MICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Date: Jan 21, 2006 12:28 PM
MICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen

?Micro-disarmament? is a term of art in the small arms prohibition community, referring to the disarmament of the civilian population in a particular country. Advocates of micro-disarmament argue that the success of microdisarmament in particular countries demonstrates that reducing or eliminating the prevalence of firearms reduces violence. Micro-disarmament successes are touted as proof of the desirability of ever-broader campaigns to disarm civilian populations worldwide. This article examines six case studies of microdisarmament: Cambodia, Bougainville, Albania, Panama, Guatemala, and Mali. In each of these six countries, we argue, micro-disarmament has failed or has not been nearly as successful as firearms prohibitionists have claimed. We suggest that the emphasis on disarming civilians as the key to peace is mistaken, because, as these six case studies demonstrate, true and lasting peace must be based on protection of human rights. When human rights are secure, violence will diminish; conversely, when human rights are denied, many people willrefuse to surrender the tools necessary to defend their lives and liberties.1
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/MicroDisarmament.pdf

IS RESISTING GENOCIDE A HUMAN RIGHT?
By David B. Kopel Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen

Closely examining the Darfur, Sudan, genocide, and making reference to other genocides, this Article argues that the genocide prevention strategies which are currently
favored by the United Nations are ineffective. The Article details the failures of targeted sanctions, UN peacekeepers, and other anti-genocide programs. Then, the Article
analyzes the Genocide Convention and other sources of international human rights law. Because the very strong language of the Genocide Convention forbids any form of
complicity in genocide, and because the Genocide Convention is jus cogens (meaning that it prevails over any conflicting national or international law), this Article concludes that the Genocide Convention forbids any interference, including interference based on otherwise-valid laws, against the procurement of defensive arms by groups which are being victimized by genocide.
Forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review, volume 81, issue no. 4, 2006.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf