NationStates Jolt Archive


Repeal Resolution 94#

Vacatti
16-11-2007, 15:57
Repeal "Right to Self-Protection"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #94
Proposed by: Vacatti

Description: UN Resolution #94: Right to Self-Protection (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Right to Self Protection is a flawed resolution that should never have been passed. It is a resolution that legalizes private militias and has extreme room of flexibility when it comes to loopholes.

The flawed thought that every should have the right to defend themselves or their property with whatever force they feel is necessary, is extremely wrong.

Many people can use this law as an excuse to carefully engineer a situation where they can be rid of a person they dislike or want dead. This law before being re-passed needs more stringent controls. It needs to be stronger in the wording as well.

The idea that everyone should have the ability to defend others property or others period brings up the question of why we are authorizing privite militias.

The police are the organization set forth in place to protect people and the property of people. We should not allow for private militias as we will be virtually sanctioning gang violence.

Gang violence can fit in very easy into this because they can claim they are protecting their "turf" or a fellow gang member and this can cause "turf wars" and other violent complications that cause the police to divert their attention from other emergencies to the ever increasing problem of gang violence.

This resolution must be repealed so that member nations will not be plagued any longer by the epidemic of violence that this resolution is causing. This resolution has instead of improved worldwide human and civil rights, it has hurt them, because innocent people no longer can walk the streets with the same piece of mind as before.

In Conclusion, this resolution must be repealed at all costs as it adds the right to private militia which not only undermines the authority of the government, but provides an alternate authority in regard to military matters.

Private citizens ought not to be able to have their own militia to protect themselves without the regulation of such being made clear.

Approvals: 6 (Weissborg, Ternalaria, WZ Forums, Invicible Burninator, Ellenburg, Compulsoria)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 107 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 18 2007




I am posting this to garnish support for this very important resolution, as you read above, this issue is critically in need of being addressed by the UN. And a vote to repeal the fundamentally wrong Resolution of Self-protection is a step in the right direction to ending the use of private militias.
Flibbleites
16-11-2007, 17:14
And here's the text of #94.

Right to Self-Protection

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

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.
Texan Hotrodders
16-11-2007, 17:51
The intended beauty of resolution #94 is its imminently practical vagueness. It's easy enough to adapt your national laws to fit the resolution and still do what you want. For example, you can declare private militias to be an example of unreasonable force if you like.

Also, I don't remember violent crime rates going up drastically in member nations around the world when the resolution was implemented. If they went up in your nation, perhaps that's a problem with the way your nation implemented it.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
St Edmundan Antarctic
16-11-2007, 17:54
Given that clauses beginning with "URGES" are only suggestions, rather than legally binding, we see no problem here.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)
ShogunKhan
16-11-2007, 21:42
so the fad is to repeal evry vague law? snazzy.
Roseariea
16-11-2007, 23:36
We do not see how allowing individuals the right to use "reasonable force" to protect their lives and property equates to allowing them private militias.

Your nation must have a drastically different view of "reasonable" than ours.

We like the resolution, and shall not be supporting this repeal.
Gobbannium
17-11-2007, 05:11
We are becoming a little concerned with the delegate's habit of attempting to repeal resolutions without adequate thought. While such is not at all unusual in these chambers, it is a little odd to see such a practice from one evidently literate and not, as far as we can tell, deliberately lying. In any case, we must agree with the ambassadors who have spoken before us in opposing this repeal.
Vacatti
18-11-2007, 01:46
I see people seem to gloss over the importance of the issue. Tis sad indeed that people choose to ignore the fact it is a blatant endorsement for private militias. I have in fact presented a viable argument that is being ignored by illiterate nations without regard to a pressing matter.
Ariddia
18-11-2007, 01:58
It is a resolution that legalizes private militias

How so?


and has extreme room of flexibility when it comes to loopholes.


That would mean a government can exploit the alleged loopholes to outlaw private militias, would it not?


Many people can use this law as an excuse to carefully engineer a situation where they can be rid of a person they dislike or want dead.

How? Give us a concrete example.


The idea that everyone should have the ability to defend others property or others period brings up the question of why we are authorizing privite militias.


You have yet to prove that we are.


We should not allow for private militias


You have not yet demonstrated how the resolution allows for private militias.


This resolution must be repealed so that member nations will not be plagued any longer by the epidemic of violence that this resolution is causing. This resolution has instead of improved worldwide human and civil rights, it has hurt them, because innocent people no longer can walk the streets with the same piece of mind as before.


It's had no such effect in my country. Your government, Ambassador, must be failing spectacularly at exploiting those gaping loopholes you mentioned.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles
G l o g
18-11-2007, 02:12
Right to Self-Protection GOOD!!! Glog not support repeal.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador
ShogunKhan
18-11-2007, 21:39
Right to Self-Protection GOOD!!! Glog not support repeal.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

We second Glog's wisdom.
Douria
18-11-2007, 23:42
Not that I'd tolerate them in the Dourian Confederacy, but Private Militias are a fairly good idea for alot of nations in the UN.