Sense and Nonsense about Self-Defense

If patriotism is, as Samuel Johnson suggested, the last refuge of a scoundrel, then self-defense is the last refuge of an aggressor. The justification of self-defense comes readily to the lips of both paranoids and those who reasonably wish to defend themselves against imminent attack. The argument for America's putative invasion of Iraq is, of course, self-defense, that is, the need to shield itself and its allies against Saddam Hussein's possible use of weapons of mass destruction.

But claims of "self-defense" also find less reputable invocations. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who murdered 168 people in 1995, thought he was defending the US Constitution against a predatory federal government. Yigal Amir thought he was defending Israel against a Prime Minister willing to surrender sacred land to the enemy when he assassinated Yitzak Rabin later in the same year.

Perpetrators of violent acts rarely concede that they are aggression pure and simple, rather than actions in defense of life, liberty, or some other important value. Is there a sensible boundary between sense and nonsense in claiming self-defense? Lawyers must seek this distinction, for if we surrender to the rhetorical claims of statesmen and paranoids, the line between aggression and self-defense will disappear.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.


Log in;
  1. An employee works at a chemical fiber weaving company VCG/Getty Images

    China in the Lead?

    For four decades, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth under a centralized, authoritarian political system, far outpacing growth in the Western liberal democracies. So, is Chinese President Xi Jinping right to double down on authoritarianism, and is the “China model” truly a viable rival to Western-style democratic capitalism?

  2. The assembly line at Ford Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    Whither the Multilateral Trading System?

    The global economy today is dominated by three major players – China, the EU, and the US – with roughly equal trading volumes and limited incentive to fight for the rules-based global trading system. With cooperation unlikely, the world should prepare itself for the erosion of the World Trade Organization.

  3. Donald Trump Saul Loeb/Getty Images

    The Globalization of Our Discontent

    Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US has shown. The challenge is to minimize the risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.

  4. A general view of the Corn Market in the City of Manchester Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    A Better British Story

    Despite all of the doom and gloom over the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union, key manufacturing indicators are at their highest levels in four years, and the mood for investment may be improving. While parts of the UK are certainly weakening economically, others may finally be overcoming longstanding challenges.

  5. UK supermarket Waring Abbott/Getty Images

    The UK’s Multilateral Trade Future

    With Brexit looming, the UK has no choice but to redesign its future trading relationships. As a major producer of sophisticated components, its long-term trade strategy should focus on gaining deep and unfettered access to integrated cross-border supply chains – and that means adopting a multilateral approach.

  6. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now