K-Romulus
Member
After losing big at the UN earlier this summer, the IANSA crowd is busy with its latest attempt at "global norms" against private firearms ownership. This time it's in the form of a UN Human Rights Council push to declare nations that don't license gun owners as "human rights violators."
From today's IANSA main page: http://www.iansa.org/index.htm
When these "human rights" principles get ratified by the UN Human Rights Council in the near future, they become "international law." Want to see fun? Wait until the Brady campaign files its first lawsuit in The Hague!
(Overview of the sub-committee's activities: http://www.iansa.org/issues/UNhumanrights.htm)
Here is the gauntlet (from that overview page) :
Among the Sub-Committee's fifteen adopted principles:
http://www.iansa.org/documents/salw_hr_principles.pdf
The full Sub-Committee report is here: http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf
Get a cup of coffee, it's 72 pages.
From the Exec Summary:
Basically, by throwing around terms like "due diligence," the report seems to be gunning (pardon the pun) for a legal basis to slap the "human rights violator" label on any nation with liberal firearms ownership laws. This is blatantly evident in the following from the report:
What did someone say about the 2006/2008 elections?
From today's IANSA main page: http://www.iansa.org/index.htm
Fifteen principles for preventing human rights abuses with guns were endorsed by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Geneva (Switzerland) on 24 August. This is the highest level acknowledgement to date of the link between small arms control and human rights.
The principles were presented as part of the final report of Professor Barbara Frey, the UN Special Rapporteur on small arms and human rights violations. The Sub-commission passed a resolution endorsing the principles and recommending their adoption by the new UN Human Rights Council. (K-Rom: Frey is apparently a prof at U of MN)
'Gun violence is a human rights issue,' said Rebecca Peters, director of IANSA. 'Around the world people are suffering because the legal gun market is poorly regulated, allowing these deadly weapons to be misused, whether by police, criminals, terrorists, or in the home. Governments must now implement these global principles in order to protect their citizens from the flood of guns.'
The principles set out basic standards for regulating the use of small arms by police and private owners, to prevent weapons being misused. In addition, they prohibit international transfers where the arms are likely to be used in serious human rights violations. This is also the focus of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) proposed by the Control Arms campaign.
Governments will vote during the UN General Assembly in October on whether to start negotiations on an ATT. . .
When these "human rights" principles get ratified by the UN Human Rights Council in the near future, they become "international law." Want to see fun? Wait until the Brady campaign files its first lawsuit in The Hague!
(Overview of the sub-committee's activities: http://www.iansa.org/issues/UNhumanrights.htm)
Here is the gauntlet (from that overview page) :
Examining the use of guns by civilians and armed groups, the UN Special Rapporteur concludes that there is no 'right' to self-defence under international human rights law. When someone uses a gun in self-defence, they can only use the principle of self-defence to establish that they have not committed a crime (eg their life was in danger). Even if there were a 'right' to self-defence, this does not affect governments' responsibility to prevent guns being misused.
Among the Sub-Committee's fifteen adopted principles:
http://www.iansa.org/documents/salw_hr_principles.pdf
B. Due diligence to prevent human rights abuses by private actors
10. In order to ensure the protection of human rights by preventing small
arms violence by private actors, Governments shall enact licensing
requirements to prevent possession of arms by persons who are at risk of
misusing them. Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific
purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which
they are authorized. Before issuing a licence Governments shall require
training in proper use of small arms, and shall take into consideration, at a
minimum, the following factors: age, mental fitness, requested purpose, prior
criminal record or record of misuse, and prior acts of domestic violence.
Governments shall require periodic renewal of licences.
The full Sub-Committee report is here: http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf
Get a cup of coffee, it's 72 pages.
From the Exec Summary:
The principle of self-defence has an important place in international
human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right
to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use
due diligence in regulating civilian possession. Rather, as this report shows,
there are wide areas where States should, can, and do regulate possession
of firearms consistent with principles of self-defence. Self-defence is a
widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to
respect the life of others. It is the basis for exemption from criminal
responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor.
International law does not support an international legal obligation requiring
States to permit access to a gun for self-defence. The principle of self-
defence does not negate the due diligence responsibility of States to keep
weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them. The State
has particularly acute obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including
victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms.
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.
Basically, by throwing around terms like "due diligence," the report seems to be gunning (pardon the pun) for a legal basis to slap the "human rights violator" label on any nation with liberal firearms ownership laws. This is blatantly evident in the following from the report:
42. . . . Under the due diligence standard, international human rights bodies should require States
to enforce a minimum licensing standard designed to prevent small arms from being used
by private actors to violate human rights.
43. Other effective measures consistent with due diligence include the prohibition of
civilian possession of weapons designed for military use; the sponsoring of effective
amnesty programmes to decrease the number of weapons in active use; requirement of
marking and tracing information by manufacturers; and incorporation of a gender
perspective in policies regarding small arms. States have an affirmative duty under
international human rights law to protect groups that are most vulnerable to small arms
misuse, including victims of domestic violence.
What did someone say about the 2006/2008 elections?