Firearms Possession by 'Non-State Actors': The Question of Sovereignty

I. INTRODUCTION At United Nations conferences and in other international fora, many diplomats and NGOs have called for prohibiting or severely limiting firearms possession by -state actors. Use of phrase -state actors, however, reveals a profound misunderstanding of nature of sovereignty. While phrase implies that sovereignty belongs government, sovereignty properly belongs people and is merely delegated by them government. In this article, we examine connection between arms possession and sovereignty and we detail horrible violations of human rights that have so often resulted from prohibition of guns -state actors. From ancient Athens modern Zimbabwe, weapons bans for -state actors have often led human rights abuses by illegitimate governments; these abuses are perpetrated against legitimate sovereigns: people of nation. When Confucius was asked what be first step if a sought his advice, he answered that [i]t certainly be rectify names. ... If names are not correct, language is without an object.1 The modern push for civilian gun prohibition -for banning gun ownership by -state actors-is based on faulty premise that the government is equivalent the state. To contrary, as Declaration of Independence teaches, it is a self -evident truth that governments are created by people of a state, in order protect human rights of people.2 As sovereigns, people have authority change when they determine that is no longer fulfilling its function of protecting people's rights. The people are only true and legitimate rulers of a state, and is only their instrument and servant. To extent that a is not founded on consent of governed, it is illegitimate. As a United States federal district court put it, the people, not government, possess sovereignty.3 At 2001 United Nations Small Arms Conference, Iran took lead in promoting a ban on weapons supplies -state actors.4 The -state actors clause require vendors to supply small arms and light weapons only or entities duly authorized by government.5 The clause make it illegal, for example, supply weapons Kurds or religious minorities in Iran, even if Iranian persecution or genocide drove them forcible resistance. The clause have made it illegal for United States supply arms oppressed Kurds and Shia of Iraq before Saddam Hussein regime was toppled. Had -state actors provision been in effect in 1776, transfer of firearms American patriots have been prohibited. Had clause been in effect during World War II, transfer of Liberator pistols French Resistance, and many other resistance groups, have been illegal. At U.N. Conference, United States delegation stood firm against -state actors clause, rejecting compromise efforts revise language or insert it into preamble of Program of Action.6 Although Canada pushed hard, U.S. not relent. U.S. Under - secretary of State John Bolton pointed out that proposal would preclude assistance an oppressed non -state group defending itself from a genocidal government.7 U.N. Deputy secretary -General Louise Frechette (of Canada) explained that in some parts of world, an AK-47 could be obtained for $15 or a bag of grain.8 Small -arms proliferation erodes authority of legitimate but weak governments, she complained.9 U.S. delegate Faith Whittlesey replied that U.N. non-state actors provision freezes last coup. It favors established while taking away rights from individuals. It does not recognize any value higher than peace, such as liberty. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.