[DRAFT] Self-Defense Compact

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

Ooc: that's what I thought.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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 would prefer this to say "Each member state otherwise has complete and exclusive jurisdiction... in its territory..." with the appropriate expansion. Member states, plural, can act collectively.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Most edits as suggested in the last round of comments will be implemented. As always, I am happy to receive constructive feedback."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: so long as Tinhampton is pursuing a one size fits all approach to a topic that, even between subnational jurisdiction, is incredibly fact specific, this draft is prepared for submission.

[Hulldom]

Purely a grammar question, but any particular reason the last clause is [item 1] and [item 2], as well as [item 3] rather than just [item 1], [item 2], and [item 3]?

Otherwise, full support.

[Separatist Peoples]

Purely a grammar question, but any particular reason the last clause is [item 1] and [item 2], as well as [item 3] rather than just [item 1], [item 2], and [item 3]?

Otherwise, full support.

Ooc: idk, usually I drink while drafting legislation intended to dissuade bad ideas. I'll have a few drinks and dope out what I was thinking.

[Hulldom]

Purely a grammar question, but any particular reason the last clause is [item 1] and [item 2], as well as [item 3] rather than just [item 1], [item 2], and [item 3]?

Otherwise, full support.

Ooc: idk, usually I drink while drafting legislation intended to dissuade bad ideas. I'll have a few drinks and dope out what I was thinking.

Wasn’t sure if it was something done for a purely legalese reason.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: idk, usually I drink while drafting legislation intended to dissuade bad ideas. I'll have a few drinks and dope out what I was thinking.

Wasn’t sure if it was something done for a purely legalese reason.

Ooc: the third section was added after the fact. I have since adjusted the clause.

[Unibot III]

“I count two definitions, two optional clauses and a big fat blocker,” said Percy, “where is the usual fig leaf to avoid running afoul of the rules? Regardless, I see no reason to throw more red meat at gun lobbyists, racists, and wifebeaters in the name of National Sovereignty. The resolution goes out of its way to suggest a burden of proof should be no more significant than the crime, but offers no comment on whether the burden of proof should be less significant than the crime aforementioned. I believe that the WA could be a strong, unified economic zone in the future, but surrendering the issue of gun violence as an international topic will always interfere with achieving that goal. How can people feel comfortable with international travel and business in member-states where gun control is relaxed and violence is decriminalized erroneously under “stand your ground” laws?”

[Separatist Peoples]

“I count two definitions, two optional clauses and a big fat blocker,” said Percy, “where is the usual fig leaf to avoid running afoul of the rules? Regardless, I see no reason to throw more red meat at gun lobbyists, racists, and wifebeaters in the name of National Sovereignty. The resolution goes out of its way to suggest a burden of proof should be no more significant than the crime, but offers no comment on whether the burden of proof should be less significant than the crime aforementioned. I believe that the WA could be a strong, unified economic zone in the future, but surrendering the issue of gun violence as an international topic will always interfere with achieving that goal. How can people feel comfortable with international travel and business in member-states where gun control is relaxed and violence is decriminalized erroneously under “stand your ground” laws?”

Ooc: I'm not gonna lie, I am extremely uncomfortable RPing with you and would absolutely prefer dealing with you OOCly.

I'm not particularly interested in a unified economic zone. That's a shit sell to me. But if my proposal ever serves as the sole barrier to your proposal creating said zone, I promise I won't stand in your way to repeal this. Somehow I think other issues will crop up first.

[Tinhampton]

I still hate this proposal, but I'm not entirely sure that it will pose any impediment whatsoever to a World Assembly Single Market. (If anything, some of the resolutions I've already passed have posed bigger hurdles.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Leo looks decidedly nonplussed for a moment, then furrows his brow and picks up the glass of clear liquid on the desk in front of him. He sniffs it carefully for several seconds, then finally shrugs and puts it down.

"What the proposal at hand has to do with the eradication of communities by the imposition of a soulless commodity-based international monoculture, is completely beyond me even though I have not been drinking. I would ask the assembled ambassadors to please kindly try to remain the fuck on topic."

"In that vein, we would suggest the addition of the words '...against the accused.' to the end of Clause 4. Police metastasization and mission creep being what they are, any miniscule limitation on their ability to beat on whom they please can help member states' inhabitants. In this case, the alleged law enforcement officer would require either a legal warrant or specific probable cause to initiate the use of force, and lay persons would have a slim chance of mounting a successful defense against cops run rampant."

[Unibot III]

“I count two definitions, two optional clauses and a big fat blocker,” said Percy, “where is the usual fig leaf to avoid running afoul of the rules? Regardless, I see no reason to throw more red meat at gun lobbyists, racists, and wifebeaters in the name of National Sovereignty. The resolution goes out of its way to suggest a burden of proof should be no more significant than the crime, but offers no comment on whether the burden of proof should be less significant than the crime aforementioned. I believe that the WA could be a strong, unified economic zone in the future, but surrendering the issue of gun violence as an international topic will always interfere with achieving that goal. How can people feel comfortable with international travel and business in member-states where gun control is relaxed and violence is decriminalized erroneously under “stand your ground” laws?”

Ooc: I'm not gonna lie, I am extremely uncomfortable RPing with you and would absolutely prefer dealing with you OOCly.

I'm not particularly interested in a unified economic zone. That's a shit sell to me. But if my proposal ever serves as the sole barrier to your proposal creating said zone, I promise I won't stand in your way to repeal this. Somehow I think other issues will crop up first.

Unibot here — you’ve missed all the points that the ambassador made.

1) What in this resolution isn’t A.) Optional, B.) A definition, or C.) A Blocker?

2) Why does the resolution put more emphasis on ensuring that the burden of proof for these incidents be no more than severity of the crime, than ensuring it be no less?

There seems to be a pervasive nativity permeating this resolution which ignores the possibility of self-defense laws leading to unjustified gun violence, especially against minorities.

3) Does gun violence not impact international travel and business? You’ve been very supportive of using NatSov reasons to block gun control internationally, but how can we build a WA where people feel safe to travel and work in all member-regions if parts of the WA still have easy access to guns and laws that turn a blind eye to unnecessary gun violence (especially against minorities)?

[Tinhampton]

What in this resolution isn’t A.) Optional, B.) A definition, or C.) A Blocker?

Article 2.

[Separatist Peoples]

.

1) What in this resolution isn’t A.) Optional, B.) A definition, or C.) A Blocker?

Art 2

2) Why does the resolution put more emphasis on ensuring that the burden of proof for these incidents be no more than severity of the crime, than ensuring it be no less?

Nations may have valid reasons for requiring a lesser standard for an affirmative defense given that a higher standard necessarily requires waiver of a rule against self incrimination. This allows states the discretion to solve that problem without gutting the affirmative defense.

There seems to be a pervasive nativity permeating this resolution which ignores the possibility of self-defense laws leading to unjustified gun violence, especially against minorities.

The WA can address this without trying to interfere in defense of self and others.

3) Does gun violence not impact international travel and business?

Nah.

You’ve been very supportive of using NatSov reasons to block gun control internationally, but how can we build a WA where people feel safe to travel and work in all member-regions if parts of the WA still have easy access to guns and laws that turn a blind eye to unnecessary gun violence (especially against minorities)?

Idk man, i travel through areas of high gun violence literally every day to get to work, it's yet to stop me. Nobody seems overly cautious about international business in the US, despite their gun laws. I'm not seeing it.

[Unibot III]

I doubt very much that a conversation about gun violence in the US will be productive here. Article 2 though is completely gutted by the subsequent blocker and the failure to define what a plea of self-defense must mean at a minimum for the defendant.

The proposal says that a member-state must allow a plea of self-defense, but it does not say that the plea must be effectual. It could be a nominal plea that exists, but isn't actually heard, or is heard, but isn't taken into consideration for sentencing.

That is to say, pleading "self-defense" could be de facto interpreted as "guilty" in a member-nation without any mitigation on the sentencing.

Article 2 follows with no hard clauses that obligate member-nations to effectively take a plea of self-defense into consideration, before blocking all future international law from filling in the gaps that you've left.

[Separatist Peoples]

I doubt very much that a conversation about gun violence in the US will be productive here. Article 2 though is completely gutted by the subsequent blocker and the failure to define what a plea of self-defense must mean at a minimum for the defendant.

The proposal says that a member-state must allow a plea of self-defense, but it does not say that the plea must be effectual. It could be a nominal plea that exists, but isn't actually heard, or is heard, but isn't taken into consideration for sentencing.

It should have no bearing on sentencing, given that that follows the verdict. Triers of fact can weigh the facts supporting the plea as they will, but states retain sole authority over what situations are, as a matter of law, self defense. As it should be, really. The legislative process finds the appropriate balance for a member state or subsidiary based on the needs and conditions of that region.

That is to say, pleading "self-defense" could be de facto interpreted as "guilty" in a member-nation without any mitigation on the sentencing.

Again, that's not when sentencing happens. Unless you're watching a TV show, I guess.

Article 2 follows with no hard clauses that obligate member-nations to effectively take a plea of self-defense into consideration, before blocking all future international law from filling in the gaps that you've left.

Yes. Your opposition is noted.

[Unibot III]

And therein lies the problem with the resolution’s legality.

For a blocker proposal to be legal, it needs a fig leaf — a clause that does something at least of minor effect. The problem that your fig leaf has is, it potentially has no effect at all.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure that because all WA resolutions have a statistical impact on member-nations, all resolutions should do something with an effect, something that tangibly would have a statistical impact.

Imagine, for instance, an Abortion blocker that says:

1. Any individual can apply for an abortion in a member-nation.
2. The WA shall not regulate the issue of abortion and its legality further.

The blocker in practice has no effect at all if nations are forced to allow applications for something, but not prevented from structurally or purposefully denying all applications, or banning the practice altogether.

Likewise, the fig leaf that this proposal uses is similarly vacuous, because allowing a plea doesn’t necessarily amount to any substantive interaction at all with that plea.

As it should be, really. The legislative process finds the appropriate balance for a member state or subsidiary based on the needs and conditions of that region.

But if you believe these nations should find a balance on their own, why does your resolution suggest parameters for that balance at all? And why set those parameters as proportional or below proportional?

Really, you're trying to eat your cake and have it too. You want the WA to tell nations they should mimic gun culture in the U.S., but you also want to tell the WA to stay away from gun regulation/deregulation.

[WayNeacTia]

Not a huge fan of 4. Seems like it is condoning qualified immunity. Cops have been hiding behind that shit for years.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. I don't think section 4 would prevent the World Assembly from regulating qualified immunity, if it were to do so in a manner that actually had an effect rather than in the vague and ineffectual terms that were passed last year (earlier this year?).

[Excidium Planetis]

"Well, I uh... I don't see any problems with this." Adelia Meritt remarks. "Consider this my support as the acting Ambassador to the World Assembly."

[Separatist Peoples]

And therein lies the problem with the resolution’s legality.

For a blocker proposal to be legal, it needs a fig leaf — a clause that does something at least of minor effect. The problem that your fig leaf has is, it potentially has no effect at all.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure that because all WA resolutions have a statistical impact on member-nations, all resolutions should do something with an effect, something that tangibly would have a statistical impact.

Imagine, for instance, an Abortion blocker that says:

1. Any individual can apply for an abortion in a member-nation.
2. The WA shall not regulate the issue of abortion and its legality further.

The blocker in practice has no effect at all if nations are forced to allow applications for something, but not prevented from structurally or purposefully denying all applications, or banning the practice altogether.

Likewise, the fig leaf that this proposal uses is similarly vacuous, because allowing a plea doesn’t necessarily amount to any substantive interaction at all with that plea.

As it should be, really. The legislative process finds the appropriate balance for a member state or subsidiary based on the needs and conditions of that region.

But if you believe these nations should find a balance on their own, why does your resolution suggest parameters for that balance at all? And why set those parameters as proportional or below proportional?

Really, you're trying to eat your cake and have it too. You want the WA to tell nations they should mimic gun culture in the U.S., but you also want to tell the WA to stay away from gun regulation/deregulation.

Asked and answered to all points raised. I will expect your no vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC. I don't think section 4 would prevent the World Assembly from regulating qualified immunity, if it were to do so in a manner that actually had an effect rather than in the vague and ineffectual terms that were passed last year (earlier this year?).

Ooc: this was my goal. If allows states to enforce QI while not really interfering with the possibility of limiting it. I share Wayne's skepticism for QI, I'm just unwilling to tackle the issue.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Well, I uh... I don't see any problems with this." Adelia Meritt remarks. "Consider this my support as the acting Ambassador to the World Assembly."

"We very much appreciate your support, ambassador. It was always my goal to keep this as unobjectionable as possible. Self defense is a nuanced question best dealt with by localities. Attempts to build a framework that accounts for all social, criminal justice, and efficiency matters at once is a fool's errand."