[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

[Ossitania]

If I may I think 2 things should be included into the bill to make it more iron clad.

First the use of Totality of the Circumstances: which is given all of the facts at the time of the incident occurring which could include:
• Alcohol and Drugs
• Mental and Psychiatric history
• Innocent Bystanders
• Availability of weapons
• Size, Age, and Condition of the parties involved
• Duration of Action

And also to clarify reasonable would be Perspective of Another Individual, means that if another individual of sound mind and judgement knowing the (wait for it) Totality of the Circumstances at that exact moment when the action occurred, no hindsight, would have acted in the same manner.

Some food for thought if you wish to add.

While I certainly agree that all these things would be important in judging whether the force used was reasonable or not, I think we can reasonably assume that these factors would be those examined by the judiciary when determining whether the force used was reasonable or not. I get where you're coming from and I appreciate the constructive comments, but adding these things, to me, at least, would feel, at best, superfluous and, at worst, like micromanagement. I nonetheless thank the honourable representative for his comments.

[Black Marne]

Isn't it already legal for people to use deadly force when necessary if their lives are in danger, ambassador?

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Paper Flowers]

Isn't it already legal for people to use deadly force when necessary if their lives are in danger, ambassador?

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

It is, in some nations, I have no doubt if we did a survey of every single WA member nation then there would be some who would not have it legalised.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Isn't it already legal for people to use deadly force when necessary if their lives are in danger, ambassador?

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

It is, in some nations, I have no doubt if we did a survey of every single WA member nation then there would be some who would not have it legalised.

Which should raise the point that nations whose laws go against this resolution will have no difficulty circumventing it thanks to this little clause:

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

[Lemmingtopias]

I approve of the resolution, in principle, as it stans but, is it necessary to legislate this on a global level?

[Ossitania]

It is, in some nations, I have no doubt if we did a survey of every single WA member nation then there would be some who would not have it legalised.

Which should raise the point that nations whose laws go against this resolution will have no difficulty circumventing it thanks to this little clause:

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

However, if this proposal becomes law, there will be no nations whose laws go against this resolution and I imagine they will have some difficulty circumventing it, when the duty of making sure it is implemented is placed in the hands of experienced men of the law whose sole duty is to fairly dispense justice in accordance with all the laws which nations are bound by without political considerations. Your politicians can bicker amongst themselves, ambassador, but if this proposal becomes law, then your politicians will just have to deal with it, as the resolution gives the responsibility to the judiciary, not to them.

I approve of the resolution, in principle, as it stans but, is it necessary to legislate this on a global level?

I obviously believe that it is, otherwise I wouldn't be spending my time and energy on drafting it. On principle, I generally believe it is necessary to legislate for human rights as I am of the opinion that the World Assembly has a moral duty to protect its citizens from those who would unjustifiably treat them unjustly. I understand and respect that not everyone is of that opinion, but I am, so, in addition to the fact that I would hardly be bothering with writing a proposal if I didn't think it was worthy of international attention, I am unlikely to suddenly have an epiphany and realise the error of my ways if someone queries whether or not what I'm working on is worthy of international attention.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Which should raise the point that nations whose laws go against this resolution will have no difficulty circumventing it thanks to this little clause:

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

However, if this proposal becomes law, there will be no nations whose laws go against this resolution and I imagine they will have some difficulty circumventing it, when the duty of making sure it is implemented is placed in the hands of experienced men of the law whose sole duty is to fairly dispense justice in accordance with all the laws which nations are bound by without political considerations. Your politicians can bicker amongst themselves, ambassador, but if this proposal becomes law, then your politicians will just have to deal with it, as the resolution gives the responsibility to the judiciary, not to them.

Zakath laughed cynically
Yes, because I'm certain that all judiciary systems in the World Assembly's member nations are completely separate from their legislature. Our politicians will follow the exact letter of the law as we are required to. But we are only required to follow the letter of the law.

[Ossitania]

However, if this proposal becomes law, there will be no nations whose laws go against this resolution and I imagine they will have some difficulty circumventing it, when the duty of making sure it is implemented is placed in the hands of experienced men of the law whose sole duty is to fairly dispense justice in accordance with all the laws which nations are bound by without political considerations. Your politicians can bicker amongst themselves, ambassador, but if this proposal becomes law, then your politicians will just have to deal with it, as the resolution gives the responsibility to the judiciary, not to them.

Zakath laughed cynically
Yes, because I'm certain that all judiciary systems in the World Assembly's member nations are completely separate from their legislature. Our politicians will follow the exact letter of the law as we are required to. But we are only required to follow the letter of the law.

We cannot possibly legislate for every conceivable political system that anyone might devise just as we cannot legislate for every conceivable situation in which reasonable force may be exercised in order to protect lives. There is almost always some measure by which nations can find a loophole (in fact, as far as I can remember, some members of the Assembly make a living from it) but that's what the compliance gnomes are for. Unless the ambassador has a suggestion as to a better system of ascertaining whether reasonable force was used or not, his comments are not constructive and should be saved for a later stage of the discussion; right now, I'm drafting it and need advice on how to improve it. All you are doing is pointing out flaws without suggesting solutions.

[Quelesh]

Makes sense. The edit has been made.

The word "comparable" could lead to a loophole, as even a much smaller amount of force is literally "comparable" (as in able to be compared) to the actual level of force necessary for defense.

[Ossitania]

Makes sense. The edit has been made.

The word "comparable" could lead to a loophole, as even a much smaller amount of force is literally "comparable" (as in able to be compared) to the actual level of force necessary for defense.

Fair point. I'm not going to attempt to correct it now because I'm running on far too little sleep (it took me five minutes of inanely reading your post over and over to get what you were saying), though if you have a suggestion, I am more than ready to hear it. If not, I'll get back to this in several hours' time.

[Glenn]

The People of Glenn feel that while this draft is in good spirits, we fear that it is a very complicated process in determining what exactly is just enough force to protect oneself, but not TOO much. I think to simplify this bill, we should explain when it is okay to use lethal force specifically, and non-lethal force specifically. Basically if a person feels their life could be in danger, they can use lethal force. If they do not feel that their life is in danger (an unarmed person bullying a person for example) then they may be able to use some degree of force to protect themselves, but nothing lethal or intentionally causing permanent injury.

[Ossitania]

The People of Glenn feel that while this draft is in good spirits, we fear that it is a very complicated process in determining what exactly is just enough force to protect oneself, but not TOO much. I think to simplify this bill, we should explain when it is okay to use lethal force specifically, and non-lethal force specifically. Basically if a person feels their life could be in danger, they can use lethal force. If they do not feel that their life is in danger (an unarmed person bullying a person for example) then they may be able to use some degree of force to protect themselves, but nothing lethal or intentionally causing permanent injury.

But that doesn't simplify the proposal at all, it needlessly complicates it. I don't know about you, but I certainly have enough fate in the average judge to assume s/he can come up with the earth-shatteringly amazing idea that killing someone because they tried to steal your friend's Mars bar is not okay.

[Moronist Decisions]

The People of Glenn feel that while this draft is in good spirits, we fear that it is a very complicated process in determining what exactly is just enough force to protect oneself, but not TOO much. I think to simplify this bill, we should explain when it is okay to use lethal force specifically, and non-lethal force specifically. Basically if a person feels their life could be in danger, they can use lethal force. If they do not feel that their life is in danger (an unarmed person bullying a person for example) then they may be able to use some degree of force to protect themselves, but nothing lethal or intentionally causing permanent injury.

But that doesn't simplify the proposal at all, it needlessly complicates it. I don't know about you, but I certainly have enough fate in the average judge to assume s/he can come up with the earth-shatteringly amazing idea that killing someone because they tried to steal your friend's Mars bar is not okay.

I agree that it is a matter for the judiciary in a nation to decide.

[Quelesh]

Note also that this wouldn't actually require nations to criminalize killing someone for trying to steal your friend's candy bar, if a nation really wants that to be legal. All this does is prevent nations from criminalizing a minimum use of reasonable force if you're attacked.

[Glenn]

I don't know about you, but I certainly have enough fate in the average judge to assume s/he can come up with the earth-shatteringly amazing idea that killing someone because they tried to steal your friend's Mars bar is not okay.

There have been nations in the past that have maimed or killed people for theft, and I am sure that out of the 16,000 nations in the Assembly there probably are still ones that do. With that being said, I am still not that big of a fan of the bill.

[Ossitania]

I don't know about you, but I certainly have enough fate in the average judge to assume s/he can come up with the earth-shatteringly amazing idea that killing someone because they tried to steal your friend's Mars bar is not okay.

There have been nations in the past that have maimed or killed people for theft, and I am sure that out of the 16,000 nations in the Assembly there probably are still ones that do. With that being said, I am still not that big of a fan of the bill.[/quote]

If such excessive punishments are not already covered by a previous GA resolution (I'd be surprised if they weren't), then that's a matter for someone else to worry about. This bill is purely about enshrining the right to self-defense and nothing else. What else about this bill is troubling you?

[Glenn]

If such excessive punishments are not already covered by a previous GA resolution (I'd be surprised if they weren't), then that's a matter for someone else to worry about. This bill is purely about enshrining the right to self-defense and nothing else. What else about this bill is troubling you?

Just the aforementioned issues concerning being more specific when it is okay to use lethal force. Trying to figure out when someone used just enough force to defend themselves but not TOO much can get confusing. This may not be the way you intended it Ambassador but this is the way I read it.

[Glenn]

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force comparable to the smallest amount of force necessary to protect one's self or others from an imminent threat to safety and/or health by another person or group of persons,

Your honor, this is the section I am most troubled with. I understand that you were tying to develop a way to measure whether force was too excessive or not, but this can get confusing. Say if someone ran at me with a knife in hand, and I pulled out a rocket launcher and blew them to pieces, this would probably not be the "smallest" amount of force needed. However, I do agree with your claim that this act is pertinent to human rights and should not be so readily disqualified from Assembly consideration. A suggestion would be to define reasonable force as "That degree of force which is not excessive and is appropriate in protecting oneself or one's property. When such force is used, a person is justified and is not criminally liable, nor is he liable in tort." It may sounds the same but it is not. Degree of force is different than amount as degree, under most understandings of legal terms, refers to the type of force (whether to classify it as excessive, lethal, non-deadly, reasonable, etc.) and "smallest amount" can be lead people to trying to figure out if the rapist really needed five bullets planted into his chest instead of just four.

[Ossitania]

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force comparable to the smallest amount of force necessary to protect one's self or others from an imminent threat to safety and/or health by another person or group of persons,

Your honor, this is the section I am most troubled with. I understand that you were tying to develop a way to measure whether force was too excessive or not, but this can get confusing. Say if someone ran at me with a knife in hand, and I pulled out a rocket launcher and blew them to pieces, this would probably not be the "smallest" amount of force needed. However, I do agree with your claim that this act is pertinent to human rights and should not be so readily disqualified from Assembly consideration. A suggestion would be to define reasonable force as "That degree of force which is not excessive and is appropriate in protecting oneself or one's property. When such force is used, a person is justified and is not criminally liable, nor is he liable in tort." It may sounds the same but it is not. Degree of force is different than amount as degree, under most understandings of legal terms, refers to the type of force (whether to classify it as excessive, lethal, non-deadly, reasonable, etc.) and "smallest amount" can be lead people to trying to figure out if the rapist really needed five bullets planted into his chest instead of just four.

Which is why I added "comparable to" to the definition. With respect, this issue was raised and mostly dealt with. The only issue now is a better phrasing of "comparable to" because, as the honourable delegate from Quelesh noted, the literal meaning of "comparable" renders the definition virtually pointless as it stands. I am still recovering from sleep deprivation and my usual thesaurus-like abilities are failing me, but I am open to suggestions.

[Ossitania]

Okay, as a replacement for "comparable to", how does "within a reasonable degree of" sound? Thoughts?

[HKassa]

I am totally for this measure, I would just add a part that tells us who or what has the authority to decide reasonable force from excessive force. If I could co-author I would suggest that the WA Security Counsel be allowed to decide the aforementioned.

oh and PS i was asking to be a co-author

Something we had during the Bureaucracy That Must Not Be Named but not since, as far as I know.

Defense of Self and Others

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania

The World Assembly,

NOTING the existence of persons who threaten the safety and/or life of other persons,

RECOGNISING that such threats to safety and/or life may require those threatened or others to respond to such threats with force in order to protect the safety and/or life of those threatened,

BELIEVING that those who use force to protect others under imminent threat to their safety and/or life should not be punished for the using such force,

ACKNOWLEDGING that different situations require different levels of force and not all forceful responses to such threats are always justified,

Hereby

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force comparable to the smallest amount of force necessary to protect one's self or others from an imminent threat to safety and/or health by another person or group of persons,

DECLARES that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another person or group of persons shall face persecution or prosecution for the use of this force,

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

This is a rough draft. Comments?

[Connopolis]

Okay, as a replacement for "comparable to", how does "within a reasonable degree of" sound? Thoughts?

I whole-heartedly support the intentions of this proposal, however, the ambiguity presented by subjective criteria such as "comparable to," or "within a reasonable degree of" concerns my delegation. Perhaps this can be solved by modifying this clause:

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of an unbiased judiciary influenced only by credible evidence presented.

I feel that the ambiguous phrases are not the causes of the possible abuse; rather, the fault lies with the "judiciary." The wording of my modification might be a bit awkward, so I would suggest you change it to your liking. Regardless, as we've stated earlier, this has our undying support.

Yours in watching sisyphys roll a boulder up a hill with apparent ease,

[Ossitania]

I am totally for this measure, I would just add a part that tells us who or what has the authority to decide reasonable force from excessive force. If I could co-author I would suggest that the WA Security Counsel be allowed to decide the aforementioned.

oh and PS i was asking to be a co-author

Um, with respect, no. Apart from such a stipulation being (as far as I can see) utterly illegal, the draft already says who has the authority to make these decisions (the judiciary) and, as well as that, such a duty is not within the remit of the Security Council.

Okay, as a replacement for "comparable to", how does "within a reasonable degree of" sound? Thoughts?

I whole-heartedly support the intentions of this proposal, however, the ambiguity presented by subjective criteria such as "comparable to," or "within a reasonable degree of" concerns my delegation. Perhaps this can be solved by modifying this clause:

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of an unbiased judiciary influenced only by credible evidence presented.

I feel that the ambiguous phrases are not the causes of the possible abuse; rather, the fault lies with the "judiciary." The wording of my modification might be a bit awkward, so I would suggest you change it to your liking. Regardless, as we've stated earlier, this has our undying support.

Yours in watching sisyphys roll a boulder up a hill with apparent ease,

My only concern would be that if no such judiciary exists in a given nation, this act would essentially leave that person in legal limbo indefinitely and could even be abused as a method of escaping a murder charge by the more devious; claim it was reasonable force and, since there's no court to weigh the facts, you can't be touched until a judgement on your claim was made. Also, I do believe the phrase "comparable" was open to abuse by similarly devious persons; with a sufficiently good lawyer, one could easily argue for the literal definition of "comparable" and then simply argue that any use of force to protect one's self or others is justified because the level of force used can be compared to the smallest amount of force necessary.

Unless we have enough faith in people to assume the fairness of the judiciary (and, clearly, there are those that don't), my only thought is to mandate the creation of a court solely for ascertaining whether reasonable force was used which, even if other courts are not, must be unbiased and influenced only be credible evidence. However, perhaps I am overlooking a simpler and more elegant solution. As always suggestions are welcomed.

(OOC: It's amazing that in the UN days, it could simply be said "this thing is okay, don't punish people if they do it" and everyone would follow it and now we can spend pages and pages engaged in debate on wording.)

[Quelesh]

Okay, as a replacement for "comparable to", how does "within a reasonable degree of" sound? Thoughts?

That sounds better to me. I'm not entirely convinced that either is really necessary, though.

[Knootoss]

Scorinating using the Aram Koopman Rating Sheet:

World Assembly Resolution Score Chart
Technical and national sovereignty considerations. To be used once plausible legality has been achieved.

UNIVERSALITY	5 points: The resolution tries to accomplish a goal that most reasonable governments can consider "just" or "worthwhile", but there are serious points to be made against it.	5/10
ADDED VALUE	15 points: The resolution is necessary because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the resolution	15/15
MICROMANAGEMENT	5 points: The resolution ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen	5/5
LIBERTY	10 points: The resolution deliberately secures greater civil, political or individual liberties for individuals.	10/10
PROPOSAL CATEGORY	10 points: "International Action": Human Rights, Free Trade, Furtherment of Democracy	10/10
LENGTH	5 points: The resolution is concise and understandable.	5/5
PURPOSE	5 points: The purpose of the resolution is immediately obvious from the title or the preamble, and all provisions of the resolution are in line with this purpose.	5/5
PREAMBLE	5 points: The preamble explains the underlying philosophy of the resolution, and explains why the international community must take action.	5/5
BUREAUCRACY	10 points: The resolution avoids establishing a World Assembly Bureaucracy ("Committee"), or adding to the size of an existing World Assembly bureaucracy.	10/10
COST CONTROL	10 points: Implementing the resolution is essentially free, or imposes only nominal financial burdens	10/10
FUNDING METHOD	10 points: Funding is left to Member States OR: the resolution imposes only nominal financial burdens.	10/10
ECONOMIC IMPACT	5 points: The resolution has a negligible economic impact.	5/10
NON-MEMBERS	5 points: The resolution does not significantly impact the economic, political or military position of Member States in the world.	5/10
MINORITIES	5 points: The resolution addresses the concerns of minorities, such as non-human nations, nations with odd political systems, or nations of a different technology level.	5/5

By meeting all of the criteria set out in the World Assembly Resolution Score Chart, a total of 120 points can be obtained. This is the "perfect score" that an ideal proposal would get. Imperfect resolutions score less points. Sometimes, a resolution can score 'negative points' on a particular issue. The World Assembly office of the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss strongly advises against submitting resolutions that have unaddressed "red zones".

WA Ambassador Aram Koopman rates the draft thus: 105 points - "I want to have your babies!"


This government communication has been printed on biodegradable paper. All carbon emissions associated with the creation of this government communication have been off-set with new plantings in Colombia, using the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, sponsored by the Pink Bunny Cola Corporation and the Global Hell Group. For more information about the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, consult http://www.futureproof.kn.

The wording of the preamble clauses could still be tightened a little bit though. Just don't change the concept though!