# Unnecessary Self-defence

## TL;DR

This paper argues that the legal requirement of necessity in self-defense is inconsistently applied and should be removed.

## Contribution

The paper identifies inconsistencies in the necessity requirement and proposes its removal.

## Key findings

- The necessity requirement in self-defense is formulated inconsistently.
- Abandoning the necessity requirement would not create a problematic legal gap.
- Necessity remains relevant in assessing the reasonableness of force.

## Abstract

Self-defence is traditionally said to contain a necessity requirement, according to which defensive force is lawful only if it is necessary. But the necessity requirement is formulated inconsistently, and these inconsistencies substantially alter the scope of the defence. This article explains these inconsistencies. It concludes that it would be preferable to abandon the necessity requirement altogether. This would not leave a problematic gap in the law, because necessity would remain an important consideration when judging whether any use of force was reasonable.