[PASSED] Repeal: Basic Self-Defense Rights

by **Marxist Land of Peoples** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:16 pm

So, this is my first time attempting to author something for the GA, with thanks for the great help supplied by Moduland, I hope you all appreciate the draft. Open to feedback!

EDIT: This proposal has now been submitted, check it out and if you can, I'd be very grateful if you could give it an approval, thanks!: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1759951803

Target resolution here!

Repeal: "Basic Self-Defense Rights"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#737 | Proposed by: Marxist Land of Peoples

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of the target resolution in attempting to safeguard self-defense,

However, concerned by its significant flaws, which created a level of ambiguity that is both confusing and potentially dangerous,

Frustrated that the target resolution fails to provide a clearly defined explanation for what is appropriate or proportional force in situations of self-defense thereby allowing for dangerous ambiguity,

Alarmed that due to the aforementioned dangerous ambiguity, the target resolution allows individuals to define it for themselves and, therefore, as "force no less than what is necessary" is allowable, individuals may feel that violent self-defense is a proportional response to a non-violent crime,

Dismayed that whilst the target resolution does affirm an individuals right to self-defense it is unclear if "another person's active attack" includes circumstances that involve threats originating from non-sapient beings such as attacks from a trained or untrained animal,

Angered by Section 4 which limits self-defense protections to persons defending themselves against law enforcement officials using excessive force if said force was part of "lawful duties" in the member state,

Hereby Repeals GA#737 "Basic Self-Defense Rights".
Co-Author: Moduland

by **Moduland** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 5:04 pm

A bright, anthropomorphic white deer with long red horns (Shino) walks forward in very sharp blue suit coat. "OhMyGoodness!!! I am so excited to work with the delegation from the Marxist Land of Peoples. They're so awesome!! We think this a really well thought out repeal. Their team had so many great, great, great ideas!!! Hope y'all let us know what you think?!?!"

by **TheGoldenEmpireGermany** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 5:07 pm

Against: not a bad proposal i do not like the idea of repealing self defense

by **The Kharkivan Cossacks** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 5:13 pm

OOC: Glad to see newer faces on the GA scene!
Also glad to see Nam being a great mentor.
I'll try to give feedback in the coming days.
Support for the record.

by **Heavens Reach** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:12 pm

I was against the target when it went to vote. Support.

by **Mar Teret** » Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:23 pm

Seems like a very good target for repeal. I am definitely in favor.

by **Choppyhausen** » Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:18 am

Welcome to the Assembly, Ambassador! Some minor comments:

Acknowledgingthe rights of sapient citizens to self defense

Seems like you're missing a space there, happens to me all the time too, these modern typewriters are just so confusing.

Concerned about various flaws and holes in Basic Self-Defense Rights that create confusion in the rights and protections of citizens in regard to self-defense,

Confusion seems a bit weak here in my opinion. As you later correctly identify, GA #737's flaws can even lead to the prohibition of self-defense in certain cases which seems more than just confusing.

Frustrated that Basic Self-Defense Rights fails to provide a definition(?) for what is appropriate or proportional force in situations of self-defense thereby allowing for dangerous ambiguity,

Seems like a word is missing here (just like the definition is missing in the target

)

Otherwise, nice first proposal.

by **Marxist Land of Peoples** » Wed Sep 03, 2025 7:05 am

Choppyhausen wrote:
Acknowledgingthe rights of sapient citizens to self defense
Seems like you're missing a space there, happens to me all the time too, these modern typewriters are just so confusing.

Frustrated that Basic Self-Defense Rights fails to provide a definition(?) for what is appropriate or proportional force in situations of self-defense thereby allowing for dangerous ambiguity, Seems like a word is missing here (just like the definition is missing in the target )

Somehow I managed to fix "Acknowledgingthe" in my BBCode but not my main text, thanks for spotting it and reminding me, has been fixed! And yep, accidentally took the word "definition" out of the draft, also been added back in, thanks again!

Choppyhausen wrote:
Concerned about various flaws and holes in Basic Self-Defense Rights that create confusion in the rights and protections of citizens in regard to self-defense,
Confusion seems a bit weak here in my opinion. As you later correctly identify, GA #737's flaws can even lead to the prohibition of self-defense in certain cases which seems more than just confusing.

Changed the wording around a little here for it to match better of what I intended it to say, intention is to be an overall introduction rather than a point itself.

Otherwise, nice first proposal.

thank you! (:

by **Cessarea** » Wed Sep 03, 2025 8:35 am

The diminutive, robotic Leaves-of-Blight barged into the Drafting Chamber, swatting away the entourage of assistants from her species which accompanied her from outside. She stood behind the drafting desk assigned to Cessarea, sat down, and then immediately stood back up to speak, as tradition demanded, accompanied by holographic projections in front of her displaying useful information, at least some of which pertained to the proposal being drafted:

"Hm, I do not recognise the authoring mission yet, welcome to the World Assembly! I'm glad my comrades from Moduland have introduced you well to our customs. I'm afraid, however, that I do not see many of the arguments presented here as sufficiently convincing for a repeal. I will approach this clause-by-clause, with an exception to the first three, for reasons I'll explain."

Acknowledging the rights of sapient citizens to self defense and the importance of self-defense protections,

Noting the good intentions of Basic Self-Defense Rights as a first pass attempt to protect said rights on an international level,

Concerned about the various flaws and holes in Basic Self-Defense Rights which create confusing ambiguity,

"I believe this is an excessive amount of introductory clauses, given their lightness of content. The 'Acknowledging' and 'Noting' clauses could probably be merged together, and the 'Concerned' clause can be omitted entirely; pointing out the flaws and holes in the target is more effective than talking about the flaws and holes that the proposal will begin to present one clause later. Worse still, the subsequent clause repeats the assertion about ambiguity, making this preliminary one pointless."

Frustrated that Basic Self-Defense Rights fails to provide a definition for what is appropriate or proportional force in situations of self-defense thereby allowing for dangerous ambiguity

"Before I continue, I'll say that the proposal repeats the name of its targets several times throughout its body, which I find detracts from its quality. I recommend referring to it as 'the target', 'GA#737', or re-constructing one or two of these clauses in such a way that does not require restating the subject." Leaves-of-Blight clasped her hands together. "Well then, the clause. This is, to me, unconvincing as currently written. GA#737 establishes 'proportional[ity] to the actual threat' as the standard for self-defence. It is not necessarily a good standard, but it does exist and is present within the text, making the assertion that there is no definition precipitated. I recommend exploring why the standard provided by the target is insufficient, if you believe it to be so."

Alarmed that due to the aforementioned ambiguity, Basic Self-Defense Rights may permit the use of violent self-defense in response to a non-violent crime such as theft, and thereby legitimizing escalation of minor offences into life-threatening confrontations,https://forum.nationstates.net/posting.php?mode=edit&f=9&p=43039495#

The Cessarean Ambassador squinted her eyes at the holographic text before her. "Uhm... Ah. I believe the authors have neglected to uh, proofread this part of the text. Please remove the stray link." She passed her hand over the mistaken text, erasing it from her version of the document. "Very well. This argument builds upon the premise of the previous clause, but the problem I pointed out earlier compounds here. Given that there is a standard for how self-defence ought to be judged acceptable, and that it is based on 'threat', how does this assertion hold up? I believe there's an argument to be made here that 'threat' is excessively vague, and may signify a threat to property as much as it may refer to a threat to one's physical well-being. But this is not currently explored by the draft, which weakens both clauses."

Dismayed that Basic Self-Defense Rights does not account for circumstances in which self-defense may be necessary due to threats that do not originate from a person, such as those presented by a trained or untrained non-sapient animal, leaving ambiguity on fair defensive action in situations that are not sapient on sapient violence,

"A fair concern, though I'll note that article 1 of the target provides a blanket right to all persons to 'protect themselves, other people, and property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive'. This would seem to include threats originating from non-persons. If so, this argument as currently written is null, though it may be replaced by an argument on lacking regulation regarding threats from non-persons."

Disheartened that Article 3 appears to allow for bad actors in member states to prohibit self-defense in response to law enforcement officers using excessive force,

"I don't think I understood the argument presented here. We would require clarification before commenting further."

by **Marxist Land of Peoples** » Tue Sep 09, 2025 7:02 am

Cessarea wrote:
"I believe this is an excessive amount of introductory clauses, given their lightness of content. The 'Acknowledging' and 'Noting' clauses could probably be merged together, and the 'Concerned' clause can be omitted entirely; pointing out the flaws and holes in the target is more effective than talking about the flaws and holes that the proposal will begin to present one clause later. Worse still, the subsequent clause repeats the assertion about ambiguity, making this preliminary one pointless."[/tab]

This is a good point, the introduction probably rambled on more than it needed to, this has been amended to a more concise, two points.

"Before I continue, I'll say that the proposal repeats the name of its targets several times throughout its body, which I find detracts from its quality. I recommend referring to it as 'the target', 'GA#737', or re-constructing one or two of these clauses in such a way that does not require restating the subject."

Readability is important, agreed! Updated to 'the target resolution...'

"Well then, the clause. This is, to me, unconvincing as currently written. GA#737 establishes 'proportional[ity] to the actual threat' as the standard for self-defence. It is not necessarily a good standard, but it does exist and is present within the text, making the assertion that there is no definition precipitated. I recommend exploring why the standard provided by the target is insufficient, if you believe it to be so."

Fiddled around with the wording a bit to try and show why I believe it to be insufficient!

The Cessarean Ambassador squinted her eyes at the holographic text before her. "Uhm... Ah. I believe the authors have neglected to uh, proofread this part of the text. Please remove the stray link."

oopsie, that shouldn't be there, link removed!

"A fair concern, though I'll note that article 1 of the target provides a blanket right to all persons to 'protect themselves, other people, and property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive'. This would seem to include threats originating from non-persons. If so, this argument as currently written is null, though it may be replaced by an argument on lacking regulation regarding threats from non-persons."

Tried re-writing a bit to explain how the target resolution lacks in protections for individuals in non-human originated attacks.

Disheartened that Article 3 appears to allow for bad actors in member states to prohibit self-defense in response to law enforcement officers using excessive force,[/box][tab=30]"I don't think I understood the argument presented here. We would require clarification before commenting further."

Fair point, amended the point to try and provide greater clarification!

by **Moduland** » Tue Sep 23, 2025 10:11 am

OOC: Bump to see if we get any additional comments.

3x LGA · by **Untecna** » Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:08 am

I will argue that "force no less than what is necessary", in tandem with "provided that such response is proportional to the actual threat", implies that the determining factor is relevant law enforcement; that's how it reads to me, at the moment.

Still, I'd like to ask if the authors are considering a replacement.

by **Tinhampton** » Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:22 am

As I told MLoP on Discord, "a person" is a person. Non-sapient animals, including pet animals, are not people and therefore cannot be subject to an "attack" in self-defence. Otherwise, reluctant support.

by **Marxist Land of Peoples** » Wed Oct 01, 2025 7:32 am

OOC: Last call, any comments or thoughts, would be good to hear them. Planning to submit next week!

by **Moduland** » Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:46 pm

OOC: As the post has changed to submitted - here's a link to the submitted proposal https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1759951803

by **Marxist Land of Peoples** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 10:10 am

OOC: This is now at vote! Thank you for all of your feedback through the drafting period!

by **Norvew** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 10:21 am

Seems like an appropriate bill for a marxist to put up to a vote, but is this just because of the ambiguity? If this was specific, would you be in favor of it? Repealing the basic right of self defense is idiotic.

by **Great Britain-and Northern Ireland** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 1:04 pm

[General Assembly Floor – Amelia Graves MP, Delegate of the United Kingdom, rises]

“Esteemed colleagues,

The United Kingdom approaches this repeal with no hostility to the principle of self-defence itself. On the contrary, the right of individuals to protect themselves from harm is both morally intuitive and widely recognised in domestic law across member states.

However, GA#737 is not a protection; it is a muddle.

The resolution gestures toward safeguarding self-defence, yet fails at the most basic legislative task: clarity. It provides no meaningful definition of what constitutes appropriate or proportional force. By leaving phrases such as “force no less than what is necessary” undefined, it invites subjective interpretation at precisely the moments when restraint, certainty, and legal precision matter most. That is not empowering citizens; it is placing them at legal and physical risk.

We are particularly concerned that this ambiguity creates space for disproportionate responses to non-violent acts, with individuals left to determine for themselves where necessity ends and excess begins. That is a recipe for escalation, not justice.

Further, the resolution is unclear as to whether “another person’s active attack” encompasses threats posed by non-sapient actors, such as animals—trained or otherwise. That omission is not academic. It creates real uncertainty in jurisdictions where animal attacks are a genuine risk and where legal clarity is essential for both victims and responders.

Finally, Section 4 is deeply troubling. By restricting self-defence protections against excessive force by law enforcement where such force is deemed part of “lawful duties,” the resolution risks insulating abuse behind domestic legal labels. International civil-rights law should not defer so easily where excessive force is concerned.

In short, GA#737 combines vagueness with false assurance. It neither strengthens civil rights nor provides workable guidance to states or individuals. Existing domestic legal frameworks already address self-defence with far greater care and specificity than this resolution manages.

For these reasons, the United Kingdom will vote for repeal.

Thank you.”

[She sits, arms folded, the faintest shake of her head betraying lingering irritation at how much time was spent unpicking a resolution that never should have made it this far.]

by **Vryheidsland** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 4:53 pm

Go figure “Marxist Land of Peoples” wants to repeal basic self-defense rights

by **Veretanasta** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 6:01 pm

The Federal Republic of Veretanasta suggests that GA#737 must be modified to be able to define self-defence with more clarity. If GA#737 continues to fail to define self-defence clearly, then GA#737 must be repealed.

by **Dest Oritio** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 6:13 pm

Dest Oritio steps forward briefly, notes in hand.

Dest Oritio unequivocally supports the right to self-defense. It is precisely because this right matters that GA#737 should not have passed in the first place. The resolution attempted to impose a universal self-defense standard on a deeply context-dependent area of domestic law, relying on vague definitions of proportionality and necessity.

Such ambiguity is not a minor drafting flaw but a structural weakness that risks misinterpretation, escalation, and uneven application across nations. In matters of personal safety, imprecision is not neutral—it is harmful.

We therefore support repeal not to deny a right, but to correct a misstep, preserving both the principle of self-defense and the Assembly’s responsibility to legislate with care.

Dest Oritio nods and yields the floor.

by **Waffia** » Tue Dec 30, 2025 6:52 am

The ambassador rises, and, in a bored tone of voice, reads:

"This repeal does not understand how law works.

"The repeal says 'the target resolution allows individuals to define it for themselves'. This is wrong. The law is tested by courts, not by the people. Whether something is 'proportional', is determined by a judge. Whether something is 'appropriate', is determined by a judge. This is normal. The target doesn't do anything abnormal. So the repeal is wrong.

"Asking a resolution to define 'appropriate and proportional' is impossible. It's also unnecessary. The judge can define this. That's what a judge is for. That's literally their entire job.

"The repeal says that the target 'limits self-defense protections to persons defending themselves against law enforcement officials using excessive force'. This is not true. The target only says 'this resolution isn't about self-defence against law enforcement'. The target explicitly says in Article 7 that members can expand their definitions of self-defence. It's just not part of this resolution.

"The repeal says that the target is unclear about attacks from non-sapient species. This is true, but depends highly on context and culture, and can therefore be tested by a judge. So this is not a flaw in the resolution, either."

by **Hamirea** » Tue Dec 30, 2025 11:03 pm

Statement by the Delegate of Hamirea

World Assembly Debate

Hamirea acknowledges the intent of those who have brought forward the proposal to repeal the current World Assembly resolution on self-defense. The protection of human life and dignity is a concern shared by all nations represented here.

Nevertheless, Hamirea must oppose this repeal. The existing resolution establishes a necessary international framework recognizing self-defense as a fundamental right, while simultaneously constraining its exercise through proportionality, necessity, and judicial scrutiny.

Contrary to the assertions of the repeal’s proponents, the resolution does not authorize indiscriminate or excessive force. Its provisions explicitly limit defensive action to situations involving an imminent and active attack, and require that any response remain proportional to the actual threat faced.

The resolution further strengthens legal certainty by defining the concepts of violence and attack, and by requiring courts to consider context, mental capacity, and prior interactions when assessing defensive conduct. These provisions reduce arbitrariness rather than invite it.

With regard to law enforcement, Hamirea emphasizes that the resolution respects the principle of state sovereignty by preserving domestic legal frameworks governing official conduct. This Assembly was never intended to supplant national judicial systems, but to articulate shared standards upon which they may operate.

Repealing this resolution would dismantle a common international baseline for self-defense, leaving individuals subject to uneven protections and uncertain legal outcomes across member states.

For these reasons, Hamirea calls upon this Assembly to reject the repeal and to uphold the resolution as a balanced instrument that safeguards both individual rights and the rule of law.

Thank you.

by **Charlistan** » Wed Dec 31, 2025 4:16 pm

I agree with you tbh

[PASSED] Repeal: Basic Self-Defense Rights

[PASSED] Repeal: Basic Self-Defense Rights

Is this just because of ambiguity?

Position of Hamirea on the Proposed Repeal

Who is online