Self-Defence and Necessity

Defensive political violence is based on the principles of necessity and self-defence.

What is the judicial rule of self-defence? In short, it says that you are allowed to kill an attacker if that is the only way to defend your own life or another person’s life from an illegal attack. The judicial concept of self-defence also includes the right to defend others who are being attacked. Self-defence and necessity do not allow revenge.

The law of self-defence is usually associated with people defending themselves against “ordinary” criminals like robbers, violent gangs, or murderers. But the law can also be applied to multinational companies which kill people in poor communities in the so-called third world. International firms can relatively often kill with impunity because the police don't always react when men, women and children are oppressed in these communities. And since non-violent NGO’s are often not capable of stopping the attacks, the use of defensive militant force against such companies can unfortunately be the only way to prevent people from being killed.

But there are some problems connected to the use of defensive political violence. For instance, what if the violence gets out of control? How can one assure that innocent people are not accidentally killed in defensive assaults against oppressive companies? Can such assaults be a threat against Western democracies, and why not use courts of law to stop firms that exploit poor communities? Please join our forum to discuss these questions.

The defence of necessity says that you are allowed to break the law, even take another person’s life, if that is the only way to prevent harm or evil that is much larger than the harm done by breaking the law.

§ 3.02 in the American Model Penal Code says that:

(1) Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or another is justifiable, provided that:

(a) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged; and

(b) neither the Code nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and

(c) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

Capturing a multi-billionaire is unlawful. But if you force the billionaire to give 100 million dollars to thousands of children that are on the brink of starving to death, then you can justify the capture operation by arguing that rescuing thousands of children clearly outweighs the harm done to only one single capitalist.

But of course, the justifications of necessity and self-defence will probably not help much if one is arrested in England or the U.S. because the economic elite will try to influence the judges in an attempt to make them rule against a common sense understanding of necessity and self-defence.

Norway, however, has a more neutral justice system with fair laws that can, in theory at least, acquit militant activists if their attacks against multinational companies are in full accordance with the Norwegian judicial concepts of necessity or self-defence. Militant activists can therefore announce that they are willing to appear in court if they are allowed, in accordance with §12 (§5) in the Norwegian penal code, to have their case tried in Norway (or another country with similar laws). If the authorities say no, then the activists will not be morally obliged to justify their actions in a court of law because they can probably not expect to get an adequate trial in other countries which have legal systems that are less fair and independent. 

The Supreme Court in Norway has decided that suspects of terrorism shall not be given over to U.S. authorities because it is believed that they will not get a fair treatment. Militant activists should therefore consider the possibility of seeking asylum in Norway if U.S. authorities are closing in on them.

But if society allows militant activists to capture some of the richest capitalists in the world, what about the threat to democracy, the judicial system, and the economic system? You are welcome to join our discussion forum where we debate these questions.