Aclion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"I did not address that directly to allow member states the nuance of determining at what point defense to lawful force may be asserted. I maintain that this is an issue best decided by a legislature below that of the World Assembly."
The issue is because this resolution establishes the circumstances in which a nation must accept a claim of self defence, if you don't narrow that requirement to allow nations to exclude claims of self defence against lawful force then nations will still be required to accept those claims. As written nations still must accept a claim of self defense from a criminal who kills a victim that violently resists. This is clearly not your intention, nor is it in the interest of giving member states discrepancy over the matter.
"I believe I see what you mean now. Nations must accept the defense as plead, but they are under no obligation to find the defense effective, as it is rebuttable. That is, at least, the way I had written it. So, member states must allow the accused the opportunity to plea that their actions were in self defense, but the prosecution can rebut it with evidence that the force used by the officer was lawful and that the defense is inapplicable to the case.
"In short, I believe that, by requiring nations to allow the defense without obligating that they find it effective sufficiently, defendants retain the freedom to construct their own defense without depriving the state and it's enforcement officials of qualified immunity. I have edited the clause to clarify my meaning."