 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(June 2019) |
Defensivism is a philosophical standpoint related in spirit to the non-aggression principle. It is a halfway point between other combat or violence based philosophies, such as just war and pacifism.
Defensivism has a standpoint that only defensive actions are moral. One may move to aid someone in immediate danger or protect oneself from immediate harm. To a country, it holds that a military force may never leave its own borders except to move to the aid of someone else, and in such a situation, that it may protect from harm only if it is specifically invited to, with no aggressive action taken.
Vladimir Lenin proposed a version of defensivism, which he called "revolutionary defensivism" in which war is pursued only as a matter of necessity, not for the sake of conquest. [1] The latter, in his view, is pursued for capitalist interest and annexation rather than democratic peace. [1] There were Soviet thinkers who described a defensive war strategy that drew from the works of Alexander Svechin. [2] They promoted a type of counteroffensive that does not inflict a decisive defeat on the enemy and is limited to one side's own territory. [2] Some of the thinkers also favored defensive attrition warfare with limited war aims, as opposed to an objective of complete destruction. [2]
In principle, any form of pre-emptive strike, capture, revenge, or firing the first actual shot or throwing the first actual blow is against the defensivist standpoint. If an action must be halted to stop an aggressor from achieving a goal to harm, defensivism allows for actions that assist in removing an imminent threat such as searching an airline passenger for bombs, stopping an aggressor from detonating a bomb, and stopping an aggressor from harming an innocent person. Pre-emptive action must be taken only to mitigate an imminent threat, not to remove a potential threat.
Any form of combative action must cease once the opposition stops fighting, withdraws, surrenders, or ceases the aggressive action.
That does not apply if an aggressor remains an imminent threat upon retreat, as in the case of a gunman shooting a police officer and then fleeing into the public still armed. In such cases, the assailant's "retreat" from the first scene still poses an imminent threat to the public, which gives defenders the right to pursue the threat and to use force to defend the public from further danger by apprehending the assailant or using any force that is necessary to mitigate the danger.
Generally, defensivism allows the taking of life only if the life that would be taken actively threatens another life.
In foreign policy, defensivism is equated with the policy of a free society, which stresses the social primacy of liberty. [3]
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by use of fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear; that is, it is a larceny or theft accomplished by an assault. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft by its inherently violent nature ; whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony in jurisdictions that distinguish between the two. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft".
The right of self-defense is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including – in certain circumstances – the use of deadly force.
Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics which is studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policy makers. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.
In the criminal law of many nations, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. As a matter of political expediency, states usually allow some classes of person to be excused from liability when they are engaged in socially useful functions but intentionally cause injury, loss or damage.
A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war shortly before that attack materializes. It is a war that preemptively 'breaks the peace'.
The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden of production of exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification. In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to disprove the alleged criminal act or wrongdoing. The key to this legal defense is that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent by the deceased when they committed the homicide. A homicide in this instance is blameless.
Hugo Grotius, the 17th century jurist and father of public international law, stated in his 1625 magnum opus The Law of War and Peace that "Most Men assign three Just Causes of War, Defence, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment."
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
Massive retaliation, also known as a massive response or massive deterrence, is a military doctrine and nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack.
The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Common assault is an offence in English law. It is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant. In England and Wales, the penalty and mode of trial for this offence is provided by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.
In the United States, self-defense is an affirmative defense that is used to justify the use of force by one person against another person under specific circumstances.
In English law, the defence of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.
Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.
In the state of Maryland, the right of self-defense is mostly governed by case law, but there is also a statute.
The Caroline test is a 19th-century formulation of customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, which said that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The test takes its name from the Caroline affair.
Non-fatal offences against the person, under English law, are generally taken to mean offences which take the form of an attack directed at another person, that do not result in the death of any person. Such offences where death occurs are considered homicide, whilst sexual offences are generally considered separately, since they differ substantially from other offences against the person in theoretical basis and composition. Non-fatal offences against the person mainly derive from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, although no definition of assault or battery is given there.
There are three main concepts in Czech law which exclude criminal & civil liability based on self-defense. "Utmost necessity" may be invoked against a danger other than an attack by another person, such as a raging dog. "Necessary self defense" may be invoked against attack by another person, be it a direct assault or a dog ordered to attack. The third concept is called "eligible use of a gun" and generally may not be invoked by civilians, but rather by police or other officers.