Self-Defence in Criminal Law: a Comparative Legal Study

This thesis examines how the idea of self-defence has been developed, interpreted, and used in the legal systems of the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the research illustrates significant court decisions and legislative evolution that have influenced each nation's stance on individual rights and the boundaries of force by following the evolution of self-defence legislation over time. The analysis uses a combination of doctrinal and comparative research to highlight the differences and parallels between the definitions of necessity, proportionality, and imminence in self-defence situations in the US and UK legal systems. The research also considers more general philosophical viewpoints, including moral theories that tackle the moral conundrums surrounding self-defence, such as defences against the use of fatal force and the rights of aggressors and bystanders. Amongst the notable scholars mentioned in this work, the deep analysis includes Michael Otsuka, Judith Thomson, and Jeff McMahan. This research aims to thoroughly understand how self-defence is interpreted in various jurisdictions and highlight the differences in the way self-defence is incorporated into the legal system. Keywords: self-defence; necessity; proportionality; Judith Thomson; Roman law; article 2 ECHR; Rome Statute; common law; reasonableness; Criminal Law Act 1967; civil law; reasonable force; Castle Doctrine; standards of self-defence.