Legal Action Worldwide (LAW) is a research and training centre which gives advice about when the legal rules of necessity and self-defence can justify the use of defensive political violence against oppressive organisations. Examples of such organisations are multinational companies which kill innocent people in developing countries.

In order to stop these crimes, we will teach activists how to build defence groups and how to use militant methods in accordance with the laws of necessity and self-defence.

This is controversial, so we have created a forum where critics can present their arguments against defensive political violence.

LAW is partly based on the discourse ethics of the respected German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. This means that we will not recommend the use of militant operations if the better argument proves that such actions are not legally or ethically justifiable. We are not an extremist organisation, so we will listen to common sense views of ethics and justice.

We invite you to discuss whether it can be legally and ethically justified to capture the richest billionaires and force them to transfer millions of dollars to aid projects that can save many of the 30 000 children who die each day in developing countries.

Can it be justified to use violence in self-defence against multinational corporations which kill and oppress poor people in the so-called third world?

Or is it more effective to use non-violent means, like hacking the bank accounts of corporations and transferring money to starving people in developing countries?

Join our discussion forum, and present your own views. In the introduction to the forum one can also find a copy of a PhD thesis about defensive political violence, written by Andreas Winsnes. The forum is restricted to academics and others with similar competence, unless someone has really good arguments which deserve attention.

Journalists are asked to check our press information section where one can read a summary which should also be of interest to others who want to know more about the LAW project.

One of our main worries is that individuals who read websites and the news superficially will think that LAW supports terrorism. But if one takes care not to harm innocent bystanders, then taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not terrorism.

It reveals lack of intelligence if critics dogmatically claim that all militant activism is terrorism, for example the struggle of native tribes which fight against oppression in the Amazon jungle.

In an age of science we should not let logic and historical facts be redefined by academics whose salaries depend on their support or tolerance of unnuanced terror laws partly set up by populist politicians.

The main purpose of LAW is to combat those who attack innocent civilians. Terrorism is defined by attacks on innocent people, so we support governments in their fight against all who attack innocent bystanders.

We support that the police and military get necessary resources and efficient laws that can prevent terrorism. We are very clear on this, because anyone can understand how horrible it feels to be associated with murderers who kill women and children. LAW is created to protect women and children, so it is an insult if critics put us in the same category as such criminal killers. The later should be hunted down and locked away for good.

LAW is in harmony with the rules of the Rechtsstaat, which are the basic principles of all liberal democracies in the West. We support the rule of law, which means that no one is above the laws of the constitution in a liberal democracy. The UN defines the rule of law here.

We will not conduct militant operations if an academic debate refutes our main arguments. Trying to prevent such a public debate violates both free speech and scientific standards.