22 Nov Is There a International Right to Bear Arms? Will the United States Supreme Court Care?
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to consider the constitutionality of a handgun ban in the District of Columbia under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. This will be a blockbuster case that will keep Eugene Volokh even busier for the next few months.
As with the interpretations of other constitutional provisions, the Second Amendment could be placed with a broad international context and interpreted consistent with international norms. Indeed, some folks have argued (see e.g. Glenn Reynolds here and David Kopel here) should be recognized as part of the international human right to self-defense, even one that is recognized through the Genocide Convention.
But I am nearly 100% sure that there will be no reference to this discussion in the Supreme Court opinions, or the briefing of the opinion. It may be that the right to bear arms is a uniquely American construct, and in any case, the justices most likely to seek international precendential support are those that have already foresworn that methodology.
There is a human right to life that includes the right not to be shot. I don’t think this can be expanded to include a right to shoot someone else, because then you’ve infringed upon that person’s right to life. What constitutes legitimate self-defense is highly contested in the context of international or internal armed disputes. The issue D squared raises in the comment thread to Reynolds’ post linked to above is a difficult one for proponents of a “human right” to freely shoot someone else in self-defense. If Darfuris have a right to bear arms, then why not Palestinians, Sunni Iraqis, Muslim Chechens, or members of FARC in Colombia?