Amateur Megalomania

The UN issued a report today that stated:

No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.

…

The principle of self-defence, as an internationally recognized exemption from criminal responsibility, is not inconsistent with the due diligence responsibilities of States to regulate civilian possession of small arms. There is no independent or supervening right in international human rights law of self-defence that would require States to provide civilians with access to small arms; nor does the principle of self-defence diminish the State’s responsibility to use due diligence to keep weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them. Rather, States should exercise their due diligence responsibilities in the context of self-defence law, including the likelihood that those possessing firearms will act only out of necessity and with proportionality.

The problem with the UN approach is it’s failure to recognize the concept of Natural Law. This isn’t a trivial difference in philosophy.

The UN, and most other nations, approach Rights as things granted by the government. It follows that what is granted can also be revoked. Governments change at the whim of history, and this power makes no man secure in his Rights. It is a dangerous idea.

Natural Law holds the idea of Rights granted by Nature (or by God if you prefer). These Rights cannot be abridged at the whim of the Sovereign. Indeed, it is the Sovereign’s duty to safeguard these Rights as the first line of defense for the citizenry.

The stipulation of no inherent Right of Self-Defense strikes at the heart of the Natural Law foundation of the United States and the Western World. It exposes a fundamental problem in the world-view of the UN.

Technorati Tags: UN, natural, law, firearms

Filed under: Grab Bag