superior diplomats, and failing that, it comes down to who has the superior military.

Again, you prove my point. A Krioval citizen asserting the "he was charging at me ..." defense could still be arrested, charged, and tried criminally and could face civil suit. Your citizen could then present a defense to criminal charges or civil suit that, if accepted by the courts, make the citizen not guilty or liable. Nothing prevents "frivilous" charges or suits to begin with.

There is nothing silly about seeking to avoid or minimize violence. Non-violence is not weakness or stupidity. Under the proper circumstances, I would agree. However, Krioval would not have gone from the light bulb to transdimensional space travel in eighty years if we hadn't fueled our expansion through military as well as other means. He may have been called King Sylvan the Builder, but construction wasn't the only part of his reign. Annexation of nearby territories and essentially forced assimilation of our neighbors into Krioval allowed our transformation.

I'm glad you agree a distate for violence is neither silly or extremist. The rest is pure fiction. I do wonder why you think Krioval's alleged history of invading its neighbors is an argument for self-defense.

More to the point, one need not be a pacifist to wish to limit (rather than glorify) violence among one's citizens. I direct your attention to our ban of lethal projectile weapons among Kriovalian citizens. It's not as if we go around encouraging people to blast each other to hell! If someone has the desire to wreak havoc, we put discipline onto that desire, and put the person into the military.

Again, you were previously calling limitations on violence silly and extremist. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

Your threat of invasion is simply not relevant to a discussion of individuals' use of violence. I assume, however, you do not believe The Cat-Tribe would be justified in attacking Krioval because of your imminent threat. Would nukes be reasonable force? I give this more attention than it deserves, but I find it interesting that nuclear weapons are being threatened against a nation with weapons sufficient to obliterate entire planets. But please feel free to send them anyway. I'm sure we could use the nuclear fuel to power a couple lightbulbs in Torokara with your generous gift.

Pure fiction. I note (a) it was Krioval that threatened invasion and (b) you avoided the question.

If you're trying to get them to vote against it, you're not trying to get them to rethink it, you're just trying to get them to think like you.

So, as implied in many of your other posts, anyone against your resolution should just shut up. Ain't happen'. You'll likely win anyway (which is merely reaping the benefits of your hard work), but some of us will still voice our opinions first.

I should come clean that the resolution itself is less objectionable to me than the sentiments expressed in favor of it. But that is why I think the resolution is dangerous, it allows some to think they can or should use violence when it is not justified.

The difficullty in allowing a broad interpretation of this issue is the competing interests of human rights and national sovereignty. In this case:

Category: Human Rights

the intent was obviously to strive to increase the world's human rights. However, the resolution fails to meet this requirement. Instead of promoting human rights, it promotes national sovereignty. This compromises the original motive of increasing human rights and though it lightly "urges" the enactment of legislation, it does not require it.

The UN is not an advisory board to suggest or reccomend a decision. UN resolutions should be used to enact and enforce not to give hints as to what to do.

This so-called "resolution" should never have been submitted to the UN as such. I call for all those in agreement to join in a complete vote of "Against" on Resolution #94. If that fails, I propose to IMMEDIATELY propose a repeal of this Resolution. Please talk with your UN Delegate and get his support in these counter-measures. Thank you.

Garth Jellico
Lantavi Envoy to International Affairs

the intent was obviously to strive to increase the world's human rights. However, the resolution fails to meet this requirement.
Really? I thought this was an attempt to reinforce your right to own property, your right to your own body and your right to defend both of the above. Sounds like human rights to me.

Here are my thoughts on the resolution, individually in parts, and as a whole:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

A good introduction to the dilemma being solved, as it doesn't state directly, "A lot of people hurt other people purposefully," and it explains as a whole that this could happen with one assaulter, or a group of them.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

"Urges" is the key word, here. It does not require, but hopes, that in the best interest of the member nations of the United Nations, that they will endorse this in their own nations.

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

Thinking about the fact that this may be interpreted openly has two arguments. The first being that, if a nation wishes to more define something in this, as the imminent or reasonable, they can do so through their own laws. On the other hand, there is ironically many anarchist nations in the United Nations, so, though they may disagree with the wording and definitions of this statement, they would have to live with the effects, and they would have no chance to make it their own. Saying that, it is the choice of those anarchist nations to be that way, and it is their choice to become an organized government that can make laws to better suit United Nations resolutions to their nation. (OOC: Probably a useless bit, but...I'm tired *nods*)

Another concern from this part is that, upon acting upon the imminent assault, you yourself might be committing an assault, for if the assumed assaulter is indeed just an innocent citizen, you would be attacking them purposefully. It is a major loophole, that promotes violence, covered by the illusion of self-defence.

Overall, I think that there was obviously some major thought that went into this, and it was constructed to be generally speaking, so that nations can make it their own. My only concern is that this may result in more violence because of the ASSUMPTION of assault or stealing.

My ultimate say is that it has many strong points, but that that one possibly negative part outweighs the good parts.

(OOC: I'm still not sure about the whole procedure with UN resolutions, and what nations can do to change them within their own boundaries. I'm just reading the guide to writing a proposal, and it's in the game engine, but in role-play, you can completely ignore it. So, I think that the urges thing is uneeded. If I stated something that is false, please, accept my apology. I am hoping to use this debate as a learning experience.)

I apologize in advance if I am merely restating past arguments as I have not taken the time to review all previous comments on this matter. However, I would like to state my nation's position on this issue.

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

I did see several other delegates speak upon this point already, but the phrase "reasonable force" is dreadfully vague and dangerously open to abuse on a domestic level. Even though such regulations are Urged and not Demanded perse, the likelihood that all UN member nations will draft effective legislation to this end without significant loopholes for reckless vigilantes and criminals is small. Although sovereignty is highly treasured, simple guidelines and more defined terms will make any implementation of said legislation easier.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

Whereas a person can more readily decide when a threat is imminent to themselves, how will a person make that judgement for another person? What I mean is, who, and at what point, can decide is a person is assaulting someone else or their property? What if someone is demolishing a house free up the land for new developments and a bystanding, seeing this, decides to take matters into his/her own hands by preventing said demolishion? Again, the clause simply opens too many doors for grievous errors to be committed, and even for more scheming individuals to take advantage of others by exploiting loopholes in this resolution.

Consequently, Xivizar opposes the passage of this resolution.

Regards,
Lord Montmorency
Xivizarian Ambassador to the UN

I find people's lack of faith in their legal systems a bit disturbing... (and please let's not discuss Iraq)

Question 1: Do you believe in the separation of powers doctrine, at least to some extent (ie separating the judiciary, legislature and executive)?
If Yes, go on to the next question.
If No, read no further as this will not apply to you and you should consider some of the other arguments in favour of this resolution.

Question 2: Do you think that the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply legislation as passed by parliament to fit the circumstances of a case?
If Yes, go on.
If no, I would be interested in finding out what exactly you do think the proper role of the judiciary is, and why you didn't answer No to Question 1.

Question 3 (this is ethno-centric, but so is this entire post): Do you have faith in your peers (ie a jury) to judge a case on the merits of the evidence therein, and a judge to correctly direct a jury as to points of law as laid out in statute and precedent?
If Yes, and you still vote against, please justify this in some coherent way rather than saying 'It's too vague!'
If No, I worry for your legal system, especially if you've answered Yes to questions 1 and 2.

Now I recognise that there is something missing between Questions 1 and 2, namely parliament codifying the legislation (if your nation is dualist in its implementation of international 'legislation). But I honestly believe that anyone who has any faith in the separation of powers doctrine will recognise that over-specification WILL lead to unjust results in certain scenarios (of which there are plenty, but none of which will be presented here) that do not lend themselves to artificial definitions of what is reasonable or imminent and what is not. It will all depend on the facts of a case.

NB This is 'my' take on this resolution, and is in no way necessarily reflective of the intentions of the proposer - but this just shows the virtue of the flexibility of this resolution.

Agreed. I like your reasoning, and I think this is what Texan Hotrodders is hoping- that we're all capable enough to work this Resolution to fit our needs. That's why I like this Resolution so much.

You have illustrated my point. Setting aside the fictional facts, nothing in the resolution at hand protects your citizens abroad as you assume. The nation visited may have used the loopholes to render the resolution void. Even under the resolution, the reasonableness of your citizens' actions will be judged by the foreign nation who may not agree use of telekinetics and telepathy is reasonable force. To the extent you assume other nations would welcome the use of such force, why do they need the resolution?

First of all, what exactly are "fictional facts"? Second, if a nation decides to exploit loopholes in the resolution, I would expect that Krioval would make an already tense situation quite messy diplomatically. Or we could threaten war over their refusal to follow the spirit of the resolution, possibly gaining support for our intervention. The resolution, as I see it, is a "reinforcer" designed specifically to up the pressure on nations that restrict self-defense; they can evade the resolution and risk the more easily-justifiable wrath of another nation whose citizens aren't protected by it or they can follow its spirit.

Again, you prove my point. A Krioval citizen asserting the "he was charging at me ..." defense could still be arrested, charged, and tried criminally and could face civil suit. Your citizen could then present a defense to criminal charges or civil suit that, if accepted by the courts, make the citizen not guilty or liable. Nothing prevents "frivilous" charges or suits to begin with.

But as I posted in my above paragraph, now that nation is going to face a lot of scrutiny as Krioval howls at the mistreatment of its citizens. And Kriovalian howling is not something a lot of nations would probably want to be on the receiving end of for very long. And before you ask, by "howling", I mean diplomatic activities. We do try diplomacy before declaring war.

I'm glad you agree a distate for violence is neither silly or extremist. The rest is pure fiction. I do wonder why you think Krioval's alleged history of invading its neighbors is an argument for self-defense.

It wasn't an argument for self-defense. It was an argument that certain levels of violence can be beneficial - or at least that certain states of military preparedness can sometimes win wars without much actual fighting.

Pure fiction. I note (a) it was Krioval that threatened invasion and (b) you avoided the question.

Semantics. Who declares the war doesn't always determine who started it. Further, if you consider the use (or threat of use) of nuclear weapons to be reasonable, that does cast aspersions on your claims that violence is unjustified. Further, Krioval does not consider nuclear weapons to be "reasonable force". We don't deal in crude technology such as that except to sell it to other nations.

I will not continue most of this side-debate with Krioval as it is pointless.

One issue you raise, however, undermines half of what the proponents of this resolution have said (except that they will all back away from what you said):

Second, if a nation decides to exploit loopholes in the resolution, I would expect that Krioval would make an already tense situation quite messy diplomatically. Or we could threaten war over their refusal to follow the spirit of the resolution, possibly gaining support for our intervention. The resolution, as I see it, is a "reinforcer" designed specifically to up the pressure on nations that restrict self-defense; they can evade the resolution and risk the more easily-justifiable wrath of another nation whose citizens aren't protected by it or they can follow its spirit.

At least the nation of Krioval does not see this resolution as merely "urging" or adaptable through definition to fit any nation's internal policies. Instead, it a stick to make other nations conform to your view of self-defense or face your "wrath." I do not believe this is what the author intended. If it is, I'm sure many nations would be surprised to hear it.

I will note that Krioval (facetiously I assume) threatened to invade nations opposing the resolution because he thought those of us who wish to discourage violence would be push-overs. My response (did this threat justify an attack) has never been answered. That's fine, but do not pretend we started a war.

I will not continue most of this side-debate with Krioval as it is pointless.

Then by all means stop continuing. It's not as if you've been forced to bring up these issues in the first place.

At least the nation of Krioval does not see this resolution as merely "urging" or adaptable through definition to fit any nation's internal policies. Instead, it a stick to make other nations conform to your view of self-defense or face your "wrath." I do not believe this is what the author intended. If it is, I'm sure many nations would be surprised to hear it.

Here's how international politics work. Krioval sees this resolution. Krioval has citizens abroad (in a UN nation) who are forced to defend themselves from attack, accidentally injuring their assailant in the process. Krioval naturally assumes that the UN member is going to accept their self-defense plea and acquit. Further we would expect that they would be immune from civil suits by the criminal that assaulted them. That, after all, is the spirit of this resolution. If not, then we initiate a multinational discussion about other options. Basically, you're stuck with Krioval breathing down another nation's neck until the matter is resolved.

I will note that Krioval (facetiously I assume) threatened to invade nations opposing the resolution because he thought those of us who wish to discourage violence would be push-overs. My response (did this threat justify an attack) has never been answered. That's fine, but do not pretend we started a war.

First, I did not threaten to invade "nations opposing this resolution". I believe my list of potential targets was far smaller and not necessarily constrained to nations opposing the resolution. These are the sorts of misrepresentations that lead to "diplomatic incidents". As to your question, I would expect that threats between nations need to be assessed much the same as interpersonal threats. If a three-year-old came running toward me with a squirt gun, I don't think lethal force is justified. Similarly, if a nation suggests an invasion without the slightest mobilization or buildup of forces, do you think your hypothetical nuclear strike would be warranted? I didn't think so. As to who starts wars, I find the question typically irrelevant. The important matter is who wins them.

Further we would expect that they would be immune from civil suits by the criminal that assaulted them. That, after all, is the spirit of this resolution.

:headbang: As I have tried to point out from the beginning, nothing in the resolution provides immunity from civil suit. One who injures another in self-defense could still be sued, but has (if valid) a complete defense.

Otherwise, I will, in fact, cease this side-debate. :cool:

As I have tried to point out from the beginning, nothing in the resolution provides immunity from civil suit. One who injures another in self-defense could still be sued, but has (if valid) a complete defense.

Point taken. I'd expect vindication, not outright immunity (though I could imagine immunity being offered in certain cases). Good enough?

I'm sorry but I strongly believe that this resolution is ill thought out and dangerous.

First and foremost, it has no Human Rights value whatsoever that I can see and very possibly makes it more difficult for nastional police forces to protect those who need protection. (The right to carry arms and use them against others is most definitely not a Human Right.) Secondly, self-defense is recognised allready in all national legal systems I know of and does not benefit from ill defined extensions into covering 'imminent threat'. This sounds as if the resolution allows for pre-emptive actionand given para 2 for premeptive vigilante action. Thirdly, this is an area for national legislation, which takes into account cultural and historical differences and not for UN imposed rules.

I'm sorry but I strongly believe that this resolution is ill thought out and dangerous.

First and foremost, it has no Human Rights value whatsoever that I can see and very possibly makes it more difficult for nastional police forces to protect those who need protection. (The right to carry arms and use them against others is most definitely not a Human Right.) Secondly, self-defense is recognised allready in all national legal systems I know of and does not benefit from ill defined extensions into covering 'imminent threat'. This sounds as if the resolution allows for pre-emptive actionand given para 2 for premeptive vigilante action. Thirdly, this is an area for national legislation, which takes into account cultural and historical differences and not for UN imposed rules.
This resolution is nothing to do with the so-called 'right to bear arms'. It is about the right to own property, the right to your own body, the right to protect your body and property and the responsibility to uphold the rights of others. So I'd say its got a huge amount to do with human rights.

Also, since when has something being in national law precluded the UN from ruling on a matter? Habeas Corpus specifically mentioned that that is a founding principal of law in many nations. What this resolution is intending to do is make sure that this right is upheld in all UN nations.

Our position is that the right to bear arms and to defend oneself with them is very much a fundamental human right. One thing we like about this proposal is that it represents a repudiation of pacifism, which we find to be an extremely immoral position.

Our position on this has nothing to do with glorifying violence. We sadly ... but honestly ... acknowledge that the world is a violent place ... and we resist any call to, in effect, leave a monopoly of violence in the hands of the most unscrupulous.

Office of the United Nations Delegate for the Region of Scandinavia
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

The Borgoan government is very much against this resolution. It is ill thought out and open to vast interpretation. It contains no safeguards to restrict the meaning of "reasonable force". The Borgoan government believes this resolution's implementation could lead to a vigilante and revenge-based society. We are against this. It is the job of the properly regulated authorities to ensure the safety and security of its nation's citizens.

The Foreign Ministry has therefore instructed its UN Delegate to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Moreover, we are concerned with the rightest moves in the UN of late. This is a view in common with our regional neighbours and friends in Scandinavia.

I'm sorry but I strongly believe that this resolution is ill thought out and dangerous.

First and foremost, it has no Human Rights value whatsoever that I can see and very possibly makes it more difficult for nastional police forces to protect those who need protection. (The right to carry arms and use them against others is most definitely not a Human Right.) Secondly, self-defense is recognised allready in all national legal systems I know of and does not benefit from ill defined extensions into covering 'imminent threat'. This sounds as if the resolution allows for pre-emptive actionand given para 2 for premeptive vigilante action. Thirdly, this is an area for national legislation, which takes into account cultural and historical differences and not for UN imposed rules.

TilEnca didn't have a right of self-defence when attacked by certain people, because it was assumed that if a member of The Church attacked you, you deserved it.

And what about national legal systems you don't know of? There are over 37,000 nations in the UN - I am pretty sure no one is an expert on all of them.

Finally - where does it mention "the right to carry arms and use them against others"?

This begs the question. If you trust your legal system, why do you need this resolution?

My concern is not that The Cat-Tribe's legal system will misapply this law. My concern is that citizens of The Cat-Tribe and other UN nations may well misunderstand this resolution as an invitation to violence when it is not justified. Examples within this debate illustrate that this resolution may be seen as justifying violence that is not necessarily legal under the resolution.


I need this because it lays down a principle that I consider a good one in a sensible way. As much as I trust my legal system that does not mean a judiciary has the right to invent principles of human rights - that is the job of the legislature, be it at UN level or national level. Within the context of this game's mechanics the UN, whether we like it or not, is pretty much a legislature (ie it passes laws internationally that are implemented nationally). This resolution allows judiciaries in a nation like mine, subject to the separation of powers doctrine, devoted to human rights and the rule of law, to apply the (doubtlessly but usefully) vague wording to fit the circumstances in a SPECIFIC case in a trial by judge and jury.

You can disagree with the principle as much as you like, and there is probably not much I can do about that, but to base one's vote on a lack of faith in the judiciaries of your own nation or of others says more about the state of that nation than the merits of this resolution...

I oppose most strongly. This resolution does not, in any way, limit the force used, nor define "reasonable". I don't want some redneck in the backwaters of my country tearing the mailman to shreds with an automatic just because he was startled.

Take the recent (RL) case of the two teenage girls who made cookies for their neighbor. The neighbor was so frightened by someone knocking on her door that she had to go to the hospital, and later sued. What if the neighbor had not been a lady with a weak heart, but a trigger-happy gun nut with a rifle?

The strong margin in favor of the resolution is telling of our decline - was it not less than half a year ago that we repealed a resolution in favor of arming our nations to the teeth and going to war against a perceived "Axis of Evil"?

While the resolution remains this ambigious in its definition, I cannot endorse it. Since Aeruillin has outlawed the private possession of weapons, I am not even sure what will take precedence here: In the case of a shooting, will our courts be able to prosecute a man for owning a weapon, but not for blasting an alleged "attacker" with it?

Take the recent (RL) case of the two teenage girls who made cookies for their neighbor. The neighbor was so frightened by someone knocking on her door that she had to go to the hospital, and later sued. What if the neighbor had not been a lady with a weak heart, but a trigger-happy gun nut with a rifle?


Then she would have been arrested and charged with all sorts of crimes.

How is this so hard to understand?

The United States of Allanea is supportive of this resolution. If indeed we assume every individual has a right to life, then each individual has the right to protect it when damaged.

This resolution is a no-brainer

This resolution is poorly written and promotes violence. Violence can never be accepted in a civilized society, not even as a reaction to violence. I am considering resigning from the UN if this resolution is accepted rather than being forced to comply with it - and I might urge other UN Members of my region to do the same.

This resolution is very well-intentioned. It's got the ultimate aim of ensuring the right of every free citizen to defend themselves, their friends/family, and all associated property from harm. Clearly a no-brainer of a right.

My only problem is that it's a UN resolution. This kind of thing is typically covered by any well-intentioned government of a nation, and I don't think the UN really needs to try to legislate so specifically in member nations.

I mean, it's an excellent idea, but it's kind of a big-government/small government issue more than a no-brainer human-rights issue. Plus, even though the resolution was clearly left ambiguous, it could cause all sorts of debate in nations where gun control is a major issue, since gun-rights advocates could claim that "reasonable force" includes use of a firearm and gun-control advocates could claim the opposite.

I mean, this is an excellent impetus, but it's kind of crossing the line between UN mandate and UN interference in a nation's internal situations. For those reasons only I'm voting against it, but my nation does support the right of citizens to protect what is theirs.

[QUOTE=Enn]This resolution is nothing to do with the so-called 'right to bear arms'. It is about the right to own property, the right to your own body, the right to protect your body and property and the responsibility to uphold the rights of others. So I'd say its got a huge amount to do with human rights.

:rolleyes: You are quite right that the resolution doesn't mention arms. It doesn't have to. How are you supposed to use 'reasonable force' against an armed opponent unless you can match him? The resolution simply assumes that it's ok for a citizen to be armed. Where Human Rights are concerned, the whole framework is diametrically opposed to the approach of the above resolution. Human Rights provide a protection under the law (eg it forbids things and provides a legal recourse when such things nevertheless occur) it does NOT provide a right to go and take the law into your own hands because that is the most direct road to the violation of other people's human rights. Believe it or not even the putative intruder or attacker has Human Rights. :headbang:

While I have supported this resolution I have some reservation of what constitutes the right of self defence...

It would be my hope that there would be an amendment process available to submit clarifications without killing a resolution outright...

This is disturbing. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming this occured in the US, but every state has well defined provisions for self-defense, protection of others, etc. It is true these provisions are not as broad and vague as the resolution here (which is why they are more rational and acceptable), but it is extremely rare that one "trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker" would be convicted and punished -- unless there is more to the story. This simply wouldn't have happened several times where individuals were using reasonable force in self-defense.

I suppose that performing a judo throw on someone who tries to punch you is "unreasonable". Damn the whole "zero tolerance" movement in schools. They may well be in conflict with "more rational and acceptable" state law, but that was the deal at the schools I attended. If you were in a fight, regardless of whether you had been under attack and trying to defend yourself, you were arrested and given the same punishment as the attacker.

The sentiments of those who think that anyone found on their property without permission has "given up their rights" and can be "blown away" are exactly why this proposal is scary.

I haven't seen anyone expressing that sentiment here. And this requires me to ask...what the hell are you talking about?

For the longest time, I opposed any attempts to write self-defence in to the UN, because I felt it lead to violance and mayhem and people taking the law in to their own hands.

But then I read a proposal that did exactly what most people appear to be asking for. It listed the circumstances under which you could kill, the circumstances under which you could hurt someone and so forth. It was very narrowly defined, and as a consequence it lead to a situation where someone could break in, fall over, knock themselves out and you would still be permitted to shoot them dead because they broke in to your house.

This proposal doesn't do that. It doesn't encourage violance in anyway. It says that, if you are about to be attacked, you can defend yourself with an amount of force that is reasonable in the circumstances. So if someone slaps you, shooting them in the head is probably not permitted. But if someone swings an axe at you, you can react more than if they swing a punch at you.

And the defence of others not only covers random people on the street - so if you see a woman being beaten and mugged, you can stop it - but also children in your own home (which is not covered by self-defence) which I think most people would accept is a good thing.

The part about property - well if someone breaks in to your house, and begins to remove all your property, are you just going to sit there and let him? No - you are going to try to disable him. But if he is not armed, and not dangerous, you can only disable him and not blow his brains out with a shotgun.

As for reasonable force being in the hands of the national governments - I think that is fine. Because we have three races in TilEnca, and a dwarf can swing an axe a darn sight more quickly and powerfully than a human can (in general), so the definition of "reasonable force" might not only vary from situation to situation, but from race to race as well. And yet if reasonable force is written out in full, we would be forced to use that definition when it might be totally unsuitable for our nation.

So, as implied in many of your other posts, anyone against your resolution should just shut up. Ain't happen'. You'll likely win anyway (which is merely reaping the benefits of your hard work), but some of us will still voice our opinions first.

I don't expect you to shut up. I expect you to present validity and consistency in your argumentation and policy. You've already agreed (if I remember correctly) that you believe violence to be the sole providence of the state. That's enough for me to consider your vote against the resolution valid. Why do you need to continue presenting other invalid arguments?

Since each nation already does this, it is a quite useless law.

It was not intended to be a law, and as such, your point that it is a useless law is utterly irrelevant.

Excuse me for asking, but just what is the point in passing a resolution if it is not intended to be law?

egocentric and selfish... I just think that our legal system already covers this stuff and I cant imagine that anyone else's doesnt. Unless of course they dont want it to. In that case they have a right to their position and dont need to be made to feel that they're out of line with the U.N. Especially if you dont think they have to follow the resolution.

*sigh* I hope you hold to that principle consistently. I will be seeing you vote against every UN resolution from now on if you do.

well ... i said that i didnt think it added anything new, meaning in its identification of self-defense as something worthy of consideration etc. nothing new there, and IF IT DOES (add something new) ... it adds some bad stuff. Primarily tilting things towards acts of self defense that wouldnt have previously been seen as excessive or otherwise illegitimate. In the case of my country i see that as a truly negative outcome, since i think we do have a good idea of this distinction, and I can only assume most member states feel the same way about their systems. I dont see this as selfish i just think its important to stand up for the relevance of the systems already in place.

But why do you feel the need to stand up for the relevance of your system that's already in place when I already have by wording the proposal such that it respects your right to have that relevant system?

I understand that it isnt mandatory for nations to follow it, but again this just makes the whole endeavor pointless, those nations that are actually against self-defense for whatever reason would be among those that choose not to follow it, those that are already for it would be those that choose to follow it, so what is accomplished? I simply dont agree with your perception that there is some problem with legitimate acts of self defense being judged criminal, its not a problem in Present Location, and I dont see why it would be a systematic problem in any country with a healthy legal system.[/I]

The resolution serves the purpose I intended it to serve. If you think that purpose is illegitimate, simply say so and we can be done with this.

Who said that you cant defend it? I just think the whole thing is silly, if we see something as a right then of course you can defend it, self defense is something that must happen when your rights are infringed upon, it is a direct consequence of a violation of your rights, its connected to your rights, but not a right in and of itself. This is a fine distinction but i dont see what meaning rights have if they are not already understood to be something that must be defended. This goes along with how i feel this adds nothing but confusion. The feeling is: "we werent allowed to defend ourselves until now? I had no idea." The only outcome of this as I see it is maybe some people who felt that they couldnt rightly "defend" themselves against something (because they really rightly could not) now may feel that they can. For Present Location, we see this as a real negative outcome. Rights must be defended at all costs against whoever would infringe upon them, of course.

See above.

This goes without saying. Your resolution is needless and confusing.

If the resolution is confusing to you, you need to do more thinking and quite possibly some reading in the first post about my intended purpose of this resolution.

Excuse me for asking, but just what is the point in passing a resolution if it is not intended to be law?

Read. The. First. Damn. Post.

Note. The. Bolded. Word.

If this idea were applied to nations rather than individuals surely there would be little arguement that a nation could employ reasonable force to defend what is rightfully theirs and to defend their people from an aggressor. What not then give individuals the same rights?

Please, no need to patronise.

I read it, and it says, right to self protection (in bold words). Oh, and the other word is promoting.

From what I understand, this means that it gives individuals who wish to defend themselves legal protection, correct?

So, it is a law, or isn't it? I always thought that UN resolutions were supposed to be laws.

Please, no need to patronise.

I read it, and it says, right to self protection (in bold words). Oh, and the other word is promoting.

From what I understand, this means that it gives individuals who wish to defend themselves legal protection, correct?

So, it is a law?

Dear God.

1. Concerns about my purpose in writing the resolution.

My purpose in writing this resolution was three-fold. First, it was to continue the UN tradition of promoting human rights and freedom while leaving the national sovereignty of UN member states intact. Second, it was to prevent a future resolution that might undermine those freedoms. Because of many of the resolutions being badly written (for various reasons), I was concerned that someone might accidentally remove those freedoms with a poorly-considered clause. Thirdly, this is an issue close to my heart in real life, because I have had several friends arrested or punished for trying to and/or succeeding in stopping an attacker.

It is a promotion of human rights.

I haven't seen anyone expressing that sentiment here. And this requires me to ask...what the hell are you talking about?

Disingenuous. I'm not going to requote parts of this whole thread, if you either did not or will not recall it. There have been lots of testoterone-laden statements about use of force. Here is just one example:

It has been reported in Britian that burglers have put pans on the gas cooker and boiled water to throw over the homeowner if they come down during the robbery and attempt to stop it. With this in mind I must ask what is reasonable? I think this resolution is a step in the right direction, but I feel it doesn't go far enough!
Burglers leave all their rights behind them when they break into the property, :gundge: however I would not condone the use of leathal hidden traps.

Disingenuous. I'm not going to requote parts of this whole thread, if you either did not or will not recall it. There have been lots of testoterone-laden statements about use of force. Here is just one example:

See, that was easy. You have proven your point. Now are we done, or are you simply going to keep calling things disingenuous without explanation of why that is the case?

Dear God.



It is a promotion of human rights.

Again, disingenuous. Rather than answer the argument made by Adamsgrad you are dismissing it as failing to recognize semantic differences among a law, a UN resolution, and "a promotion of human rights" that you appear to have made up out of whole cloth.

Again, disingenuous. Rather than answer the argument made by Adamsgrad you are dismissing it as failing to recognize semantic differences among a law, a UN resolution, and "a promotion of human rights" that you appear to have made up out of whole cloth.

It is a UN resolution that serves the function of promoting human rights. Not a law in the sense of an enforced policy directive.

:headbang: I see that you wish to draw opponents into side quarrels over semantics rather than debate substance. I will not oblige.

You say I keep making "invalid" arguments, but you have never shown that any of my arguments are invalid.

More importantly, you have never responded to two key points that I (and others) have made repeatedly:

1. Your resolution has little or no positive effect. It merely "urges" nations to adopt a right of self-protection and, as is often repeated as a virtue, it is so open to interpretation that any nation could render it void. Most nations -- particularly any that embrace this resolution -- already have some more specific provision for self-defense and defense of others.

2. Your resolution has a serious negative effect because of its symbolic impact. Many citizens will (as many nations have here) see the resolution as protecting or even promoting violence when it is (a) not justified and/or (b) not protected by the resolution. This will result in unecessary and unwanted violence.

P.S. Students, particularly minors, in school have a whole host of rights "checked at the door," so to speak. Those are special cases. (Although I share a dislike for "zero tolerance" policies).

:headbang: I see that you wish to draw opponents into side quarrels over semantics rather than debate substance. I will not oblige.

I clarified what I thought you wanted me to clarify.

You say I keep making "invalid" arguments, but you have never shown that any of my arguments are invalid.

Oooookaaay....

1. Your resolution has little or no positive effect. It merely "urges" nations to adopt a right of self-protection and, as is often repeated as a virtue, it is so open to interpretation that any nation could render it void. Most nations -- particularly any that embrace this resolution -- already have some more specific provision for self-defense and defense of others.

So you see the purpose of merely promoting human rights as an invalid one. Fine. That's a perfectly good reason to vote against it.

2. Your resolution has a serious negative effect because of its symbolic impact. Many citizens will (as many nations have here) see the resolution as protecting or even promoting violence when it is (a) not justified and/or (b) not protected by the resolution. This will result in unecessary and unwanted violence.

Ah, the "it's open to abuse" argument. If you think that resolutions that are open to abuse are invalid, then you will be opposed to every single resolution aside from "UN Taxation Ban". That's a perfectly valid position for you to take, in my opinion.

P.S. Students, particularly minors, in school have a whole host of rights "checked at the door," so to speak. Those are special cases. (Although I share a dislike for "zero tolerance" policies).

So what if it's a special case? It does explain my interest in this issue, yes? That's all I intended it to do.

Is a principle a bad one simply because it requires an extent of judicial creativity to properly enforce? Sure enough, slavery is bad (most will agree, I hope) but the prevention thereof may be difficult to enforce.. does that mean we shouldn't try?

If there is a bad 'symbolic' impact you could just as well say that freedom of speech has a bad symbolic impact because it makes people call each other bad (often untrue) things in newspapers. Also difficult to enforce, but at least we try (hence libel laws).

I think we need to boil this down to the principle, and ask whether the principle of self-defence is worthy of being promoted under the heading of human rights. I for one think it is. It should not necessarily override other rights, say the right to life and liberty, but it should be weighed appropriately alongside these rights, if they ever should clash (which they undoubtedly will).

We have police for protection. If you just spend on police force you don't have to worry about people hurting eachother.

It is a UN resolution that serves the function of promoting human rights. Not a law in the sense of an enforced policy directive.

So, it is promoting human rights. Fine, no problem with that, and have understood all along.

However, if it grants legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves (which it does, right?) then it must also be considered a law.

After all, granting legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves is an enforced policy directive, correct?

So, it is promoting human rights. Fine, no problem with that, and have understood all along.

However, if it grants legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves (which it does, right?) then it must also be considered a law.

After all, granting legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves is an enforced policy directive, correct?


After all this time and all this debate it is simplistic to the point of stupidity and frankly rather insulting to your own and the intelligence of others to advance an argument on the assumption that this resolution grants some sort of automatic legal protection for EVERYONE who for whatever reason should choose to defend themselves. It patently does not and is subject to the force being reasonable in the circumstances.

With all due respect sir, that wasn't answering my question. Texan, please, answer my question.

I wasn't answering your question, with all due respect, I was attacking the premise on which the question was founded.

Well, that wasn't actually the premise on which my question was founded either.

But please, try and answer the question at the bottom.

Ok I am not about to be drawn into some petty slanging match.. before you know it we'll be calling our respective mommies and ask why doesn't he stop and mommy will answer 'having the last word in doesn't mean anything'.

The point was, in the question

"After all, granting legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves is an enforced policy directive, correct?"

'granting legal protection to individuals who wish to defend themselves' is an assumption leading to the second limb of the sentence which is a question.

In other words, a premise. But I am not one to put words in people's mouths, so if I am mistaken I suggest you phrase your questions in a more cautious manner in the future. Oh yeah, and to make things easier, I give my solemn promise that you are free to have the last word if you like ;)

It was not intended to be a law, and as such, your point that it is a useless law is utterly irrelevant.

It is a UN resolution that serves the function of promoting human rights. Not a law in the sense of an enforced policy directive.

So, I say, if the resolution grants people legal protection (though not everybody, as you like to suggest) to defend themselves, is that not a legal directive, therefore a law?

Please, answer the question (though the question was originally for Texan).

I think you're asking Texan still, am I right?

If not, I'm not entirely sure it's my place to hazard a reply in a discussion where he is involved (within which I butted in at an awkward angle) If the question were addressed to me however, I would say that this resolution is a very strong recommendation establishing an important principle for nations to codify in a manner suitable to their form of government and the competences of their judicial branch. Where the language is not mandatory I think it is wrong to refer to a UN resolution as law before it is properly codified in national statute and interpreted in court cases to which this principle may apply.

The question was intended for Texan, yes. But he is not here at the moment.

Although you prefer not to give a yes or no answer (very clever) I believe you are saying no - not 100% sure though.

My point is, what will clearly be mandatory is that nations codify the right to self-defence into their own laws. To me, that sounds like a legal directive and therefore a law.

If it is a law, then it makes the other girls argument that it is a useless law far more relevant.

I really should walk away from this tar baby, but I'll try one more time. :headbang:

So you see the purpose of merely promoting human rights as an invalid one. Fine. That's a perfectly good reason to vote against it.

Not even close to what I said, and I think you know better. Setting aside whether I agree your resolution promotes human rights, I have no problem with promoting human rights per se. I am not one of those who has argued that the lack of impact is alone a reason to vote against your resolution.

I do say that there is little benefit to your resolution because no nation need implement it. Nations that wish to protect rights to self-protection can and probably have without this resolution. Other states are unaffected by it. Most of the benefits assumed by others here will not materialize. This leads to my next point about disadvantages of the resolution.

Ah, the "it's open to abuse" argument. If you think that resolutions that are open to abuse are invalid, then you will be opposed to every single resolution aside from "UN Taxation Ban". That's a perfectly valid position for you to take, in my opinion.

Again, you mischaracterize my argument. I am not saying the resolution will be abused. [I will note that some resolutions may be more open to abuse than others, and this is a perfectly valid reason to support some resolutions and oppose other resolutions. More specific resolutions are less likely to be abused.] I am saying that it will have a negative impact in that it promotes violence and its vagueness will likely cause misunderstanding. Consider this:

What is the only impact your resolution will have? Symbolic.

What is the message (symbolism) of your resolution? Violence is acceptable, even good, in vaguely defined circumstances.

What is the likely result of this message? More violence, particularly more violence in situations where individuals are led to believe they are protected by your resolution. Given that invalid self-defense claims are a problem under more specific laws, your resolution will cause more unjustified violence. This impact may not be great. Given the lack of tangible benefit to your resolution, however, the harm outweighs the advantages.

So what if it's a special case? It does explain my interest in this issue, yes? That's all I intended it to do.

My statement about schools being a special case was merely for your information. I had originally questioned how you had several friends who had been punished for valid self-defense. You explained it happened in school. As I said, that is a special case where ordinary notions of self-defense do not apply (just as many other codes of conduct are different). I was not trying to score points. You have stated your motivation and I believe I understand.

I definitely do see your point, but trust me, we're opening up a can of academic worms with this.. the effect of international legislation is something professors can't decide on in real life. I dread to think what that discussion would look like in NS-world.

Legislation that does not contain mandatory language, ie shall or must, is in my view not binding as law without further codification whereby mandatory language is introduced, making it law. A very strong recommendation ad implied by the word 'urges' is necessarily discretionary, if you take a common-sense definition of the word. I do not think nations HAVE to implement this particular piece of legislation, but I sincerely hope they would.

Don't have to implement it, therefore, rather toothless resolution.

Which means, as far as I'm concerned, don't vote for it. That, and the points that Cat-Tribe has made below - mean vote against it.

does that mean that if some one steals my watch i have to right to kill them? i think its a good idea to allow some one the right to protect themselves from being killed, thats cool and all. I just tend to think that the way you have it set up would create a mass vigilante army that would go around like the punisher and wack criminals. Each situation should be taken into acount one by one through the court system. to make a law like this is just begging for an increase in violence and death. There is a reason that there is a police force, and that is to minimize crime(to stop it compeltely is impossible). Allowing citizens to take justice into their own hands can only lead into a world of anarchy and disorder.

My reluctance to vote for this resolution plays to a bigger question that I have, and I suppose, I should pose here.

What purpose is there in asserting something on an international level? To stymie some global wrong? Certainly. To clarify the stance of the United Nations on a confusing or controversial issue? Perhaps.

To simply state something that reflects the values of member nations? No, not at all.

Is there an outbreak of governmental bodies that render their citizens legally self-defenseless? Have the greater minds of the world been holding forums to discuss the moral and subjective tangles in which we, as world citizens, engage when we make an attempt to defend ourselves?

I can't see why an issue, like the one proposed, would require such an assertion. Individual national constitutions and legislative code should clearly define this issue for member nations, and as there is no requirement for nations to uphold this very basic ideal, and therefore no penalty for non-compliance, the whole thing just seems like wasted paper.

The UN has quite a problem here.

The resolution is worded in such a manner that it can have many unexpected implications if adopted.
For moderate regims it will have a mild effect meaning that reasonable force means hold the burglar pinned to the ground and an imminent threat is when someone is trying to open your door.

However in an society that has little government (or an very radical) it will result in mob style killings and even accidently looking at your neighbours car would give him an excuse to take out his riot gun and kill you.

Therefore I think we should abstain from a vote and if the resolution is adopted get it repealed as soon as possible, or reworded to take the sharp edge of it.

I therefore suggest that possible (very) negative consequences should not be set aside easily.
If implemented the only way to repair unintended damage is to repeal it or reword it.

What is the message (symbolism) of your resolution? Violence is acceptable, even good, in vaguely defined circumstances.

So? Violence is acceptable in certain circumstances, yes?

What is the likely result of this message? More violence, particularly more violence in situations where individuals are led to believe they are protected by your resolution. Given that invalid self-defense claims are a problem under more specific laws, your resolution will cause more unjustified violence. This impact may not be great. Given the lack of tangible benefit to your resolution, however, the harm outweighs the advantages.

I'm trying to get this right, and understand what the hell you are actually saying, because you think that I've mischaracterized your argument.

So your reasoning for voting against the resolution is thus:

1. You see no positive benefits because it doesn't actually mandate anything.
2. You see probable negative effects because of misunderstanding due to a lack of definition.

My response to this would be that were I to go farther and mandate something and define it, there would still be misuderstandings and abuse that would come out of it. Basically, the nations that are opposed to it would get out of it regardless of my definitions or mandates, and such an absolutist policy would breed resentment in addition, though it would also prevent some misunderstandings.

I'll demonstrate that point shortly, though I would note that I find the whole situation funny now. You seem to be saying that the glass is half empty, and I seem to be saying that it's half full. In fact, there's simply half a glass. :)

1. Let's say that I used the hypothetical "reasonable person" mentioned by Groot Gouda. The problem with this is that it's still too vague. Every culture is going to have a different "reasonable person". In one culture, it might be considered reasonable to nuke a person who is trying to steal your spacecraft. Clearly, I would see this as unreasonable, but such things will happen regardless of my mandating a more defined legal construct.

2. Now what if I specified more, that "reasonable" means "only of equivalent or lesser force"? This is still too vague, in that it would be dependent on the court to determine what constitutes "equivalent force". This would be done according to the cultural standards of the peoples and nations, and we would still have precisely the same problem as before. A judge, coming from his cultural background, may well rule that nuking is equivalent in force to the theft of a spaceship.

3. Now what we could do to solve this whole business once and for all is to consider every possible scenario in which self-defense would come into play and write a law that addresses appropriate use of force in each scenario. (Not an easy thing considering that the NationStates United Nations membership is a thousand times more diverse than the planet Earth. If you attempt it, I'll expect you to be done with that proposal in about two years at best.) :D Even if you managed to do this, there would still be some nations that would define "force" as "cheese" for the purposes of their compliance, and thereby nullify the effect of the proposal that you spent two years of your life on. Even if you were to define "force," there would be many nations who would define a key word in your definition such that the effect of the proposal is nullified. You could define the words that made up you definitions, and then define the words that made up those definitions, and then define the words in those definitions, and so on and so on. You would die long before you completed such a task.


My second point would be that there are positive benefits that would indeed come out of this proposal. I shall list them, though I don't know that they will matter to you at all.


1. Conservatives will feel more positively about the UN because it is recognizing one of their views as valid. This is good because for over the year that I've been playing this game, there has been a deep resentment of the UN by conservatives, and for good reason. The only conservative resolutions that are currently in effect that I can think of are "UN Taxation Ban" and "United Nations Space Consortium". The latter was only partially conservative, as it presented a capitalistic model but was for international cooperation and peace. So that's two resolutions out of what? Eighty-something? As a United body of Nations that promotes peace and unity, we should be open to conservative nations and try to encourage them to better themselves rather than forcing them to accept policies that are abhorrent to them against their will (or get around them by painstaking effort). Such only promotes an attitude of discord and resentment.

2. National sovereignty advocates such as myself will also feel more positively towards a UN that can promote valuable ideals without creating an attitude of discord by forcing nations to accept policies that violate their national sovereignty (or to get around them by painstaking effort).

3. Different cultures have terms defined differently because of their language (conceptual matrix). Different cultures have a different set of morals and values, which they have adopted as conclusions of their belief systems, which may be logical, illogical, or non-logical. (If you believe logic to be accurate I challenge you to demonstrate the logical validity of logic without committing a fallacy.) A practice of tolerance of cultures and encouragement will make the UN more "United" in nature and promote peace.

What's the moral of this story? No proposal/resolution is perfect.

1. We can write very well-defined policies that make abuse much harder and piss off the abusers as well as people who have different cultural standards.

2. We can write vague policies that are more open to abuse (with significantly less effort on the part of the abusers) that tolerate people with different cultural standards.

Part of our job as active UN members is that we make the hard decision of proposal-writers and choose which group we are going to piss off. Do we piss off those who hold to different cultural standards and those who are opposed to the proposal idealogically? Or do we piss off those who are concerned about the upcoming abuse of the well-meaning policies? Not an easy choice.

I definitely do see your point, but trust me, we're opening up a can of academic worms with this.. the effect of international legislation is something professors can't decide on in real life. I dread to think what that discussion would look like in NS-world.

Legislation that does not contain mandatory language, ie shall or must, is in my view not binding as law without further codification whereby mandatory language is introduced, making it law. A very strong recommendation ad implied by the word 'urges' is necessarily discretionary, if you take a common-sense definition of the word. I do not think nations HAVE to implement this particular piece of legislation, but I sincerely hope they would.

The can is open, and things are crawling out! :eek:

Actually, I'm amazed at how much of an opportunity we have here to define legal concepts and try to implement them in a world full of diversity and uniqueness. It is a worthy challenge. :)

Just remember that some nations have interesting definitions of certain words. Like mine for propaganda.