[DRAFT] Self-Defense Compact

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, never have I seen a proposal promise so much and deliver so little. The people of the multiverse could, I am sure, do without the World Assembly giving its support to those nations which treat attacks by so-called 'police officers' as different to attacks by any other person. In many of these nations we must remember, it is these so-called officers who serve as the greatest threat to the population."

"Ambassador, that sounds like a purely domestic concern. Like the entire area of self-defense law. If you take issue with such attacks, handle it domestically."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This has been revived. For obvious reasons."

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: When did you include the clause trying to reserve to member states "concerns regarding self-defense education and training," sir, and for what reason?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Are you sure you really want to try this now, of all times, when voters will be as volatile as possible on the topic?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Are you sure you really want to try this now, of all times, when voters will be as volatile as possible on the topic?

OOC: I expect that Tinhampton's draft will not succeed. At which time I look forward to seeing the voters seek a blocker.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Are you sure you really want to try this now, of all times, when voters will be as volatile as possible on the topic?

OOC: I expect that Tinhampton's draft will not succeed. At which time I look forward to seeing the voters seek a blocker.

Tin's draft is on self-defense education, not the legality of self-defense itself. If not for the last 3 words in this draft, these two drafts attack totally different policy spheres.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I expect that Tinhampton's draft will not succeed. At which time I look forward to seeing the voters seek a blocker.

Tin's draft is on self-defense education, not the legality of self-defense itself. If not for the last 3 words in this draft, these two drafts attack totally different policy spheres.

OOC: I have great confidence in the majority of voters to miss the brief.

[Tinhampton]

Tin's draft is on self-defense education, not the legality of self-defense itself. If not for the last 3 words in this draft, these two drafts attack totally different policy spheres.

OOC: I have great confidence in the majority of voters to miss the brief.

So you're trying to stop SDEC (or similar) passing by inserting a blocker into Article 5 of a resolution about self-defence in practice and openly admitting that most people won't notice?

[Bananaistan]

"Support."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I have great confidence in the majority of voters to miss the brief.

So you're trying to stop SDEC (or similar) passing by inserting a blocker into Article 5 of a resolution about self-defence in practice and openly admitting that most people won't notice?

Ooc: yes. Over ten thousand votes are cast in these votes. Do you really think most of them read carefully?

[Tinhampton]

So you're trying to stop SDEC (or similar) passing by inserting a blocker into Article 5 of a resolution about self-defence in practice and openly admitting that most people won't notice?

Ooc: yes. Over ten thousand votes are cast in these votes. Do you really think most of them read carefully?

They will... soon.

Article 5's insistence that member states allow their inhabitants to defend themselves while permitting them not to allow their inhabitants to learn how they can defend themselves is mindboggling at best. Yet it is also many times more dangerous than almost any of the other topical riders I have encountered in my five years in the World Assembly. I therefore cannot cast my 43 votes (as of time of writing) in favour of this proposal until the Article 5 rider is removed.

[WayNeacTia]

Unconditional support.

Ooc: yes. Over ten thousand votes are cast in these votes. Do you really think most of them read carefully?

They will... soon.

Have you invented some magic formula that somehow makes people actually read things? If so, you should patent that shit and it will make you trillions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: yes. Over ten thousand votes are cast in these votes. Do you really think most of them read carefully?

They will... soon.

Article 5's insistence that member states allow their inhabitants to defend themselves while permitting them not to allow their inhabitants to learn how they can defend themselves is mindboggling at best. Yet it is also many times more dangerous than almost any of the other topical riders I have encountered in my five years in the World Assembly. I therefore cannot cast my 43 votes (as of time of writing) in favour of this proposal until the Article 5 rider is removed.

"Please do. A countercampaign from your delegation would likely push many delegates into the FOR camp. Your reputation cuts against you in this case, ambassador. Member states are welcome to make their own determinations regarding self defense and the rules governing it. Self defense and it's appropriateness, in all contexts, is extremely culturally specific, and forcing member states to incorporate a one-size-fits-all approach without regard for that cultural context is poor policy. At best, it is wasteful and inefficient."

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: I do not want every self-defence teacher everywhere to deliver the same instruction to everybody; that is a massive misrepresentation of my position and the Tinhamptonian delegation's. I do not even want all rules about self-defence - other than its status as a legal defence - to be the same everywhere. If you have any further concerns, you'll find me in what used to be Maria vyn Nysen's office until she quit a few months ago.

[Haganham]

"This has been revived. For obvious reasons."

"why? what happened"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Article 5's insistence that member states allow their inhabitants to defend themselves while permitting them not to allow their inhabitants to learn how they can defend themselves is mindboggling at best. Yet it is also many times more dangerous than almost any of the other topical riders I have encountered in my five years in the World Assembly. I therefore cannot cast my 43 votes (as of time of writing) in favour of this proposal until the Article 5 rider is removed.

401 - 43.

[Ainocra]

Article three is a bit vague perhaps something more like this


This right in no way protects those who are in the act of committing a crime or those who are being lawfully detained by the appropriate authorities of their respective nations.

Rough wording but it gets the gist across, feel free to use it in any way you can.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Bumping this, given that I said I would submit this if the voters determined that mandatory self defense education is a bad idea.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Ooc: Bumping this, given that I said I would submit this if the voters determined that mandatory self defense education is a bad idea.

I realize you've framed this whole proposal around some assumptions regarding the criminal legal system, and I won't quibble with that.

But I do suggest adding a general declaratory clause, such as: "Every individual in the jurisdiction of a member nation has the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves against violence or the imminent threat of violence." Or something, I'm sure you're better at wordsmithing your own proposal than I am. That way, in states without a traditional criminal law system, there is still a right established.

Comment: I find it interesting that people don't have a right under this proposal to defend themselves against state sanctioned violence. I don't see why a person shouldn't be able to defend themselves just because some national law would allow an officer to beat or kill them. There's either a right to "reasonable" self defense or there isn't. Abrogating reasonableness to bend to national law dictates dilutes the force of the right.

Comment: But as long as you're carving out exceptions, I suggest adding one allowing: "Member states may limit the aforementioned affirmative defense in cases where the person claiming the defense initially instigated, prompted, or unreasonably provoked a violent reaction by another." I swear I saw that issue in the news recently.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts.

[Tinhampton]

Ooc: Bumping this, given that I said I would submit this if the voters determined that mandatory self defense education is a bad idea.

Three feeders and The Rejected Realms are all evenly split in their internal votes as of time of writing (that's a lie; TEP's vote is narrowly in favour last I checked but their delegate remains reluctant to flip). If all of that vote tilted more firmly in favour, especially in response to a more well-crafted resolution - and if the concerns that others have raised about students with disabilities, parental consent and such of the like were resolved in a future such draft - I'd be fairly confident in saying that "the voters" would support "self defense education."

That is a matter for a draft of its own. It is not a matter for a lazily-slapped-on Article 5 which you anticipate most voters will not see.

---

This Compact binds member states into doing nothing other than to allow self-defence as a "rebuttable affirmative defense" to charges wherein acts involving "willful physical harm to another individual" are committed. Articles 3-5 are non-binding in nature and have the effect of basically handing every member state a bíg fat A3 permission slip saying that they can allow anybody involved in such a crime to use unnecessary force - force which can kill and maim - and say it was self-defence, so long as somebody is allowed to refute that claim in the courts.

I support an international right to self-defence in principle. In practice, however, this Compact is very much lacking, occasionally - and literally - fatally.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Bumping this, given that I said I would submit this if the voters determined that mandatory self defense education is a bad idea.

Three feeders and The Rejected Realms are all evenly split in their internal votes as of time of writing (that's a lie; TEP's vote is narrowly in favour last I checked but their delegate remains reluctant to flip). If all of that vote tilted more firmly in favour, especially in response to a more well-crafted resolution - and if the concerns that others have raised about students with disabilities, parental consent and such of the like were resolved in a future such draft - I'd be fairly confident in saying that "the voters" would support "self defense education."

That is a matter for a draft of its own. It is not a matter for a lazily-slapped-on Article 5 which you anticipate most voters will not see.

---

This Compact binds member states into doing nothing other than to allow self-defence as a "rebuttable affirmative defense" to charges wherein acts involving "willful physical harm to another individual" are committed. Articles 3-5 are non-binding in nature and have the effect of basically handing every member state a bíg fat A3 permission slip saying that they can allow anybody involved in such a crime to use unnecessary force - force which can kill and maim - and say it was self-defence, so long as somebody is allowed to refute that claim in the courts.

I support an international right to self-defence in principle. In practice, however, this Compact is very much lacking, occasionally - and literally - fatally.

Ooc: It's a blocker. It's literally intended to do little while protecting against unnecessary intervention into member states. I assume most voters of the ten thousand or so active ones won't bother reading that far, but I'm also not going to lie about it. It's a blocker.

As to the rest of this... Yes. That's rather the point. Self defense is extremely factually specific and rests heavily on what people consider to be "reasonable" and "necessary". What is acceptable use of force in Alabama and what is acceptable in Massachusetts is as varied as the difference between the same question in Canada and Australia. To say nothing of the differences outside common law jurisdictions. Your counterpoint would work if it wasn't lacking any realistic solution.

And that's rather the point, isn't it? Everybody thinks their formulation is the right one. So why should the WA be allowed to make a rule that literally cannot comport with the varied facets of self defense?

Ultimately, given how resoundingly unpopular your efforts on this topic and others are, I am not inclined to take your word for what people will support. You enthusiastically predict success only to realize failure. If you can raise realistic solutions to the issue that don't leave either pacifists or self determinists swinging in the wind, I am willing to listen. Until then, whinging about the inalienable right to self defense while unable to realize it is just pissing in the wind.

[Xanthorrhoea]

What is acceptable use of force in Alabama and what is acceptable in Massachusetts is as varied as the difference between the same question in Canada and Australia.

Lol. The difference between Australia and Canada is far smaller than that between almost any two US states. Y’all are an interesting lot over there.

I know that’s not the point at all, the choice of examples just made me laugh.

[WayNeacTia]

Ooc: It's a blocker. It's literally intended to do little while protecting against unnecessary intervention into member states. I assume most voters of the ten thousand or so active ones won't bother reading that far, but I'm also not going to lie about it. It's a blocker.

This is all that needs to be said. Now will you please submit the damn thing?

[Apatosaurus]

Self-Defense Compact
Civil Rights | Mild

---

Admiring the indomitable spirit of all living creatures to preserve themselves against all odds;

Believing that the need to use lethal force is a tragedy, regardless of how necessary it may be;

Concerned that, though intended to ensure peaceful and rational social interactions, some societies nonetheless punish the use of violence when used to defend an individual against exigent risks to self and others; and

Seeking to strike a balance between society's efforts to reduce violence and the individual's inherent right to survive when attacked;

The World Assembly hereby establishes the following:

1. "Reasonable force" is the minimal amount of force an ordinary person What is an "ordinary person"? would use to prevent or stop a similar attack in similar circumstances.
   
2. Member states must permit, during a trial, for the accused to plead a rebuttable affirmative defense of self-defense Define "self-defense".to any charge of which an element is causing willful physical harm What is "willful physical harm"? to another individual.
   
   
3. Member states may establish domestic policies requiring that the claimant:
   
   
   1. Satisfy a factual burden of proof not greater than that of the charge for which they are accused; or
      
      
   2. Prove that they used reasonable force based on the circumstances.
4. Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the victim of the accused had the authorization to lawfully act on the state's behalf.
   
   
5. Member states otherwise have complete, exclusive jurisdiction over legal regulation of individual self-defense or defense of others in their territory for the purposes of criminal prosecution and associated civil proceedings, as well as concerns regarding self-defense education and training.

[Comfed]

Self-Defense Compact
Civil Rights | Mild

---

Admiring the indomitable spirit of all living creatures to preserve themselves against all odds;

Believing that the need to use lethal force is a tragedy, regardless of how necessary it may be;

Concerned that, though intended to ensure peaceful and rational social interactions, some societies nonetheless punish the use of violence when used to defend an individual against exigent risks to self and others; and

Seeking to strike a balance between society's efforts to reduce violence and the individual's inherent right to survive when attacked;

The World Assembly hereby establishes the following:

1. "Reasonable force" is the minimal amount of force an ordinary person What is an "ordinary person"? would use to prevent or stop a similar attack in similar circumstances.
   
2. Member states must permit, during a trial, for the accused to plead a rebuttable affirmative defense of self-defense Define "self-defense".to any charge of which an element is causing willful physical harm What is "willful physical harm"? to another individual.
   
   
3. Member states may establish domestic policies requiring that the claimant:
   
   
   1. Satisfy a factual burden of proof not greater than that of the charge for which they are accused; or
      
      
   2. Prove that they used reasonable force based on the circumstances.
4. Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the victim of the accused had the authorization to lawfully act on the state's behalf.
   
   
5. Member states otherwise have complete, exclusive jurisdiction over legal regulation of individual self-defense or defense of others in their territory for the purposes of criminal prosecution and associated civil proceedings, as well as concerns regarding self-defense education and training.

I think “self-defence” and “willful physical harm” are pretty self-explanatory.

Define “define”.