Natural law-based self-defense draws its moral force given that it is used in the presence of an immediate threat, giving the defender government no time for deliberation and placing them in a dreadful situation where they must choose between using force in self-defense or losing their lives. The self-defense right is an essential human right that has existed and been recognised throughout history. It is accessible to both individuals and, as states formed, to states as sovereign entities. Self-defense confines rather than widens the area for public officials' discretion, unlike other criminal justice systems that fulfil important political purposes. It rejects public interest and public justification in favour of private ones. The problem to be investigated in this article is the right of self-defense can still be imposed by the state at the same time preserving the natural law in the country. This article will analyse the view of the right to self-defense and jurisprudential analysis of the right to self-defense. The study is qualitative doctrinal research that derives its data from library-based sources. The article suggests that the state has the power to suspend our right to self-defense but certainly not extinguish it. A state may take away this natural law because of the welfare and safety of society. However, when facing immediate threat, natural law will be preserved as the State can't guarantee our safety is imminent
