You have the right to remain dead
We periodically hear that American judges ruling on domestic issues should consider foreign law. No less a light than Sandra Day O’Connor said as much:
“I suspect that over time, we will rely increasingly — or take notice at least increasingly — on international and foreign law in resolving domestic issues,” O’Connor told the 450 Southern Center guests at the J.W. Marriott Hotel.
The consideration of foreign law happens in only one direction.
Recently the UN Human Rights Councils’s Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights decided that there is no right to self defense.
Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.
The Second Amendment and American statutes which recognizes a right to individual self defense carry no weight with the august Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Posted on September 4th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: law
Entries RSS
My glance at the report led me to a different interpretation than David Hardy’s.
It seemed to be a relatively harmless piece–one that left me with two impressions: the right to bear arms should be decided by the State, with several restrictions attatched (i.e. no criminal history, proper licensing, etc.); and that self-defense is not a ‘right’ because it cannot be enforced by the State, rather it is something permitted under certain circumstances in order to ensure your liberty from both the criminal’s unwanted violence and the State’s prosecution.
I don’t see the problem.
Molon Labe
Chris, you make two statements:
[t]he right to bear arms should be decided by the State, with several restrictions attatched (i.e. no criminal history, proper licensing, etc.)
I believe something quite different. The state does not decide or grant rights. Rights are logically prior to the state. The state is created to ensure these rights, insofar as the state interferes with the rights of the citizen, the state is illegitimate.
[s]elf-defense is not a ‘right’ because it cannot be enforced by the State, rather it is something permitted under certain circumstances in order to ensure your liberty from both the criminal’s unwanted violence and the State’s prosecution.
If that is correct, then there is no right to life either, since life can not be enforced nor granted by the state. This is not terribly surprising. There is no right to life if there is no right to preserve said life. There is no right to preserve life without the right to the means to do so.
The UN is currently running a showcase operation of its theory of human rights in Dafur.