Civil Disobedience and the Problem of Violence and Punishment

CEU eTD Collection D ISOBEDIENCE AND ISOBEDIENCE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts B ETWEEN T ERRAINS OF Supervisor: Assistant Professor Zoltán Miklósi Zoltán Professor Assistant Supervisor: S Department of Political Science Political of Department UBVERSIVE AND UBVERSIVE Central European University European Central T P Budapest, Hungary P UNISHMENT HE OLITICAL Submitted to Submitted .Õ vanç Atak P 2008 By ROBLEM OF A C CTION ONSTRUCTIVE V : IOLENCE AND IOLENCE C IVIL CEU eTD Collection opposite direction, but due to butthe direction, opposite in the face inclaims of the are weak that due explanations conventional to the not preferable nonviolence are punishment that Hereby,arguing avoiding and ongoing Iam debates. fair play account that I consider existingfrom of on argumentation,violence Ielaborate patterns angelof the punishment and as a useful and plausible I inferred from the that of puzzles the basis Onthe ofcivildisobedience. idiosyncrasies the means likely to to approaches illustrative contribute foremost of the examination comparative the on relies thoroughly to the one of the most controversial issues within the literature. My effort to construe these problems violenceas punishment and focusesonthequestion philosophy. of thesis particularly This age of political incontemporary of phenomenon the upgrading conceptual to the contribute to analysis of field theoretical afertile provide of disobedience civil aspects justificatory civil definitional and constructive action. and political asa subversive disobedience The perspectives on the rights of the citizens against state authority entails the reconsideration of Keywords: civil disobedience, law, democracy, violence, punishment, fair play polity. the in law of rule violence and refusing penalty would be unfair to the fellow cooperators who are subject to the The transforming conceptualization of political andobligation changing the A BSTRACT prima facie II duty of fair play, according to which use of CEU eTD Collection obligation. comprehension in problemsthe of particularly topic, thesis the his on lectures during political give my toProfessor Jánosgratitude Kis his for illuminative contributions tomy for his supportanddirectionsconsiderable before and during thethesis Ialso process. writing Hereby, Igive myspecial thanks myto supervisor AssistantProfessor Zoltán Miklósi Acknowledgements III CEU eTD Collection References...... 63 ...... 60 Conclusion Chapter 3: The Problem: A Fair Play Approach to ...... 44 Violence and Punishment Chapter 2: Axis of Justification and Functionality...... 23 Chapter 1: Axis of Definition: An Outdated ...... 6 Problem? Introduction...... 1 T ABLE OF 3.3 Second Approximation: ...... 54 Punishment 3.2 First Approximation: Violence...... 47 3.1 The Principle ...... 45 of Fair Play 2.3 Functionality of Disobedience...... 34 2.2 Conditions of Justifiability...... 29 2.1 Methods of Justification...... 24 1.3 Forms of Civil Disobedience...... 19 1.2 Inclusive Definition: What is civil disobedience exactly?...... 11 1.1 Exclusive Definition: What is not civil disobedience?...... 7 3.3.2 A ‘Fair’ Anticipation of Punishment...... 57 3.3.1 The Pendulum ...... 54 of Genuineness 3.2.2 Nonviolence ...... 52 for Fair Play 3.2.1 Dialectics of Permissibility...... 48 2.3.2 Democracy of Civil ...... 37 Disobedience 2.3.1 Deconstruction ...... 34 and Reconstruction 2.1.2 Sources of Ascription...... 26 2.1.1 Philosophical ...... 24 Approaches 1.2.2 Comprehensive ...... 14 Account 1.2.1 Narrow Account...... 12 C ONTENTS IV CEU eTD Collection practices. These are the two aspects of the phenomenon upon which the literature displays literature the which upon of phenomenon the aspects two arethe These practices. disobedience in civil punishment and violence of problems the on focuses particularly My thesis merit scrutiny. close that of civil disobedience framework conceptual the area of various philosophypolitical withinare issuesandquestions concerning whichthere action civil society. and collective participation, democratic legitimacy, authority and state as obligation, political such notions the relation to inits significance study the civilhasprimary actions,of therefore, disobedience state struggle against in of ways the is interested who scientist Forapolitical state. of the practices particular to intheir citizens opposition dissenter bythe can be taken that resistance of actions political of concept case,the latter In the resistance. of target goal the and ultimate the to asregards methods limitedmight or beinresistance. Thesesystem-oriented, revolutionary scopeand and injusticeencounter agencies to prevalenceof the the occurred. potency of subordinated of resistanceandthe such count. brings The thequestion generation outcomes pages of to take thatcould means orprocesses andmanyother practices minority/alternative ostracizing norms societal pressure, of mechanisms official policies, and laws unfair of implementation inequalities, material resources, the of distribution unjust power, of relations asymmetric may lie of outcomes problematic Among sources the of reasons. number for a society Academic discussions on the subject matter predominantly reside to the disciplinary the to reside predominantly matter subject the on discussions Academic of act in the involve can groups dissident which in ways various are there Actually, favorablePolitical not systems for members produceoutcomesare that all of the I NTRODUCTION civil disobedience and everywhere that the power of government exists. of government power the that everywhere and This fact is seen most prominently during revolutions,government. but their it exists to people always the of obedience slavish by the is danger this of another nation, or from foes in their midst, and that the only way to escape The government assures the people that they are in danger from the invasion appears to be one of the most relevant as well as powerful Leo Tolstoy, 1 Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence CEU eTD Collection civil disobedience in broader lines of politico-philosophical discussion. Accordingly, I want I Accordingly, discussion. politico-philosophical of lines broader in disobedience civil I wanttocall Whatin the thesis. the substantiated lines of arguments, and thus to contemplate alternative paths of conceptualization. disobedience. Moreover, civil picture of about controversial the issuesof possiblethe patterns thinking I will also be able mostthe common questions from Hereby, viewpoints. different Iwill attain a comprehensive to see what is missing of acomparative examination I will constitute Instead, discussion. as areferenceof approach or problematic in those a choose particularor asingleown Iwillpurposes, not school thought of philosophical ways in itiswhich against vindicated the supervision judicio-politicalof authorities. For my the delineate and action, form of political apeculiar as disobedience civil of characteristics decisive the portray will I on, rely will analysis the which on background conceptual violencea requires of andpunishment the Since consideration methodological strategy. disobedience? civil of justification and definition preferable? And finally, what would be significancethe inof such morality terms of the moralthe basis, if one,which exists there makes nonviolence and more punishment accepting is What disobedience? justifiable a for unproblematic be penalties of avoidance and violence of means permissible could circumstances which Under disobedience? civil of elements andfunctional justificatory definitional, the with are compatible acceptance of punishment and violence of use the from abstention sense in what instance, For disobedience. civil and forbetween violenceaddressed athorough andpunishment, elaboration of relationship the contribution furtherof perspectives. In this respect, Icame up with a couple of questions beto aslikely well as need clarification that somepuzzles theoretical are there that I realized considerably divergent patterns of reflection. As I started to deepen my due attention on them, In light of In lightof these concerns, cautious main Ihave two argumentative purposes to be plausiblyto In myeffort these respond Iwill to questions, employ following the 2 general purpose refers purpose rethinkingthe to of CEU eTD Collection justifiability conditions of civil disobedience. civil of conditions justifiability the aswell idiosyncrasies the markson question of several existence tothe evidence gives domains these of elaboration On anin-depth contrary, debates. the political contemporary in them construe needis noto there that and down, settled already are disobedience of civil justification and definition the that claim to misleading be would it particular, In subjects. its and state between relationship the of perceptions changing the with together reconsideration political contextof 1960s andthe still 1970s,but acritical warranting question socio- the to pertinent phenomenon an outdated not is disobedience civil that indicate to violence orfrom various theories of criminology that could deepen thelevel of analysis. coverbenefitfrom of political nor not theories instance, does thesis the For conceptions. from wider emanate likely to are that advantages lack alsopotential might it of discussion, a focused in basis due have might advantages to some of circumscription question subject the of disobedience. civil considerations itshowInstead, tries auseful fair andto plausible of applicability inthe play perspective each other. to they owe that moral citizens duties of articulate way bestto asthe play account fair present to attempt not does exposition This ones. conventional the than stronger opinion, basismoral for nonviolence and accepting which is punishment, from different and inmy a proposes Sucha perspective scheme. social of venture cooperative same the members of are the they fellow assumingthat be the citizens, unfairbewould to punished andto refusal fairviolence view, From perspective, this the another of one’s account. point appeal to play However, from beproblematic seem form they define protest. of toolsto justify and this to the definition and justification of civil disobedience, but they are also not absolutely necessary only for unproblematic not punishment are and of avoidance a permissible extent, violence to The It is mentioningIt worth also limitations certain of thesis.the Although the specific purpose of the thesis, on the other hand, is to argue that the use of 3 CEU eTD Collection accept. In one sense, even though the neologism of the conceptis relatively recent, the idea of not he did crime that for the punishment the when heaccepted Socrates of times the until disobedience civil of implications practical the back date to is possible it However, century. primarily due tohis rejection poll of tax Mexican-Americanopposing the in War midthe 19 morality I will that seek toemploy myfor subjectsto the approximation under scrutiny. chapters. Theintroductory fairsynopsis of willinitiate play an account alternative angel of civilin tools relation supplied the previous on to relying conceptual the disobedience, in andpunishment violence of problematization to anextensive bededicated will chapter final The above. mentioned I that thesis the of aim first the of accomplishment the to serve butthey alsowill violence examination andof punishment, step to the provide apreparatory only not will chapters two first the nutshell, a In disobedience. civil of composition functional and justificatory the delineating by discussion the of heart the to closer get more will chapter level atthe Thesecond various forms its befollowed thatwill concept practice. by of intrinsic the to features with proceed the Iwill same disobedience. not ascivil but confusable disobedience. There I civil of properties will definitional the on concentrate will chapter first way. The following first talk about similar forms of resistant political aswell. criticisms to legitimate open actionis also disobedience civil that to application its areTherefore, ways. of number in a deconstructed from far being unproblematic. Someits of premises arepowerfully criticized and isalso account play fair that remarkable is it Furthermore, disobedience. civil of motivations politico-moral with overlap can punishment of perspectives criminological ways what in interrogated been have could it second and disobedience, civil with reconciled be can violence of roots psychological and political extent what to revealed been have could it first Thereby, The literary introduction of the term is usually attributed to Henry DavidThoreau Henry to attributed isusually term of the introduction literary The of thesisinthe skeleton the the structure Iwill restrictions, Beingaware of these 4 th CEU eTD Collection constructive challenger of its authority. also but subversive a only not as exist to continue will disobedience civil of question one of his essays, as longseem not civil does be sonew.AsTolstoy disobedience to phraseditremarkably in (1987) as there will be governmental power in one form or another the 5 CEU eTD Collection solid rather than an ambiguous basis of definition in order to evaluate the act and those who those and act the evaluate to in order definition of basis ambiguous an than rather solid of political obligation. At any rate, I am disposed to admit thatit wouldbe better to have a according changing the perspectives to andentail of questions further concept the rethinking strength in aresome no single answers torespects these questions. As I will try there Actually, develop? canthey andtactics kind Whatitsstrategies scope? of to tolimitations argue, althoughthe they have varietiestheir own it? For what purposes do they choose to civilly disobey the ofrules of the state? Are there somequalificationare as follows: what kind of a political action is civil disobedience? Why do citizens appeal to of condition thoroughly.of punishment The main be in will that questions this addressed chapter civil disobedienceagainst and the argue foruseofviolence or the itis concept, the to difficult very peculiar to is what understanding without that fact the in lies thesis the are of foci the as punishment and open to of action. political similar sorts from makesother it different what andby notion, featuresuncovering of the the explicating by both attempted is disobedience civil of ramification descriptive the speaking, Generally deploy definition. a specified to andseeks concept, ofthe idiosyncrasies on the significance (Brownlee 2004).Thesecond trend, otherthe on handis likelytogive emphasis of basis the on definition its outweighs justification notion’s the whereby disobedience Apologists of this tradition accentuate the contextual or ‘paradigmatic’ dimension of civil to definitionthe term the of andis inclined frameto in it a ‘minimal’ sense(Hall 1971). attitude Thefirst reluctant trend displays arather conduct. disobedient on theliterature within ways in which civil isdelimiteddisobedience conceptually, are there kindstwo of propensity the of terms In action. political of type peculiar this of aspects thedefinitional of discussion The centrality of the definitional aspects of civil disobedience as regards to violence the entails disobedience civil of notion the of analysis theoretical in-depth An C HAPTER 1: A XIS OF D EFINITION 6 : A N O UTDATED P ROBLEM ? CEU eTD Collection governments, however they cannot be considered as stigmas of civil disobedience, instead disobedience, of civil be asstigmas considered cannot they however governments, follows that such resistant sit-ins,of freedom protest, in boycott demonstrations, rides, rentstrikes.public It spaces or actions also target at a particular civil disobedience. law, policy of example an as labeled be or can measure sanctions governmental of implementation or law a of exercise of the policy, of state a singular application is at aimed that action of subversive every episode not that fact the highlight to literature bias the within is acommon there Actually, practice. this peculiar of be regardedasarepresentative cannot what accentuating by disobedience of resistant from types isseparated mannerwhereby other phenomenon arerelated tothe disobedience the challenge ofcivil aspects oncertain thearguments most of Infact, isit not. conceive what to first of laws and policies. It is another state. the of sanctions the in challenging tactics and motivations wayobjectives, varying to the to define according notion the elaborate will I There disobedience. civil of types different or describe The finalto the bededicated will section itextensively. thesecondoneapproaches whereas civil sense limited ina term the of elaboration the refers to one first the Basically, disobedience. on civil perspectives versus comprehensive narrow to call as the I want what delineating in some respects are similar authority that butstate encountering of instances various of preclusion the begin with essentially different from civil as civil identify face practice austerity the to disobedience. particular any disobedience. Then, excessively multiplied, would is one or of conceptover-specified descriptive elements the I will proceed byengagedlegally init, judicially.and at But same the time, Iwould alsonote if that the A typical differentiation is established between civil disobedience and several forms andseveral civil disobedience between isestablished A typical differentiation understandBefore tryingcivil whatissospecial to itisabout disobedience, plausible 1.1 Exclusive Definition: What isnot civil disobedience? For my own purposes, I will structure the chapter in the following way. First, I will 7 CEU eTD Collection phenomenon of ‘conscientious objection/refusal’. It is usually referred to the rejection of rejection the to referred is usually It objection/refusal’. ‘conscientious of phenomenon be identified cannot still but laws existing to objects morality, to an adherence of sort some by stimulated one’s asopposition to state authority. There might be a other occasions where an civillyindividual is disobedient. withintercourse themselves” (Francis 1981, 18-21). inclined moral by“asense; aninner voice; inor the words Arendt,of menHannah having Oneis substantially but motives, have to political have notnecessarily does person the that exampleby further morality. saying with Hegoes concordance of apersonal matter and conscience a is of disobedience civil Francis, Mark to According laws. such the breaking for reasons moral some he possesses instances but concerns such by motivated not does disobedient a civilly act, the in involvement unfairthe by typified from aimed or very toadvantage the expected according would are activities criminal whereas Secondly, 671). 1961, (Brown itself” be disobedience civil the as crime such no is “there that underline to necessary is it law, a of violation the to due crime of features contains term the although all, of First activity. criminal simple from disobedience (Cohendisobedient” 1971, 4). radical,vehement, “however matter not does it Namely, place. first in the law of orviolation be a should extraordinarythere disobedience, ascivil action political aninsurgent characterize to in order Therefore, is one’s freedom expansion (Cohen inappropriate the argumentspeech of of 1969,167-175). protest, the of because or among, choices make could dissidents the that alternatives of absence the if heof because either doeschallenge, disobedient of examples as labeled be cannot but communication not break the groups broader such of In otherwords, political to casesbelong 1969, 100-101). law he has freedom into general bethe (Taylor of they of category expression subsumed only could not been However, it is terminologically not sufficient to highlight the virtue of morality in morality of virtue the highlight to sufficient not is terminologically it However, civil separates that one distinction, laws another raises the breaching The idiom of 8 CEU eTD Collection or policies; while civil disobedience is an appeal to the reformation or replacement of replacement or reformation the to appeal an is disobedience civil while policies; or laws asetof unlimited to state, of the structure the radically alter to seek primarily Such acts legalthe by order way ofviolently its terms obliterating of operation (Rawls 1983, 365-369). identical type of political resistance, they are usually performed to more extensively oppose to and same to the connote not might terms these that fact the aside Setting action. militant or permitting opening or way the general to nullification” (Walzer 1970,136-137). service’without refusalsits of it‘personal policies”can “tolerate from easily out carrying of groups of men to become“theHall refusal sense,since In that (Cohen1971, ‘within framework’ 1971). alegal totally state servants, officialsit inhas already been would objector whereby breaksomenot countries, the anylaw butact or soldiers,mostimportantly, conscientiousdoes objection can be recognized as legala right of the citizens,not as prevent the constitution stateof a ‘commonly shared conception of justice’ among the members of society. But main besubversion should beinclined has by whose a political concern to rationality the not have to rely on a political motivation or to invoke issues of social justice, disobedient does refusal conscientious whereas that notes He objection. andconscientious disobedience personal appeal buthasbe consideredto for all aresubjectwho tothatlaw (Parla 2008, 96). Though, some may also argue thatdemand be to held exemptfrom executionthe of thisthe oranotherlaw 2007). (Lefkowitz refusal of military serviceit a is personal but primarily conscription, law of very the problematize necessarily not does should not be limited to a 154). For the sake of theby in WRI & WarResisters’ the 1921 (Speck established International Friedrich 2008, 153- discussion, it is WorldWar pioneered First the after especially becamepopular salient refusal onits debates the but to emphasize in introduced French the Revolution first after 1798, compulsory military which was service that conscientious objection A final disanalogy is referred to what is called as revolutionary upheavals, rebellions upheavals, revolutionary as is called what to is referred disanalogy A final In A Theory of Justice of A Theory Rawls (1983) stresses another point of (1983)stresses Rawls of between another point difference civil 9 CEU eTD Collection generate a widespread sense of indignation throughout the society, which might seize a might society, which the throughout indignation of sense awidespread generate might disobedience civil of instance An situations. in some permeable become may lines demarcation the terminological that mentioning isitat same worth the time, But relatives. mechanism legitimate. entirethe rules as of acknowledge presumptively that disobedience civil of limits the extends resistance political general legitimacy of the political system to which they were subject. Therefore, their itobligation”is believeIn otherwords, (Lyons hardto 1998,40). that they did the recognize Gandhi, Kinghaveto or regardedthe support justpoliticalprevailing system as sufficiently to Thoreau, for reasonable been have not would “it sense, this In level. systemic the at change segregation racial of system Crow Jim and the with problem King’s and white rule, colonial the to opposition supremacy, Lyons chattel slavery, Gandhi’s to claims, subversion Thoreau’s of their conducts. character disobedient was about the necessitynone argues that of them be the can regardedascivil notwithstanding disobedience of a fundamental In hison of article disobedience. civil threecases, DavidLyons (1998) these illuminative disjuncture, however, itis quite questionable whether their stance is suitable for the taxonomy last the Rethinking resisters. disobedient civilly of examples typical the as Jr. King, disobedienceHenry todemonstrate Mohandas K. David Thoreau, and Gandhi Martin Luther civil of literature the in tendency a common is It disobedience. civil of definition the of terms insurgent do groups not recognize its legitimacy at all. movements aim eradicateto the entire body of governmental authority on the grounds that the revolutionary In otherwords, 2007,204-205). (Lefkowitz thestate lawsparticular of These endeavors clearly help one not to confuse civil disobedience with its conceptual its with disobedience civil confuse to not one help clearly endeavors These in significant very is distinction final this account, into history in cases certain Taking of system laws of which larger the that one reject to is averyintend small means part any by (Cohen not does he 1971, it, 44-45). with comply to refuse even may civil disobedientmay vigorously condemn somelaw orpolicy those authorities institute, and revolutionary doesnot, accept the general legitimacy of the established authorities. While the The essential difference between the two lies in this: the civil disobedient does, while the 10 CEU eTD Collection disobedience, which is more than breaking the laws in ‘non-revolutionary and justifiable’ and in ‘non-revolutionary laws the breaking than more is which disobedience, question. InRex Martin’s whatwords, is atstake is merely not butcivil disobedience a just sensible or 1971, 55). law”(Hook violate to good greater the of interests in the may benecessary itsometimes strongly: moreit to obey unjust laws, we are under nomoral obligation always to obey a justlaw. One can put hisAccording strikingly “not to view,only moral skeptical no are weunder obligation always (1971)proposes remarkable suggestions. most the Hook direction,one of that Sidney Ithink that To (Walzer 1967). occasions disobey incertain laws the ‘obliged’ to are whether people is relevant to ask whether there is also a‘duty’ of civil disobedience (Thoreau 1962) or necessary interrogate to in wayswhat the political duty isobligation of overridden. Indeed,it is it civilly of obedience refusal the implies term asthe However, perspectives. with different many come are thoroughly,postulated there of up accounts that political although obligation is state of the laws the comply with to citizens of duty ageneral inwhich ways the excavate individualsis whoaresubject tothem. and thepurpose It beyond limits of study to this and ofthe state rules between the binding relationship it a terms,assumes broad very concept. precludedcivil what is it isnot, disobedience toconsider time the inclusive of elements the in life could by bereal situations treated more analytical having appropriate Now, tools. projections empirical its also but disobedience civil of justification philosophical the only not the final analysis, however, such distinctions contribute to a methodological vantage, whereby resentments of wider range of citizens that could turn intoan episode of civil disobedience. In attract might refusal conscientious case of a end.the Similarly, at character revolutionary As a matter of fact, it is important to underscore the bifurcated nature of the concept in of nature concept the thebifurcated it tounderscore is offact, important As amatter The answer question this of entails rethinking of obligation. conceptof the political In 1.2 Inclusive Definition: What iscivil disobedience exactly? 11 CEU eTD Collection There might be some reasons as to why it is better to narrow the definition of of definition civil the narrow to why itis better asto bemight reasons some There it wouldthe investigatebe However, thesis. this of afurther step to firstdefinition. trend haveof aside justification is andthus chapter, he would meantbymoral part atthis put what of an immoral ingredientmaking it unlikely beto justified. sort impliessome which act, as a featured willcriminal be his/her conduct argues, law, Hall law (Hall1971,15).Unlessindividual has dissenter the amoral for breakingreasoning the Presumably, the disobedientas a civilly person disobedient.must havequestion by what kind ofmotivation he/she has to bein inclined toidentifyorder person the a moral justificationHall’s rightly in the a law mind.Onemight ask dueto breaksthat certain motivation disobedience response for civil in theengages who person the violation that wouldway a such in another or way in one violated be to has raise of the the secondsubversion element of state authority mustof be illegalthe in the definition.first configuration civil the of key containsdisobedience two Thiselements. idiosyncratic place. In this respect, a particular law the Accordingly, of term. the definition T. Hall’s Robert (1971) Itake civil disobedience of account minimalist the of Asrepresentative the of phenomenon. the ingredients conceptual disobedient. civilly practice subversive a makes what circumscribing of aim particular a with axis initial the to attention pay Iwill thisAt point, chapter. in second the willbe construed The latter other axis is related to the conditions under which an act of civil disobedience can be justified. whereas the conduct, disobedient civilly of the peculiarities the to refers this contemplation if it laws, hasexists, one tospecify kind what isunderdisobedience of axisof scrutiny. One terms (Martin Hence,1970, 123-125). whilementioning about obligation the not to obey the As I mentioned earlier, the problem of justification will be touched in the second in the be touched will justification of problem the earlier, mentioned I As One way of Narrow1.2.1 Account drawing the boundaries of civil disobedience is to minimize the 12 CEU eTD Collection (Brownlee 2004, 338). Conscientiousness(Brownlee 2004,338). toapsychologicalrefers condition within which the amend removelaw to authorities or aim that persuadetheresponsible with ultimate an to law a against protest his/her demonstrates individual dissident the whereby ‘communication’, will not, disobedience or of depend onthecomponent ‘conscientiousness’ and civil as casecounts the not Whether or criteria. certain to according them explore and label a particular to casemethodology as an different epitome a employs she of Nonetheless, the grievance. phenomenon. political of exemplars other She proposes to focus on each case is itandisdisobedience what not. refuses to give a comprehensivedisobedience, Kimberley Brownlee (2004) holds a similar but aslightly differentdefinition attitude. She of the term with rigid implicationswould becreated. of what civil confusion a lead category.whereby inflation to This terminological would a superfluous anotherintroduce to necessary itwould be bedisobedience, civil as cannot considered linguistic eachand1971, 17).For difficulties” someevery (Hart action dueto that respect produces concept “on the restrictions further second place, Inthe action as civil disobedience. day,it an impasse lead would to wouldsituation itimpossiblewhere bealmost identify to any disobediencebecause just over-specification the of of publicity Attheendelement. of the pay Thoreau’s refusal to poll the moral tax on couldgrounds be not recognized as civil such as practice thatacts inthe sense disobedient of justification moral the would undermine definition.says,further nonviolent qualifications place, being first he as such publicthe or In adding propertiesfor to the rationales not other two Hall Basically, offers disobedience. By no means, she wants to say that one cannot distinguish civil disobedience from civil notion of the to approach builda paradigmatic up to article seeking In arecent other types of dissent such as conscientious objection, terrorism and revolutionary action revolutionary (Brownlee and 2004, 339). terrorism objection, conscientious as such dissent of and types other disobedience civil between lines sharp draw to possible not is it of forms, dissent variety their a and takes of reasons variety a for dissent political undertake people however, Since, 13 CEU eTD Collection prefers to add toaminimalist prefers to components of other definition civil disobedience. it In of toexpandisthis concept. the borders better sense,Carl disobedience, the Cohen can encompassinginattain It be order to manner. arguedthat a precisedefinitionofcivil which mightsatisfy concept, rejoin question. this to the of account comprehensive the with me continue let controversy, this on more arguing Although it suffices to accord with the narrow account, disobedient. civilly is a ithe is hardis whether to say question the Now, that he society. isin the one. Beforeredistribution and various communicates with by social and actors political problems raising of appealing to morality and social justice. It is quite legitimate to say thathe is conscientious Thereby, violates person lawsprotectingthe the Buthe property rights. can defend himself by impoverished in todistributenumber themto from property order of dwellers. a residents one can suppose a typical situation involveswhere a person in aseries of theftstealing private instance, For epitomes. its being from far are but disobedience civil of qualifications minimal examples of as it. cases certain analyze to However,impossible almost it make would that point nodal in a culminate it is also highly probable to imagine some cases, its particularities. rather excavating and which of a caseby character generalizations avoiding meet the claims that this kind of a ‘paradigmatic’ approach could better reveal the civilly disobedient Brownlee In a nutshell, 346). (Brownlee 2004, community international the certain extent a the publicandto addressing state, constitutes the disobedient civilly the dialogue to the that disobedience and willingness breachto the laws. Communication, on the other hand, indicates to thereasonsfor to their commitment adducing and‘serious’ are‘sincere’ dissenters It is also possible to respond to the question what civil disobedience is, in a more in a is, disobedience civil what question the to respond to possible is also It Comprehensive Account 1.2.2 might disobedience civil of aspects definitional the of duplication the that admit I 14 CEU eTD Collection an intolerable whichan intolerable shouldact, be by stateand punished which shouldthe accept person the is hold byclaiming punishment.A numberof position disobedience a strict theorists civil that (Hall A 1991,Razcertain is similar1971, Morreall 1991). division about observable extent for permissibilitya violence the whereas deny some to presumption others this and argue of be1965, Rucker1966), (Pech 1969,Prosch non-violentfor to disobedience prerequisite civil is a it that argue some violence, to As regards concepts. these to respect with strands two is intodivided literature them. Basically, about some the giving remarks preliminary is worth it in detail, chapter third in the discussed be will matters both Although, punishment. it problemcomes and violence tothe of controversial becomesquite when discussion the disobedient. actcivilly makes one’s notbreaking a law as such but disobeying that law or a legal sanction imposed on citizens that also agovernmental organizations other itispolicy suchas‘profit-makingor corporations’, law, but aparticular benecessarily haveto not does disobedience civil of objective the that claim Cohen’s Notwithstanding disobedience. civil signifies which act, illegal the of objective very the is it that, than important more But above. thief conscientious the of example inlacks theimaginary aspect that significant addsa This qualification (Cohen 1971, 16-17). is doing” he what hide to unlikely “very is person the Hence, known”. be widely act unlawful deliberately is sincepublic it private not gain but which public good, “requires his that be has to law of the violation the that argues also Cohen law. However, the breaking is worth it that extent such to act his/her of rightness in the believes honestly he/she that some form of injustice. He also admits that the person should be conscientious in the sense individual,disobedient is tobreak supposed who law the willingly and knowingly against indicatingprotest ofinconvenience asignificant degree andsacrifice on partof the the There are also other issues that are mentioned in the realm of in therealm Especially, are mentionedof definition. issuesthat other alsoThere are Accordingly, he admits that acts of civil disobedience should contain the element of 15 CEU eTD Collection statutes, who are supposed to engage in civil disobedience. Burton responds whoaresupposedtoengageZwiebach in(1975) statutes, Burton disobedience. civil be resort. last has an to the appeal disobedience of civil acquiesce isair itin Hence hard to stepsto legal that assumption the dissent. the perfectone in sense,the urgency that and deepness of evilmightrequirethe skippingintra- not every legal framework grants the same quality of systemic resolution, and even if things, it is a other Among one. first the than convincing be more to seems exposition second The means of display (Raz1991,161-162). disobedience by encourage to people their opposition could that effectiveness of short fall also may they However, resentment. citizens’ voice waysto might provide certain system legal direction.argue in The opposite the possible to 1971,methods of is 58).Butit complained theremedying ofareavailable” (Hook evil also formulates it clearly, “resort to civil disobedience is never morally legitimate where other existingthrough legal canjustifiably resort tocivilchannels As not. or disobedience Hook grievance express their to try not who did whether those as to resort’ last asa disobedience exhaustion of the legal remedies of the injustice occurred. This raises the problem of the ‘civil Oneof is consideration dissidentactors. the visibleliterature that goes the inthe around postulation the gazeto the turn for the discussion isto it relevant also practice. Nevertheless, aspects of civilagents who disobeydisobedience the laws of the state. and So phenomenon. the of literature tothe contribute in to order attitude necessary far, to I triedcover almost is an to disobedience civil to encapsulatein relation punishment and what violence of reevaluation mightthe methodological be make Ithink,(Farrell These diversifications, itclearan in-depth 1977, Zinn 1997). that the object punishing the person and itacceptingis nota necessary of forcondition civil disobedience that subversiveinescapably Woozley 1969,Greenawalt 1976),whileit(Cohen 1991, is claimed that also The other consideration posits the question whether it is thequestion it The otherconsideration posits whether only victims of the particular very the interrogates ofcivildisobedience scope the concerning A further question 16 CEU eTD Collection rather than just, than rather highlight yield likeliness tothe to democracies of grievances among their place.take to disobedience threshold of a certainproduce justconsequences. the unjust toHence, systemsnotions of rule isthat arealsopotent degree of justice implication these of operates Another bymeans of disobedience. legitimacy its total recognizing as to put a minimumsystemically anditproblematic challengewould to be opaque oneaspect of rulethe while requirement for embodimentcivil of civil disobedience under tyrannical and despotic rules. For such regimes are just’. as‘piecewise makessense civil where geography disobedience social Andrewcharacterizes364). Endorsing the 1983, (Rawls account, Sabl (2001) asimilar by entity hesays,isademocratic definition ofa just’ boundaries society the which, ‘nearly submissionsuggests this thatthe of canonlybeconceptualized kindto within political action Rawls instance, For ofcivildisobedience. occurrence precede the that context political and of role tothe social refer writers some place. Indeed, takes which civil disobedience 1975, 158). (Zwiebach doso” to havehe an obligation may circumstances, inappropriate laws: repressive non-victim who does notby He goesfurtherbinding a that 156). not binding (Zwiebach claiming anyone” 1975, is on directlynon- is “which says, he sufferlaw”, “A day. the of end the at population whole the for from but society repression “has the of segment morefor aparticular situation a problematic notonly itrender operation does than a right to disobeyto this in question basically way.a negative if argues He isin law that unjust there an democraticuse term the prefers to RussellBertrand (1969) direction,similar In a negate the just’ or‘piecewiseto actually areformulated The notionsjust’ ‘nearly under conditions socio-political the about talk briefly to want I section, this in Finally piecewise just 2001, (Sabl 311-312). In group. orderoppressed or for excluded an civilwith dealings disobediencein all, if at degree, small to avery to make practiced sense, the society in which it is practicedbe mustpracticed be at least perfectlyA piecewise just society is one in which justice is prevalent – indeed, itmay in the limit case or almost perfectly – in relations within a powerful ‘in’ group, but is 17 CEU eTD Collection political participation in a liberal state. He claims that the recognition of the citizens’ the of recognition the that claims He state. liberal a in participation political justify breaking it” (Raz 1991,166). politicalOne’s to is, activity right by hypothesis, by adequately can law.protected It never participation. political to right general a from derives which disobedience, civil to right no be can Herethere state. ina liberal Raz, “reversed to is”according “The case andjustified. right laws,no while is such there break right although asto lawsinliberal the can be state so doing by law. Therefore, he says, individuals of an illiberal state have the moral right to such arefirmly protected aliberal rights of disobey supervision state whereas under the participation; the state from anhavingbreak the rightto the laws. put itin To way, another todistinguish Razwants liberal illiberalperspective of morality justice.or However, being justifiable isnot equal in histo, eyes, one that failsdisobedience isjustifiable circumstances, under whichare not defendable from the to guaranteecivil that laws,break Razadmits the to reasons legitimate have peoplecould fact that people’s reminiscent of onhaving conventional the debate rightthe and of Invirtue being the right. legal he makes a distinctionrights between rightful disobedience and the rightnot to obey the laws. Itis such as politicalchapter. next in in more detail the willbeconstrued disobedience and civil relationship between democracy hidden intentions unavailable public the thatare Atany to (Russell the 1969, 155-157). rate, the uncovering in helpful very be would initiative a disobedient situations, such In armament. nuclear as such issues about citizens their inform not may governments such exemplifies, forliberties higherinstance, the sakeof enhancing values Russell For and of democracy. governments of democratic disobey policies undemocratic to makes itreasonable that quite may principles democratic notsucceedinexercising thatdemocraticnotes states He citizens. As a response to Raz’s argument, Lefkowitz interrogates the protection of the right to Basically of political regime. to thesort approach adifferent takes Joseph Raz(1991) 18 CEU eTD Collection provisional on the basis of motivation it can be basison the of motivation motivation and tactics. On the basis of objectives, civil disobedience can be can disobedience civil objectives, of basis the On tactics. and motivation in of are not same their objectives, the terms that of practice the varieties encapsulates offered. distinctions the of adequateness the on elaborate and disobedience civil of taxonomies the speak about Iwantto in chapter, As afinalstep this societies. incontemporary disobedience of civil peculiarities the of rethinking significance the designates its preconditions as on aswell its characteristics viewson variety of The of disobedience. civil features definitional moral right to disobey there. a be not will there still that assumption the on insists Raz why clear not is it society, liberal metin are a latter for the conditions if sufficient However, latter. precedethe necessarily not does former The other. each from in disobedience right being and to right moral the having it is questions.Inthisof distinguish disobedience arehighly civil respect, necessary to related chapter. At the moment, though, it is worth mentioning that the moral right toand justification substantive democracy be will with discussed together issue the justification inof thenext them, of which latter is the not recognized as (Lefkowitza right 2007,212-213). breaking laws the and make between compels to obeying one achoice liberal state Raz’s he says, However, subjects. state’s the of rights moral basic are which of both disobedience’, civil constrained ‘suitably he calls that disagreements of amalgamation the entails also it suchas notbut voting, minimum only procedures democratic encapsulates participation As mentioned earlier, the descriptive dimension of civil disobedience also disobedience civil of dimension descriptive the earlier, mentioned As 1.3 Forms ofCivil Disobedience The discussions above indicate the fact that it is not an easy task to depict the of expansion the to contribution its and disobedience civil of functionality The or ultimate . These are the most commonly proposed classifications that I observed moral or 19 political , and on the basis of tactics it can be direct or indirect , CEU eTD Collection subsequent conduct” (Cohen 1971, 58). It aims to achieve certain political consequences such It aims consequences (Cohen to achieve 58). certain political subsequent conduct” 1971, influence their to intended atlargeand community membersthe the of addressed to “specifically is disobedience political hand, other the On interests. public highlight not maymay law. in that It removal or of an or amendment necessarily lawpropose not the does obeying of rejection the of the law.Therefore, content the with compliance the with conflict come in that concerns some ethical has law.He/she of the sanctions the with confrontation legalof procedures protest. framework of civil disobedience – violation of another law such as those regulating which be directlyarmament cannot –within opposition the requires the violated to and nuclear on those as such policies or laws some isthat variation this behind reason plausible most The forbidden(Zwiebach 1975,181). oradvances of rights” itsupports a deprivation in itself objectionable,it butis likelyalso “that thelaw isin factbeing used insuch a way that be not mightlaw violated the disobedience, as‘interdictive’ calls Zwiebach caseof what the laws. In unrelated be two should there that mean necessarily not itdoes But is violated. that law the from is different resistance, disobedient shows individual the which against policy, or In thelaw instrumental stands inwords, other objectof position an protest. the concerning the broken law the in which situation the to refers disobedience civil indirect hand, other the On belaw 31). it itself immoral” (Hall is 1971, to legal of (if a case application injustice) that of lawhe the law the or considers violates, since in agent “the that violates directly question, injustice, on accounts of obey or sanctions.he/shea moral its and refusesto reason Thereby, itself the objectof (Cohen protest” the 1971, 52). The dissident citizen problematizeslaw the extent they are adequate. towhat evaluate and to, refer distinctions these what frame briefly will I follows, what In literature. in the To come to a second variation, moral disobedience is about the individual’s personal is broken law deliberately “the situation where the to refers civil disobedience Direct 20 CEU eTD Collection political authority on the basis of a politico-moral motivation, which can be achieved by achieved be can which motivation, politico-moral a of basis the on authority political to subvert attempt isaconscientious disobedience iscivil emphasize to that The point andchangingmotivations, objectives thatcan be tactics in intermingled occasions. certain the to they instead adduce distinctions, very clear-cut Thesearenot of state. statutes the their dissent, or whether they are informed about these means or not. show means to necessary the them provides framework legal whetherthe matter no channels the injustice, the of perception their on Depending preference. a tactic-wise a factual than situation to related citizens might choose of remedying legal the injustice through channels. This distinction, Ithink, hasto beless to testify oris nochance there fact that besure of the can what extentone askto to beelse legitimate it would to ignore point, At this ultimate. is disobedience the remedy legal a of the apossibility even or availabilityexpectation of legalin suchsituations is immediate.provisional On or hand, other the there where isno such by citizens.is Disobedience issue dissident the constitutional objected that vindication the of inmight a be that T.Hall Robert cases there of apossibility argues resort. last certain (1971) Basically, the distinction refers to the aforementionedwith each other that it is not reasonable toseparate them as to refer to two distinctforms. intermingled much so are disobedience civil of aspects discussion political and moral the think, I Hence, of civil disobedience aswell. citizens law for other of the non-application the necessarily notrequest who does as a objector asaconscientious behaves law,the in he removal of achange or demand necessarily moral disobedience is different from conscientious objection. Indeed, if the person does not Thisgrounds. seemsdistinction tobe itis in problematic not sensethatthe clear in what ways beyond and confrontation thepersonal goes merely with authority ethical political on as the of abandonment law in the Itconsiders ofjustice issues question. andpublic interest Different forms of civil disobedience indicate multiple ways of civilly disobeying the disobedience. is between A further distinction and ultimate suggested provisional 21 CEU eTD Collection dedicated to a thorough elaboration of considerations. elaboration these a thorough to dedicated in widening one’s comprehension how civildisobedienceof crucial is polity the of maps political and social the to contribute can it sense what in grasping Having apicture of reasonsthe and the waysin which civil can disobedience be justified, and functionality. and justification of problem the matter: subject the to central also is which andit violence however, punishment, and will further bea step to talka second issue, about punishment areatthat thecenter of the ongoing discussions. and violence theexcavate problem of to in order first place, civil inthe disobedience to is peculiar what isit necessary indeed,understand subject, thesis’ the of In terms practically. civil disobedience from other kinds of resistance, Ithink, is more useful both theoretically and distinguish that lines clear having analysis, final the At obligation. political of perceptions such debatesitis jejune argue to civilthat philosophical is disobedience an outdated Atany problem. rate, its in of even definition coverterms that show to debatesItried the On thecontrary, defined. stillmeansmy intention issue settlein ways on down the whichcivil disobedienceto canbe the warrantwas by it. It is nospecial about highlight what so its to terms descriptive canalsospecify one or phenomenon, the to related issues other on concentrate and level minimum a a at definition cautiousphilosophically framing the idiosyncrasies of typethis of action.political One can keep the approximationinitial in Obviously,is in common foremost pattern stage. discussions nosingular that there togetherresort.last a or initial an as authorizations, its against reacting illicitly but indirectly or violating directly with the transforming Before getting deep into the analysis of the relationship between civil civil disobedience between relationship analysis the into the of getting deep Before far, delineatedSo theconceptual I boundaries by ofcivil the disobedience raising 22 works . The next chapter is CEU eTD Collection punishment. However, this realm of discussion is by no means far from means far from by nodeepcontroversies. is discussion thisrealm However, of punishment. rejoincursory question to the violence permissibility of inescapability the andof of be itwould significant; is politically it terms in what and justified, is disobedience civil violence andUnlessis punishment. it examined thoroughly howand under whatconditions universe of polity.the necessary is itTherefore, also (Arendt76). away 1972, it” toget with himself and for to an exception see in what The sake of refusesperson “not a group”. make toobey because heas individual to an wishes waysthe for and name in the “acts civil words, Arendt’s in Hannah disobedient” civil “The policies. disobedience individual issupervision the and samethe setof population rules whole under citizen. The of contributes to the social and political the appeal is appeal the beyondgoes concept justifiability because the of Indeed,the matter disobedience. apersonal is disobedience civil which insurgentcitizens is mainfact, this question two Thefirsttothemanner is built one tenets. upon related which of As a matter ways be it justified? in can what circumstances, certain under disobedience duty civil the of have If angel. people from reverse the thesamequestion warrants laws of state, the nottoobey particular and obligation eventhe right the which concedes disobedience, civil of theory A it? behind justification philosophical is the what state, the of its subjects. The fundamental question is: if there is a is there if is: question fundamental The subjects. its of the citizen complyto with the rules of the state and the state’s right torestrict the actions of Justification and functionality are two variables that are vital to the problem of The problem of justification is also closely linked to the functionality of civil It is one of the main concerns of the theories of political obligation to justify the duty C HAPTER civil , what is problematic in a particular law or policy cannot only affect an affect only cannot policy or law particular in a is problematic what , justify 2: A their disobedient act. The other one refers to the conditions under XIS OF justifiable J USTIFICATION AND USTIFICATION . 23 prima facie prima F UNCTIONALITY obligation to obey the laws CEU eTD Collection general moral duty to obey laws because they are seen as “unnecessary and likely to intensify to likely and “unnecessary as seen are they because laws obey to duty moral general argumentation in favor of disobedience. According to the of types three of evaluation the upwith Haagcomes point. reference as the den Haag(1972) state. of the statutes particular to when they disobey ascribe insurgent citizens the that sources legitimate the explicate likely is to tradition The other philosophical in approaches exposeetiological general, which forgrounds civil disobedience. main lay traditions in the foreground of Thefirst debate. this one is relatedto the two disobedience, and political obligation of literature In the act. asarightful disobedience normally morally (Simmonswrong” 2005, 55).Actually, aremany there ways justify to civil isillegal presumptionconduct background the “against that person acts ‘defense’ sincethe is of aform conduct disobedient of justification the sense, law. Inthis the for breaching will whereby disobedience, chapter the be finalized. civil and democracy of mutuality the on elaborate also will part This society. the of members other the and citizens those between also but authorities, political the and citizens insurgent the between only not forrelationship the dialogical apparatus as acommunicative concept of thefunction the issueof on the touch Iwill Thirdly, practice. asajustifiable disobedience civil thatwould make of conditions the interrogation befollowed bythe section will This act. their justify to in order themselves subscribe citizens disobedient the that appeal austerities. expositional these uncover willserveto also chapter the respect, Especially, arguments onjustifiability seem repeatto themselves around circular ideas. In this In my effort tocover the etiological rationales forcivil disobedience, Itake Ernest van 2.1.1 Philosophical Approaches reasons legitimate to offer protester the compels of illegality civil disobedience The 2.1 Methods ofJustification of sources the about Iwill talk first, way: inthe following proceed will The chapter 24 anarchist argument, there is no is there argument, CEU eTD Collection justifiability of civil disobedience as a means of showing dissent and call for remedy. At any At remedy. for call and dissent showing of means a as disobedience civil of justifiability the rule out not itdoes as constitutional, governmentby this enacted law proclaim a particular and whichpower; it democraticcame to even if through as regardstothe processes courts the legitimate is totally ifthegovernment even is The pointthat chapter. in previous the society 21). Actually,is demeanor this discussion reminiscent of the just’ ‘nearly Rawlsian the of argument that he calls as right tocivil (Haag1972,20). disobedience in by participate then be lawmakingprocess”, the obligation binding the will obliterated the have no legitimate ways to freely elect or oust the government by majority citizens if “the or vote, i.e.,another, or to way in one legitimacy its forfeits government the If legitimate. is words, conditional.other one isbounded In rules tothe itis governmentaslongthe of as This way of thinking themoral acknowledges obey butobligation to laws,the recognition this first chapter. first to obey is lawthe atoddswith particularisticthe nature of civil mentioneddisobedience inthe theduty of negation aggregate the since is awkward also argument the Ithink, disobedience, individual and social inautonomy longthe run.Bearing inmind the definition of civil expand to help but diminish not might laws certain least at with compliance Moreover, assumptionshuman nature that about cannotbe evidentially. orrefuted substantiated isits linein this quiteNevertheless, terms of problematic Haagobjects, argument of as choices. moral own their make to individuals allowing autonomy of appraisal the prefers claim anarchist authority, the the recognizing of Instead 15). reduce” (Haag1972, to verythe inefficiency,injusticeevils –coercion, oppression,conflict, and sufferingare –they Stretching a problem with the legitimist view, Haag introduces Stretching view,Haag introduces the legitimist thirdthe wave of with aproblem The second line of argumentation Haag describes is the so-called isthe describes Haag argumentation line of The second the argument for limitationofalllegitimate authority argument for the 25 legitimist (Haag 1972, (Haag approach. CEU eTD Collection act, rule out legal justification completely? I would hesitate to say yes immediately. In some say In hesitateto immediately. yes Iwould legalcompletely? justification rule act, out illegal isan civil thefactthat disobedience Does legality. interpretation of a different due to there could there justice, or moral reasons to adherence the is due to context in a particular civil disobedience conceptions. Hence one cannot justify an illegal act by legal means.matter No how justifiable oxymoron two are unlawfulness and justification legal law of rule the of framework the within Accordingly, phenomenon. illegality of the the accentuates that disobedience politicalbe could there the a question introduces whether action. The most common formulation. simple to the attention argument whenlaws other hand,the interrogates be couldIwill justifiable. civilly First, disobeying pay on answer, all. complicated at The benot satisfactory might reminds and ambiguities serious contains aresponse such below, clarified be will it As disobedience. civil of justification his in of use us the veryquestion. The simple answer puts forward the sources of legitimacy one person definitioncould make this way isof answering Inmy anda latter. asimple complicated view,there the overrides former the which under circumstances the to is related be addressed to question central the of civilif in one’s conscience,disobeying most butnotin all cases”At (Haag 1972,23). point,this even if authority,indisobeying atleast some cases, or, moral the duty to obey authority, even follow moral conflict: “the principal one’s duty conscience, into come Hereby, two to duties of state. the judgments the orders and moral one’s between own conflict’ ‘perennial the obligation rate, legitimacy is not sufficient for unconditionally surrendering one’s rights to political The starting point of the discussions about the justification of civil disobedience civil of justification the about discussions the of point starting The 2.1.2 Sources of Ascription from emanates that asaquestion arises disobedience civil nutshell, Haagargues, In a not be a legal justification of it (Cohen 1971, 94). Yet, the answer the would change justification Yet, it(Cohen legal be1971, 94). of a 26 legal basis to justify this peculiar form of CEU eTD Collection complex (Hall carrier” The appraisal1971, 56). of justice,universal of principles or of the criticizing the governmenthas been one ofits perennial features itsthroughout long and “forof thepurpose this heargues, life. Adherenceto doctrine, anacceptable for principles leading the of amalgamation an as rights’ natural of doctrine ‘the raises Hall instance obedience tothatlaw doesnot have morally groundlegitimate anymore (Cohen 1971, 105). law or policy inthe that away in such question be done could It disobedience. civil justify to can principles beconstitutional alleged to be in conflict withis those lower. principles, Atand thusthis the by violated allegedly or by some governmental enactment whose hierarchical an order status point, one couldare that legal institution thearticles higher law of of a positive or the statements recall the raise the presumptions terms. by these meant is what elaborate briefly ofwill I Now a supreme authority such as (1971), such either might(1971), refertoa reasons Carl Cohen to personhasindisobedience.According mind inengagingreasons thatthe civil legitimate morally to refers justification moral word, sense of the broadest law.the the In justification justification. of sources other continue with I wantto moment, at the theargument Setting aside chapter. in next whichthe beelaborated matter, will a controversial becomes also civil disobedience legal’in (Turenne essence 2004). From perspective,that irrevocability the of of punishment could lawfulness be ‘intra- can to it. Orelse,disobedience of justification have alegal to possible make itquite fidelity section, next the in conditions justifiability of discussion the in it sense, civil disobedience does not have to be seen as an external act to law. As I will mention The other way of doing it follows a more abstract and even a theological path. For Ascription to higher law or authority can be employed in two different ways. One can The narrow definition by T. The narrow Hall includedtheaspectof Robert proposed , which should motivate primarily individual disobedientthe in his/herbreaking 27 higher law or authority , or utilitarian motives. moral CEU eTD Collection governmental practice. At the end of the day, civil disobedience will contribute tothe contribute will disobedience civil the day, of end the At practice. governmental of the public in a attention way the take will process This authorities. state the of reactions the to that asregards events the fellow citizens120). will To putrecognize it clearly, the“lead in longthe abetter run to more justor society than wouldhis compliance” (Cohen problematic1971, civil disobedience nature choice of for isthe person notthe to complysaid with the law in questionto since his/her stimulate disobedience would better theconditions for the occurrencesociety than in the case of obedience. In one sense, it is a rational of a chainaccording the dissident to individual not compliance with lawinthe question would generate of that meant is it utilitarian, By community. the of members the for as utilitarian considered of disobedience. civil justification for the rationales concrete person to justifypractical austerity giveto evidence for such principles, it seems quite uneasy for a disobedient his practiceifbemore fully likeideals these were (Hall recognized” 1971, 61).Onof accounts the on thesethey are ordained by God, but simply because of the individual’s vision of grounds.what society would because or rights benatural to areconsidered they because liberty, not or equality, “justice, This raisessuch as ‘humanism’, ‘idealism’ andotherviewsmiscellaneous ideals accentuate that such as the need to search for more laws. by violated they recall present in are where the to difficultthem an occasion itjustice, be would least principles of some at universal of would existence the agreeon solid basis on which the moral justification could take place. In other words, although many a lack of the dueto more beambiguous this would firstpattern, the to comparedHowever, orders of God on a religious basis also constitutes a similar source of moral inspiration. A civilly disobedient person might also appeal to some reasonsterms similar in justification of pattern principled the conceptualize to is possible It that could be 1971, 114). known) apply to concrete withoutcases, resort to some established judicial authority (Cohen reach any objective and reliable judgment about how these laws (supposing their content laws command or forbid(a) Itappears impossible to reach any objective and reliable judgmentwhat about higher the (if there be any higher laws at all); and (b) It appears impossible to 28 CEU eTD Collection own initiative decide what particular law to obey and which one to disobey. However, he disobey. to obey lawone However, which to and particular what initiative decide own by In cannotsense, this his/her one character. authoritative byundermininglawfulness the of faculty very the violates itsince be act ajustifiable cannot civil disobedience that It follows lawfulness.underscoring theideaof the polity,Zwiebach challenges counter-argument (1975) deeply. thedebate more open meanings.two different sakethe For of problem itjustification,is the recallof to worth and context of civil disobedience being rightin non-compliance and having right to do so signify in briefly the chapter, and that touched very upon inprevious argued discussion this the Talking about Raz’s consideration. inpractical makessense negation difference semantic whatthe extent to dilemma as of the moral right to disobedience in liberal societies, civil of disobedience. justifiability conditions the encountering expositions I have possible some excavate will I follows what In justification. of analysis whole the supplement it justifiable’ makesavailable action. totheinsurgentcitizen problem his The undertaking ‘what resistant of ascivil disobedience.the They uncover the politico-philosophical tools andother moral-rational sources side of override itthe by one’s own appeals to it. coin, encountermerits with their also infashion.of publicIndeed,a consequentialist would good governmental authorities own perception thorough of publicshoulders of goodthe disobedient that the is on scrutinyperson. compliance of that than practically greater Itbe is would not an non-compliance of easy payoff the that taskfact for him/her tocomplicates put forward the inidea ordertheimprovement task of the social conditionsto of life. In anyto case, however, the burden of proof of the In his effort to show civil disobedience as a fundamental right of the people in the between The distinction 2.2 Conditions of Justifiability These considerations touch only one side of the coin in terms of the justification of being right and 29 having the right having the poses a critical philosophical poses CEU eTD Collection analysis. But in order to ratify or to assure that the application of the law on the basis of the interpretation is wrong. This would render his/her appeal lawful appeal lawful interpretationhis/her Thiswouldor render iswrong. opposes of interpretation lawthis against traditional his/her with the beliefthat the out that notwithstanding(TurenneIntroducing 2004,381). of concept the ‘intra-legal Turennepoints disobedience’, itisIndeed, argue the law that notobvious basiscanthedisobedient “on what iswrong?” the unlawfulnessposits alsoformulates thatSophie essential the inquestion Turenne (2004) herrecent article. of the actobligatory laws” (Zwiebach 1975, 151). committed, non- its he passing of afunction says, “is to obey a state”, thus “The lackof obligation rules. the disobedient histo raisebe right of limits the bounded politicalauthority the and the obligation to byits hasfall of beingquestion short to ultimately claim againstpersonwill whichthe obligatory, person or immoral does notsuffice tojustify one’s claim disobeyto that law. Accordingly, the law in or a However, question the todecide ashow havingremains when intoturns this right being right sense, it is a right to some obey. In to assert theduty of refusal the de-legitimize would that reasons forceful lack of the certain rights such as equal treatment or freedom of expression. among laws’ and decide to comply or not to comply with them. 149). It is the moral duty of the responsible citizens, he goes on to claim, to ‘pick and choose political authorities “andthus strengthento than rather weaken lawfulness” (Zwiebach 1975, the purpose of civil disobedience “to introduce and reintroduce” the principles ignored by lawfulness argues, theidea of of lawsthe not entailsalso making tobe is arbitrary. It exactly justifiable Nonetheless, his account does not seem to give a satisfactory answer although he answeralthough satisfactory giveseem a not does to his account Nonetheless, asa civil hedisobedience recognizes Thereby, his obedience of moral or civic significance (Zwiebach 1975, 150). obey to withoutlaws abrogating his claim morallyto being a which responsible person and thusdepriving even choosing and picking avoid cannot citizen a standards, appropriate Indeed,on question of the picking and choosing, Iwouldgo further and suggest that,with act of disobedience. To Zwiebach, the mere fact that a law is not supportable alawfactthat mereis not Zwiebach, the To act of disobedience. 30 right , which comes into existence in , which into existence comes intra-legal at the final CEU eTD Collection hardly hardly avoid the impasseformulated by Prosch Harry (1965) in days earlier of discussion.the could they but point, vantage own their have laws such to disobedience one’s legitimize laws, and whatwould particular of property binding the eliminate would what explicating as ajustifiable situation. be considered judges to infront of the opportunity the attain hardcasewill their compliance adduce tothe As cansucceedto plausibility basis. non- longthe justifiable of asthey disobedientcitizens could empowerthemselves in their defensebreaching of the law a on the which under conditions the of indication is her interpretations plausible necessarily interpretation isa interpretation for the rightness of his/her interpretation has the burden of proof to show that this a person argues who She suggeststhat justify particular challenge. would disobedience that civil of means by them of interpretation any that imply not does rights human of fuzziness rights. human of nature’ ‘fuzzy the from empirical situations. In this sense, civil in disobediencerights those of of implementation thein the sort also that variations with sheup end to describes possible make would will benefit newmakeis interpretations, which are to is thatsuchrights open point shethat trying to principles pertain idealsto the underpinning ‘constitutional certain human and/or The rights’. open that lawmore to than oneinterpretation” (Turenne 2004, 382). As amatter of fact, those which and applied currently as law the override view, his in which, principles or principle conventional reading is wrong, she notes, “the disobedient must be able to point to some Zwiebach’s and Turenne’s endeavors to take a forward step with a cautious effort of effort withforward acautious step a totake endeavors andTurenne’s Zwiebach’s Underlyingher perspective ofhuman and rights their todifferentbut openness I admit very notion the that ‘fuzzy’ isaproblematicof view, term. InTurenne’s the and rejected by the courts and that the interpretation is not obviously at odds with the law of law the with odds all at civilized nations” (Turenne 2004, 387). obviously not is interpretation the that and courts the by rejected and entail of the line that argument presented by thedisobedient nothas already confronted been practitioners –agree that the interpretation pursued the by disobedient is plausible. will That require onlyminority that of a members legal ofthe community – academics, judges and plausible one. The plausibility condition should then; 31 CEU eTD Collection the question the justifiabilitymakeinconvenient isof to its generalizations about proper civil disobedience. Althoughwhat he/she it says is by atusing the this very right heartas right.say the ofoneThe has the samethe inalienable isdiscussions true for right justifiability to freedom of speechon beingcivil is conditionsnot theevident samedisobedience, as to inacknowledgeof what ways the first one perennial conflict betweenhavingtransforms rightto and beingin right civil Itisdisobedience. farfrom into the second. To make an analogy, to remainsdisobedience asaquestion. civil of justifiability the Still, laws. particular disobey to is right also but right the would judgments follow from his/her decision come to one’s own only henot has on when in form civil disobedience the of conflict’ ‘perennial to the a resolution Hence, sanctions. which human empowers beings with hold rightthe to aparticularlaw disobey unjustand to its day,he being says, the of end the At intelligence. the of instructions the with intertwined experiences lifelong 1966, 144).Whata personcan isdo tofollow his/her own moral judgments as a product of itputs (1966) quite clearly, “noman ever his/her belief isright belief his/her disobeyingbenolaws thatarealleged unjust, personcan to that guarantee philosophically of rightness in the authorities political responsible the convince to are methods such effective However laws. those of unjustness the prove as to out work never can they processes’, political accepted commonly ‘theoperation and of ofmoral forms argumentative persuasion’ Although he insome acquiesces designate possiblecertain lawsways to asunjustsuch‘the are also sure opponents our ones, on really we haveright fingers the our “even that ifwearesure fact that they have The quintessentialtheir austerity in determining the rightnessfingers of the disobedient act stems from the on the really right ones, too” (Prosch 1965, 109). From what has been reviewed so far, it is hard to overcome the dilemma or the or it dilemma is the far, hard to overcome has so reviewed been From what rational vis a is the foremost wisdom of the human society. Itis this rationality, the logical content of the law in question. As Darnell Rucker knows 32 thatany moral judgmentis (Ruckerright” CEU eTD Collection these multiple variables in a particular case could expedite the process through which it will which through theprocess expedite casecould inaparticular variables multiple these of analysis The forth. so and citizens recalcitrant the by used methods and tactics very the itsimpact perpetual depth and population,injustices on the enacted, it scaleof the caused, the is itin which ways law, the of the content very suchas the parameters avariety of excavate isit From necessary social (Cohen to a perspective, such 1971, 93). context” understood civil disobedience civil not is analysis, careful after unjustifiable, or justifiable, prove may “what supposes thought of line This analysis. of level an empirical to interrogation the carries one first The direction. different a slightly to question the of focus the shift to be would contribution their Instead, ideational tautology. Actually, neither of them is likely to propose an ultimate resolution to it. way. in peculiarlaws of defiance state of the the the that a around tautological axis, wherebeingor justifiable right is impliedalready inhavingright to turns disobedience civil of conditions justifiability the on discussion whole the Therefore, justify an act of civil disobedience, which disobedience, civil of act an justify would that conditions the identify to thing is another it but disobedience, civil of definition itis words, things.signify acondition onething In other to thenecessary of element as the different are, by its with two that justifiability definition, a concept a definitional paradigm of 1971).it(Brown 1961, Hook However, Iwouldlogical object, be a equalize fallacy to bejustifiable considered as not could non-compliance disobedient penalties and accepting preconditions for a justifiable civil disobedience in the sense that in the absence non-violence them as juxtapose seekto theoreticians of A number difficulty. this of preponderance non-obligatory ones, just as justifiable disobedience fromfrom laws non-justifiable obligatory one. distinguish strictly to test litmus generic is no there Indeed, conditions. In broadest sense of the word, I think, there are two possible ways to deal with this The entering of violenceThe enteringinto and of the picturesimplify would punishment alsonot the überhaupt , but this or that act of civil disobedience in a given and well a priori a 33 meets the requirements of the definition. CEU eTD Collection in the first place. These refer to “politically oriented interest groups, andinterest specialized other “politicallyin oriented firstplace. the Theserefer to (1972), messagePaul F. dissentersthe senda striking Power ‘conventional oppositions’ tothe to According ways. of number in a elites political with a communication into enters resistance disobedient system, political the by produced injustice the Indicating elites. political all. thisabove question it address is to necessary disobedience, of socio-politicalthe geographies of polity?the tobetterunderstand Inorder virtue the of civil betterment the serve to disobedience civil could ways in what But life. societal of conditions for the injustice elites political thatadmonishes it since is constructive they disobedience civil arehowever, time same the primarily responsible for, At order. state the against stance toaradical due also butwith action the of illegality terms the of a particular aim to improve the disobedience proposes an proposes disobedience polity.the of agenda socio-political the for of civil positiveeffects the disobedience delineate follows, toviolence bedisobedience what can andentail Iwill related In punishment. discussion violence by of and punishment way of solidifying basisthe on civil which the to contribute also will It justifiable. is it precisely when say exactly not does this although benefits societal the enhance will uncover whycivil disobedience help to could contemplation By publicthe thefunctionality of good. phenomenon,the pattern emphasizing of this in of terms virtues civil theof disobedience wisdom and it to abstraction,butturns gaze the this strategy. on concentrate to this thesis of isitlimits the beyond Nevertheless, is justifiable. act what extentthe decide to be to easier As a political appeal, the foremostimportant interlocutors of civil disobedience are the 2.3.1 Deconstruction andReconstruction On the basis of its various aspects that have been discussed so far, itfar,ishavecivil so discussed that On its clearthat basis been aspects the of various 2.3 Functionality of Disobedience of level the at remains still problem tautological the assuage to way A second alternative way to encounter political Itisin encounter wayto authorities. subversive 34 CEU eTD Collection encourage it turn to something which is, from conservative point of view, worse” (Zwiebach worse” view,of is,from point conservative something which itto encourage turn to but social tension contain to not “is conducts disobedient of proscription the perspective, this From contestation. of ways violent and harsh more hinder and tensions these loosen will disobedience civil society, in a tension’ ‘social or conflict ongoing an is if there that argues engagemembers and Zwiebach (1975) inrebellious anarchic of activities, community the to provoking for disobedience civil condemn that views conservative Encountering society. of the members among resentment increasing in of the terms effect a loosening creates also power-holders, which alienates citizens to the political system they are subject to. concludes, civil encouragesparticipantpoliticaldisobedience culture against the elitism of he political elites, of indifference the to challenge As 1972, 49). a powerful (Power power” by defendpropagated lawyers and to their clients entrenched privilege oligarchical and itmythological device as a “who reject those ‘reeducating’ asof atool operates disobedience authority,alsobut reverence tothe higher values of humanity. In sense,this civil of the of beneficial. Within the political system in general,disobedient conductcanfacilitate enhancing regimethe maintain to its authority” 1972, (Power 48). help “indirectly also may it but regime, the of representatives the to amenable wrongdoing the of correction not tothe it does only contribute Thereby, power. theabuse of itabout reminds and regime of the center the with communicates disobedience civil Powel argues, so, doing By groups. power the to strengthen opposition the to inorder collectively andreact internally organize to situation, problematized can of the torealizehelp seriousness the conduct them disobedient Civilly 44). 1972, (Power regime” the of existence the even or policies statutes, can behavior, legaladministrativewith structures that protection tothe object political rule oflaw Besides these positive impacts on the political map of the society, civil disobedience civil society, the of map political the on impacts positive these Besides Power also talks about other ‘communities’ for which civil disobedience could be could which fordisobedience civil ‘communities’ also aboutother Power talks by highlighting the fact that respectfor lawby highlighting that fact not the for only does mean respect 35 CEU eTD Collection targets at targets generation the just inof cooperation future. capacity doso in to future”(Sabl the In words, itsother 2001, 312). indication injusticesof to act upon the injustice. Rather, it isit a actupon theinjustice. Rather, to of inpower-holders acurrent attitude changefoster the to disobedient a civilly of expectation or is thatit primary concern notthe notes He looking’ perspective. of ‘forward concept requirements. its fulfill to fail governments the whenever justice of conception shared justice’ In this (Rawls1983,365). invoke sense, theof is role conduct disobedient to this and has inrule,is democratic mostcrucially which a‘sharedof and conception ‘well-ordered’ which society, a in role significant a has disobedience exposition, Rawls’ recall To justice. to appeal lies inits disobedience civil value of intrinsic the Accordingly, justice. of conception probable conduct of (Wasserstrom others” 1969, 262). since justifiability the one’s disobedienceof “cannot depend, among other things, upon the disobeyingif lawbyassuming the act identically that others results be will the undesirable, which could generateinstability in longthe run. Above all, cannot one deny his logic in iscivil(Zwiebach 1975, 205).It not butablinddisobedience of laws, obedience people to the regime the of tendencies authoritarian the about us warns he obeyed?” always everyone polity, nor disobedience to law in general. Secondly, by reformulating the question as “what if disobedience awideninginthe stream disobedience factof encourages that tothe evidence disobey laws.the a Zwiebach develops answertwofold question. tothis isthere First, no 1975, 152).At this it point, wouldbe toask legitimate whatif each to every and person starts Furthering Rawlsian account of introduces of FurtheringAndrew civil account the Rawlsian (2001) Sabl disobedience, Rawlsian on relies disobedience civil of functionality the on remark final A submission or resistance (Rawls 1983,365-366). period of time,especially the infringement of fundamental equal liberties, invites either persistent and deliberate violation of the basic principlesof this conception over any extended by reference whichto citizens regulate their political affairs and interpret the constitution. The It is assumed in that a reasonablyjust democratic regime there is apublic conception ofjustice forward-looking 36 plea for justice indicating “their CEU eTD Collection stemming from from beminimizedstemming“publicbecause relations have to reduced and power fairadds, intoacquire conditionsandorder egalitarian for deliberations, inequalities or common interests, which will make it easier to reach persuasion agreements at the end. Moreover, of notion the on heemphasis gives Smith point, At this policies. and laws certain out figuring has deliberation to rely community. articulation on the Secondly,public in genuineof reasons are who members affected byits decisions should significantly count those of the as place.not Hesuggests that who only are directlythose governed by government,the butalso first in the community, political the of members the all of inclusion the entails deliberation hisdeliberativeAccording democracy. to explanation, adequate constitution an of public isidiosyncrasies of concepts the tounravel the potent theirtwo coexistence. of symbiosis A on the query of democracy. configurations tothe substantive couldcontribute itislawsdemocracy, worth of analyzing in civilly particular disobeying ways what state the of meaning well.connotations Transcending of procedural very democracy as of the in terms also but disobedience, civil of wisdom democratic the of in terms only not attention also but itself. notonly questions democracy on disobedience on interesting invoke is to likely It disobedience. civil of wisdom of democratic the excavation bethe will consideration Afinal for? beneficial is disobedience is civil else what But subjects. sanctification through obedience does not necessarily improve social conditions of life for its authority as well as to the omnipotence of political obligation, by showing that their It very putsabigquestionmarktothe ideaorder. state with of state the are associated In a recent article, William Smith (2004) juxtaposes three basic principles of threebasicprinciples juxtaposes William (2004) Smith article, In arecent thorough warrants democracy and disobedience civil between relationship The 2.3.2 Democracy of Civil Disobedience that taboos the of de-memorization the to serves disobedience civil respects, In these instead of coercion or preference aggregation. Persuasion will focus on focus general on the will Persuasion aggregation. preference or instead of coercion 37 CEU eTD Collection democratic faculty of the participatory processes, even if a government might enact unjust enactmight if even a government processes, participatory faculty the of democratic it, poses a question as G. Pyrcz puts (1981) support’ whether as‘extra-legal publicsphere the to disobedience’s entrance by doing so a civilly Indeed, civil democratic the participation. with is of clear thecoherence this contribution disobedient person Less expression of the disagreements. dueto especially deliberation expansion of the public would underminedemocratic laws, itis the more than obvious that civil disobedience could effectively contribute to of citizensthe from and recognitionthe of differencesthe among them 1954,399). (Spitz interests common the from emanate values these fact, In together. people its hold that values the on than laws its on less depends order social inthe solidarity internalized an with together laws.enacted Inlightof ideals the substantivepromoting democracy, upholding of the a state ofthe their oncertain in traits recognizing of terms disagreements duty the thedissenters of as ‘horizontal (Smith dimension’ 2004, 363). names he which society, civil of members the among attention public raises it hand other the on dimension’; “vertical hecalls means that communicative through agencies state convince itseeks to hand, one Onthe function. atwofold heargues,has strategy, This deliberate contestation’ implyingboth a contribution existingand tothe challenge structure. political can of determination what be graspedas public(Smith 356-362). general interest2004, or This will strengthen the ground on which they can articulate theirviews, and also facilitate the principle is about the availability of necessary information and knowledge to the participants. The intimidation” third (Smith views or 2004, 359). coercion freefrom advance their ableto are citizens in which dialogue unforced of as aprocess is conceived deliberation In the sense that democratic state is defined as more than the amalgamation of amalgamation the than more as is defined state democratic that sense In the A isparallel claim putforward by whoattributes David (1954) Spitz democratic state ‘deliberate of sort a as disobedience civil introduces Smith framework, this In 38 CEU eTD Collection the common gooddemocratically enacted law represents the will of all or even of the majority, and that it serves (Bay 1967,the deficiencies 165). withinDemocracies’ democratic regimes.participation. Forwisdom instance, of notion democratic the emasculate will disobedience civil that itofis unlikely it Therefore, is takingnot evidently thetrue 1975,902). (Kellner changetheir public,the accesstowhichwould decisions the otherwise thatdissenters every be to might unavailable Indeed,some facts become might insignificant. argues, participation into information, decision-making.Kellner relevant absencethe of In (1975) asMenachem Marc political inthe participate citizens conditions what under question a considerable also is tobe decision,it tothe quasi-consent supposed is held which democratically. However, Accordingly, civil disobedience would not be justifiable unless the person refuses to show (Singer 1973,49-50). it accept voluntarily to isgoing one mean that it would since otherwise finaldecision, the isit fornon-consent makinghe/she but condition anecessary refuses that clear and sufficient fail toexpress onedoes torefer inwhich occasions the concept of ‘quasi-consent’ introduces decisions onehas his/hergiven consentby of virtue having in partaken Singer procedure. the disobedience. He basically asserts that participation creates a special obligation to the ultimate justifiability civil of regardstothe as non-participation andbetween participation discussion. Singer’sPeter laws. In respect, this arequite remarks illustrative sake for the of deepening the There are also other platforms on which civil disobedience could help to ameliorate linkand non-participation civil disobedience. a necessary between Singer constitutes In his book societies than under other forms democratic ofgovernment in (Singer 1973,59). toapply likely more much is which obedience for reason a is This system. the in participated not had one if law same the disobeying in justified be would one which in arisen from has a decision-procedure in whichone haswhich voluntarily participated, in law, circumstances a disobey to wrong be sometimes may it that means this terms, In practical Democracy and Disobedience 39 Peter Singer (1973) makes adistinction Singer (1973) Peter CEU eTD Collection consideration. majority’s the to dissidence, and resentment of feelings have they which of matters (Singer 1973, 84). In suchimportance toothers” is a great matter ofindifference itwhat isfor a that majority realize a way, minorities canits mirror present to intereststendency majority’s their the from asemanates sensitivitytheattitude this interests Presumably, minorities. toof certainthe entire the political of demands and needs society. the to blind become might majority a interests own its satisfy Civil disobedience, therefore,pursue and in Singer itseffortminorities. to suppression claims that In respect, this the of “may make the majority’sprevent to feasible apparatuses political best democracy the pluralistic provides hegemonythe majority.Actually,the of itis usually democracy; argued that particularly most Singer is striking amongPeter them what protection refersminorities tothe of against civil disobedience is loaded with other roles that are related to democracy as well. One of the ideals. are with these incompatible laws that break to anti-democratic being from far is it point, vantage this From government. of forms popular sovereignty, butonthevery ideals andgoals thatmakes democracy superior toother in name of the governments publicly elected rely appoints not fact regime mere the the on but also to correct internal problems of democracies. notdraw attention only to a powerful strategy becomes civil disobedience such circumstances Under Kellner 1975). (Bay 1967; declarein democratic states themselves that laws, those of the recalcitrantmembers of the society, as well as enactments of many anti-democratic fair requisites taken the of against measures there hearing Infact, areseveral many occasions. in ignored be might solving problem of methods dialogical employing and consideration Besides its aforementioned contribution to of maintenance principles, the to itscontribution democratic aforementioned Besides Therefore, if one is topromote a democratic regime, his/her reason sustainto it should By civil disobedience the minority can demonstrate the intensity of its feelings to the majority. If the the majorityto did in factmake itsdecision throughfeelings shortsightedness,its not of and because the intensity the demonstrate can minority the disobedience By civil 40 CEU eTD Collection and the inescapability of punishment. Together with the dimension of justification, albeit justification, of dimension the with Together punishment. of inescapability the and they are also illuminative for the analysis of the arguments for and against the use of politicalviolence authority, obligation and the very ideals of democracy.For the purposes of the thesis, of in social perceptions the role changing of acrucial plays substantiation democracy to the disobedience of all who are affected by the violation of inalienable rights of citizens. unfairisinvolvement incompatible with democratic principles and incursjustified proscribed”Such an not 1973, 65). (Singer views views, of favor are other although these double standard“which certain picks out views, and says may noone that speak write in or reason for overriding the obligation to obey. By ‘selective restriction’, he refers to a sort of alegitimate generates restriction’ ‘selective he as calls of what bymeans speech of freedom of rights beings human such as freedom speech.of arguesthat Singer the violation the of fundamental certain canalsoviolate Democracies be might violated. whose rights oppression majority. handsthe of democratic the civil disobedience is a disobedience civil More given” 314). of than (Cohen1972, embodimentthe consciencehe andmorality, posits, be not should consent which to taken been have “actions when scene democratic the into comes disobedience civil consent, of basis the on supremacy its claims majority the which achieve perceive. not couldliberal Beyond within to realm normal the politics of tradition the that politics’ ‘normal as he calls ofwhat borders the exceeds action form political of this that he claims Basically, in democracies. disobedience civil of role the on account a similar The subversive and constructive of properties civil anddisobedience its contributions Presumably, itis not only minorities or those who are the victims of state and majority In his critical article on liberalism and disobedience Marshall Cohen (1972) introduces (1972) Cohen Marshall disobedience and liberalism on article critical his In will have the opportunity of altering its decision (Singer 1973, 85). hardship to the minority is anunavoidable evil, justified by a fargreater goodon the whole, it political protest against theviolation protest in legitimate governmentof the 41 CEU eTD Collection from the perspective of fair play. Hereby, I will attempt to encounter the arguments in favor in arguments the encounter to attempt will I Hereby, play. fair of perspective the from introduce anewwill attempt be the discussionofviolenceto dimension andpunishment an to matter. It in of subject the terms less will benocomplicated chapter next The functionality. and justification its of patterns difficult the revealing by then and definition, the of feature conceptual tools to understand this relationshipprovocative byfirstframing the multifaceted inand punishment civiltheirfar,to relation wanted Sotogivedisobedience. I the necessary action. of political type constructive and subversive a as disobedience civil of wisdom the highlight and arguments, of circulation focus on the functionality of the concept that might help todismiss this tautological someexcept conscience references to and rationality.why That’s I suggestedshifting the laws the of decideclear sinceis notit non-obligatoriness act, to the also on how disobedient itisbut farfrom being this clearhow right into evolves thejustifiability rightness or of the arguments emphasize civil disobedience as a right against the non-obligatory laws of the state, setof Another its justifiability. of measure asthe are already definition, inits that given of which I find problematic. werelines matter both two that of specificallyfocusing on thought observed intheliterature A set of argumentsWhen ittakes comes certainto the justifiability aspectsphilosophical of civilconditions, disobedience or rationalhowever,moral,in mannerthe arguments develop for whichdissidentpeople to and ascribe the was problematic reasonsLess picture disobedience. civil on debate controversial time became same the at but in striking order blurred. to justifyWhat I their disobedient defiance of the laws.association and/or dissociation of violence and punishment with civil disobedience. noticeable puzzles in it, they will help us to understand the problematic aspects in the From From itfair is Ithink,this in-depth proceed with on, point violence analysis to the of most as the justification of the centrality the accentuate to wasdedicated This chapter 42 CEU eTD Collection punishment linespunishment of arguments. functional aspects of civil disobedience to show the weakness and of the pro-nonviolencejustificatory definitional, and the pro- using while account, play fair of conceptualization of useofviolencea certainthe in to and the of degree, disfavor punishment through 43 CEU eTD Collection to construe to these subjects from two fair viewpointthe of Iwill play, separately delineate the followed by a focused discussion violenceof punishment and respectively.my to Prior effort be will section This analysis. the for effectiveness prospective its display to obligation venture. members of societal fellow oneowes tothe that conventional way of itapproachingis them,but faira function of play principles of obligation the to necessary due is not punishment of acceptance disobedient’s the and violence, from abstention of will that use the argue one’s Hereby I understandingquestion. of the to contribute to likely but disobedience civil of literature the in uncommon is which tool, Formy own purposes, Iwill introduce the perspective of the fair play account as an analytical counter-arguments infavor of permissibilitythe violence,of and of avoidancethe of penalty. non-violenceweaknesses conventionalthe advocacy in of of the punishment and faceof the stress the Iwill try in chapters, backgroundto portrayedprevious the conceptual on the my inposition the same way conventional explanations the that arelikely employ. to Relying structure not I will However, action. political of type peculiar of this features as idiosyncratic existing tothe approximations. contribute camps paradigms of thought concerning ideational these two marksan to opportunity into two literature The bifurcation of the civil judicial consequencesof the disobedience. to asregards conflict perennial aforementioned the of implications practical for the necessary Areflectiondomains of concept. the on problem the is other on the punishment, hand,of justificatory as well as definitional the of in terms puzzle significant a poses Violence disobedience. civil of literature the within diversification of realms main the of one constitute The chapter will start with a brief description of the fair play account of political It is myinclination argueto for non-violence as well as for the acceptance of penalties The question on permissibilitythe use the of of violence andtheissue of punishment C HAPTER 3: T HE P ROBLEM P : UNISHMENT A F 44 AIR P LAY A PPROACH TO V IOLENCE AND IOLENCE CEU eTD Collection collectively. The generation of the benefits is dependent on the active participation of the of participation active the on is dependent benefits the of generation The collectively. situations. life real to principle play fair of application by institutionsbeprovided with commensurate for seemto the goods public governmental citizens. However, it would not be outrageous to claim thatmany realms of social life that are of in fair of everyday practices the for accountterms play an problem pose applicability cooperative due associations large-scaleto their constitution (Simmons 1979).Thismight legitimate question whatto extentitis possible to consider contemporary political societies as as ‘the existenceof venturea joint 34). orcooperative 2004, Itis scheme’(Klosko a ‘mutually beneficial schemeand just of social cooperation’ (Rawls 1999, 122),and by Klosko presumption Thisof is andfurthered fairplay notion the byRawls paraphrased account. as tools of fair play in thefollowing way: introduced Hart prototypicalthe definition of obligation basedpolitical ontheconceptual supervision of the same legal structure. In his essay on the question of natural rights,Presumably, toa duty moral H. this connotes fellowresponsibility the to L. the citizens under A. owe the duty to obey the laws of the state due to the cooperating members revision Ihope achieveof that question the by to my appeal fair the to play perspective. of the society.philosophicalfor deadlock concerningtheproblem the requirementto the under scrutiny and the to evidence give will They disobedience. civil of practices and motives very the in penalty means accepting and violent adequacy of the conceptualizing of mostpatterns common The key concept inThe concept the is‘jointfirstkey whichconsiderquotation asthe I enterprise’, Basically, the cooperative enterprise is supposed to produce certain benefits certain toproduce issupposed enterprise cooperative Basically, the The starting assumption of fair play perspective of political obligation is that people Principle3.1 The ofFair Play society, and they have the correlative moral right to obedience (Hart 1955, 185). 1955, (Hart obedience to right moral correlative the have they and society, obligation to obey the rules in such circumstances is circumstances such in rules the obey to obligation similarsubmission from who havethose by benefited their submission. moral […] The their liberty,When a number ofpersons conduct any joint enterprise according thoseto rules andthus restrict who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a 45 due to the cooperating members of the CEU eTD Collection the fairness of the cooperative venture and its distributional layout. To him, in case when a conditions toensure manner, threeextra Klosko initiates also different inaslightly questions of opportunitiesthe itoffers tofurther one’s interests (Rawls 1983,112).Addressing thesame justice; of taken advantage or arrangement the of benefits the principles accepted has voluntarily one second, and two the satisfies it is that just, is institution the “first, that required is it Accordingly, scheme. cooperative the to duty moral their discharge to members individual the Justice Theory of In conditions? of the ‘fairness’ measure the to are necessary criteriaare the that what words, But the next question is whether or how the conditions the how or whether is question next the But of civil disobedience. within discussions the concepts central most is both the meets oneof qualificationspublic law, because of goods, which matter ruleof the subject thesis’ the to relevant more are goods beneficial presumptively time same the at ‘presumptively beneficial’ ‘discretionary’any 1987).At or non-excludable(Klosko rate, and function of whether good the is ‘excludable’or‘non-excludable’ as well it whetherisas to which people could besupposedtobehave in fairwith accordance isalso play a principle frameworka significant of fair extent terrainIndeed, the play.members within the to resides makeswhich the freeacquirebenefits to uptoacertain level 1999,Klosko(Rawls 2004). benefits couldcooperate alsobydid bereceived in who not those of course the task, the expected to comply with the scheme. Hence,itfollows that at the end of the day the generated nearlyare most members or all as cooperation, of benefits outcome the advantages and create incooperators is and amounts contributive fair that thethird to of presumption order In play. of various restrictions part the onthe be orsacrifices presumption couldthrough realizedonly this rules. guided by However, second theprocess of members‘cooperation’ certain to Under these circumstances, one can say that the conditions of fair play are provided. andcooperationthe of through benefitsthe generated thetypegoods of Atthis point, Rawls juxtaposes two additional qualifications that assure the obligation of obligation assure the additional that qualifications two juxtaposes Rawls 46 for a fair play could be met. In other A CEU eTD Collection of of nature exceptional inthe thelawbreaching this peculiar way. bedisobedience nonviolent hasto and the ready person be punished to inalbeit consideration why civil asto grounds reasonable posit could fair play perspective a punishment of acceptance and useof violence tothe itcomes when fair play. However, of principles circumstances. Insuch situations engagingin disobedience civil not be would atoddswith the certain under nullified laws becomes moral comply particular the with to that duty extent institutions of polity the are alsolikely produce to unjust andundemocratic outcomes tosuch democratic as as well organizations political of schemes just before, mentioned is it As with regulationsthe of political institutions in form civil of the isnotdisobedience ruled out. duty to do so. Given that the conditions for fair play are met, the permissibility not to comply that it would fact the be but rules, unfair of amalgamation unquestionable an as not structure legal tothe of complyexistence mere with the laws while the fellow citizens discharge their2004, 35). Nevertheless, the disentanglement of violence from civil disobedience is not an easy task as it as task an easy not is disobedience civil from violence of disentanglement the Nevertheless, 1976,325). (Woozley intheliterature of actors nonviolence victorious referred asthe mostthe well figures of known struggle disobedient such as Gandhi andKing areusually disobedience, civil of stigmas as challenge their consider to problematic definition by is it that Imentionedchapter first Although in the of practice with civil disobedience. the associated burdens of cooperation, if members other (2) the of benefitsreceive inquestion, the (3) if A comes to bear not Adoes canbesothat “(1)if arranged things be could reconstituted fairness then sacrifice, burdensand compliance similar without cooperation the from benefit to seems scheme social the of to member those of In a nutshell, the underlying reason behind the duty of obedience to laws is not the not is laws to obedience of duty the behind reason underlying the nutshell, a In The rejection of violent methods of resistance is a typical attitude, which is commonly which attitude, typical ismethods ofresistance a violent The of rejection 3.2 First Approximation: Violence 47 X can also be freed from the X- ites” (Klosko ites” CEU eTD Collection not only a way of harming the bodily integrity of a person, but it can be also directed to the to directed also be can it but person, a of integrity bodily the harming of away only not is violencenote that is to remarkable It practice. of disobedient achievement for the influential completelymethod,would onebe mislead to anyviolent whichotherwise to reject could unlimited it ofviolence could that be conceptions Inthis objectifications. respect, asserted connotations that make it unreasonable to equalize one form of its usage with its other oversimplified violence.notionFirst readingof of ofviolence hasawide all, the of range in in manner. reasons background the a forceful acquiesce doesnot convince peopleto ‘coerce’ try means ofviolence thelatter butto to since follows of thiscommunication.contradictwith dialog sort would that a persuasive It the through citizens aswellother authorities public topersuade person attempts the andso on, rights human constitutionality, justice, universal law, a higher of principles with affiliation law, publicly breach that andhis/herIn virtue of of denial out acting self-interest. his/herof to propensity dissenter’s the on isreflected implementation law’s a particular of unjustness consideration of publicvery The in question. law the good with bynon-compliance the of way rightness inthe of society takingof other people’s attention to the wrongnessWoozleyAccordingly, 1976). convincing isaconcern civil disobedience about the members and Prosch argueis1965, (Barker1992, that against‘persuasion’ violenceconcepts is usedto fair into discussion. the of perspective play the then articulate follows, Iwill cover possible waysargue to for andagainst the permissibility violence,of and measures in form this of political action, albeitin alimited and non-arbitrary manner. In what commitmentto nonviolence.isargue for it Ineffect, the violent possibleto permissibility of seems be,it andto is thus, opentovarious counter-arguments thatwoulda strict to object This line of argumentnotdoes fall short of consistency butis underpinned byan nonviolence Onethe of grounds. several could toon A adherence rely philosophical 3.2.1 Dialectics of Permissibility 48 CEU eTD Collection destructive could and astronger restricted opposition politicalto the generate authorities all. at From pointview, of a consequentialist is use of thatnon- violence non-arbitrary, correct be strategically not might disobedience civil nonviolent of way by resistance passive of a kind to sticking problematic, deeply is injustice the when especially conditions, certain welcome. to likely less is public the which measures, violent the accountof jeopardized on would be loaded with is civildisobedience that thereeducative messagefunction Hereby,in enlightening or 1971). public the the eye (Cohen his/her appeal to the use of violence would diminish the rightness of the disobedient practice resistagainst, seeks to dissenter the law that deeptheinjusticeby how matter caused law. No violence would be strategically for wrong disobedientthe in vindication of his violation of as of persuasion. this sort out work could violence some say that to is sufficient it moment, the At below. in detail more mention I will that decision-making of principles democratic with consistent is also behavior of determination interactive act in This way (Honderich contextwhich the 1989, 163). more to that itrenders plausible iscertain way notenforced butit by isan agent, external by shaped configuration a specific of a in act to decision one’s which in mind of a state to refers It persuasion’. of ‘coercion calls forviolenceinitiates expansion the ofequality, he (1989) a definition TedHonderich of what Secondly, disobedienceso-called shouldbe nonviolent out aswell ruled (Morreall 1991, 131-135). violence almostof all sorts however,that mean, This would must berespected”. also his over canproperty be persuasive of from perspective the as andwell. labor’. In of ‘products words,other if to justifiabilityone opposes the a physicalof harm In hisautonomy discussionof people to take individual decisions as well as to control theirof means of propertythe potentialities of It is more than evident that there is somemissing pointin the exposition above. Under use in the of that sense is instrumental the nonviolence sanctify A way second to prima facie prima rights, then “the rights one has to autonomy and to 49 control CEU eTD Collection law’s violence that he/she is subject to. As regards to democracy, furthermore, a permissible furthermore, todemocracy,to. As is he/she violence law’s regards subject that violence by civil disobedience 1995). From alternativeof this pointview, encounteringlaws with a permissible degree of couldand Kearns law-makingof (Sarat part toviolence bymaking it constitutive the subordinated be seen as a self-defense criminalprovoke violence else aspirations to (Weisberg 1995),or mightbecome they of the dissenterprevalence violence of (Hay mightthey 1995); encourage personal motives and for disorder against the induce and inequalities socio-economic sustain might laws the Occasionally, discourse. institutional an in violence inspire and legitimize produce, to law to intrinsic is it that source of violence in It someis respects. uncommon not amongsome legal theorists toargue individual his/her authority,shows challenging respectthrough the state alsobecome could a disobedient the which for lawfulness of idea the that fact the is this than important more But describessignificantly not would idealsthe fordistort which lawsarecivillydisobeyed.the Morreall violencethat of alimited use any Atrate, violence. of permissibility the it against conception of civility. the with are closely related his/her andthat practice, of justification appeals the for person the democracy law,justice that or ofhigher with principles the butalsocontradict disobedience of violence in civil disobedience cases would not use only sense, offend this In the idea of by civilitydefinition. in violent intrinsically is that military of adjective the to pertains 1972, Sabl Accordingly,idea2001). the of tothe civility corresponds opposite of what its violence (Power in practice of permissibility the outweighs which inessence, disobedience civilpolitical violence to 1989, 27-33). (Honderich disobedience of forms particular to attributes Honderich that ‘rationality’ tailor the to inadequate not is it evoking their them about undesirable responsibilities for the Hence, outcome (Hall 1971,90). The anticipation of nonviolence in this manner seems to be the strongest way to favor to way strongest be the to seems manner in this nonviolence of anticipation The the from emanates nonviolence of advocacy inthe pattern A final 50 civil feature of feature CEU eTD Collection on the principle of fair play. fair of principle the on based nonviolence of supremacy the for explanation a different propose to try will I follows, in usingwhat violence In civil disobedience. problem the adducing grounds other of to there canbe mentioned However, above. a variety of reasons dueto resistance disobedient very context termsfunctionality, of isthe less ambiguity problematic the since, albeitthe on depending of the protest,justifiability. of odds with violence In necessarily is at followthatconditions the totally not violenceof factors such as the deepnesscould of the injustice, the sort of rights violated and so on, itmight buttress mentioningworth thejustification that since civil alsodisobedience of depends on a number ratheritisa But itscase where also useisrefrained. to as compared disobedience of justifiability than impede the complicate isit inclusion violence will of the that more than andfunctionality, explicit the effect justification of axis the come to To action. political of form peculiar ita which make concept of the the of particularities the itdistract would nor of types resistance, from itother separating its exclusive features disobedienceto civil violenceneitherhighlight, alienate would to conceptitself. In terms theof axis of definition, though there might be some puzzles as I tried donotindeed, I seeadeep permissibility between controversy violencerestricted of andthe a disobedience, ofcivil aspects justificatory and definitional the Taking means. acceptable strategically and principally indicate plausibility the a limitedof violence form of as an methodologically, that perspectives several from weakness has aconsiderable cases, thus, of democracy 1989, 166). (Honderich improvement systemic the of realization very the strengthen to help but undermine not would vocabulary, use Honderich’s to violence’, ‘Democratic practice. democratic of territories democracy secure its “attemptdemocracy to through violenceusage of could supplementcivil contribution disobedience’s substantiationto the of The conventional posture negating the permissibility of violence in civil disobedience civil in violence of permissibility the negating posture conventional The equality 51 of influence” for all citizens within the within citizens all for influence” of CEU eTD Collection position of notwithstandingposition his/her with account Together dissenter the disobedience. of on this, people’s cooperation and compliance is maintained by the system, still holds the beneficiary besupposed to ‘nearly’ generallyand just, or thatthe provision of benefitsthe relying on civil disobedience would notcontradict with the principles fairof play. victimsin mentioned thefirst this chapter, that invalidated in isduty non- the to referred Zwiebach way similar a in say; and further go to possible is also It 126). 1999, (Rawls this oppression to subject whoare those for especially terminates, fairplay oppression sustained byin However, venture. case of a permanent this regulating by therules association disobeying particular laws, the dutycomplier. Atto first glance,comply he might seem to betray the cooperative facultywith of the social these non- laws dissident of the motivation the ostracize seem to not does for fairplay condition second on the basis of disobedient acts not for the sake of personal interest but in the name of societal well being, the a civil that mind in Bearing members. its for benefits certain generating individuals of enterprise cooperative is the that condition further a entails play fair of application place. The first inthe institutions political scheme just of of a generally existence the require groundsthe of definition andjustification. on problematic than rather citizens fellow tothe ‘unfair’ be violencewould of use dissenter’s prima facie want to introduce one’s moral duty abstainingof violence incivil practicesdisobedience as a In light of the Rawlsianabove. discussed approaches definitionconventional the than stronger concede I which of nonviolence, politicalto obligation as a In effect, the fact that particular laws are part of a set of a regulatory system, which is which system, of a regulatory aset of arepart laws particular fact that the In effect, The conditionsfor fair play and those for civil disobedience are almost the same. Both The fundamental principles of fair play provide a further ground for the commitment 3.2.2 Nonviolence for Fair Play duty of fair play. The logic is similar, but needs clarification as to why a 52 prima facie prima general duty of fair play, I whereby one’s whereby CEU eTD Collection be overridden contextually. At any rate, it is not strongly due to the reasons defended by defended reasons strongly tothe itis not due any rate, At contextually. be overridden also can basis same the on disobedience in civil nonviolence to commitment circumstances, be certain under functionfair can overridden as a of play obligation Just asthe political civil civil disobedience. emergencythe line should be used byits The vehicle. same is I forthink,true, violence in harm functioning of obstruct regularthe a publicservicein to very situation probablewhere and from advantage with ahypothetical rules, compliance traffic by their second causing drive onregularlines. But,there the problem wasbeing them unfairfirstby to taking who those on harm significant generate not would line emergency the on a car driving one’s effort, I want torecall the typical traffic example given for the fair play account. Accordingly, develop atwofoldreply, this answer tothis question.In negative to disposed I am effects. To its of in terms ignorable be could harm consequential the that argue might One citizens. unjust of outcomes objectedrule.the burden Creating such will beunfairthe fellow a to violence’s harm would put acoerced burden on the shoulders of others who are also subject to benefit that is alleged onthe imposed members of polity.the words,notwithstanding In other thepresumptive to emerge as a consequence of the disobedient act in the long run, violence generate would practice. ofcivil course disobedient itif involved in useofviolence wouldin situation the on contrary, the the were change, law.implemented The due tothe subject are they that very unfairness the about people evoke to attempt isit aradical Instead, compliance. people’s other taken over an unfair advantage policy in engagingquestion, in civil merelydisobedience sufficientis not enough argue forto of the moral basis for noncompliance as well as the level of injustice caused by the law or At the final analysis, I consider abstaining violence as a Irrespective of the justifiable reasons beyond the act of civil disobedience, use of actof civil disobedience, the beyond reasons justifiable of the Irrespective harm in one way or another, the remedy of which is which of remedy the another, or way inone 53 prima facie duty of fair play. fait accompli fait CEU eTD Collection politico-moral reasons as the primary motivation for civil disobedience. civil for motivation primary the as reasons politico-moral most probable outcome. the Otherwise, avoidance of wouldmeanpunishment betrayal of the judicial the him/herself punitiveto the to showing total authorities as the decisions respect is words,itother moral outof well as as logical consistency person the that shouldsurrender In 1991). breaching law(Greenawalt the for be punished to likeliness theendorse very has to fororder acivil tobedisobedient convincing abouthis/her struggle in publicthe eye,he/she which he/she disobeys thepunishment beforehand comesfrom dissidentthe person’s commitmentto idealsthe law, for and to the rightness fidelity to theruleoflaw of acting in this way. each other: to is Itrelated I think which closely central concepts, of basis two follows that in for civil asanecessary disobedience. condition punishment accepting acknowledge claims that of the the weakness stress to in order contemplation of ways prevalent frame first will I again discussion, the into play fair of perspective appears beto a strong expositionin the face of firstthe line of arguments. Before bringing the his/herfor act, accept tobepunished is to supposed why a civil disobedient interrogation of their Indeed, subject. tothe attitude aratherskeptical whodisplay numbertheorists of a by is encountered also way thinking of this dominant Nevertheless, illegal the conduct. requirement on the part of the disobedient person to acquiesce in the penalty corresponding to argue for to the inis literature the more widespread It violence. of path as in issue the disobedience. civil of in cases is problematic violence conventional approximations, but due to the duty of fair play that the permissibility of Proponents of the acceptance of punishment tend to substantiate their stance on the on their stance substantiate to tend punishment of of acceptance the Proponents 3.3.1 The Pendulum of Genuineness follows asimilar of punishment theacceptance of conceptualization The divergent 3.3 Second Approximation: Punishment . Basically, the first notion pertains to the idea that accepting idea that to the firstpertains notion the . Basically, 54 genuineness and CEU eTD Collection system.legitimate whole a as law of recognition the Itwas disobedience civil of is characteristics decisive this respectrefers and to the fidelitysupreme idea of rule to of law.the As itrule is mentionedin punishment civil practices. disobedience of inlaw the firstthrough chapter,a genuineout Itiscontradictory protest. not morallybut complementary refuse then, to one whichof the theInstead ofindicating abetrayal, could such an attitude which reveal extent to the one carries concept wasprotest cannotstopwith society, then ajailthat a court decision or sentence”30). (Zinn 2002, process intoaccount, “if the social function of protestis changeto the unjust conditions of the strong belief that and the act disobedient of thethe rightness tothe thecommitment with asconsistent interpreted law in question is immoralbroken or it?unjust. Avoidance Takingunjust, then why expectto that he/she has ratify to theof disobedientexecution of the punishmentfor havingpunishment protest itis that he/she thinks law because for toobey if a particular rejects one following question: anas acta that the ask the legitimately can one person Accordingly, direction. inargue opposite the term to reads the believes just could also be duty beto morally bounded by legalthe consequences of illicitthe act. in terms of the ways in which the case is dealtin the courts. However, it will notchange one’s Whether civil1976, 331). will that not isjustifiable make or this or disobedience a difference (Woozley his/her act complain punitive the to moral consequence of have about right the is immanent to the The other concept used in defense of the moral responsibility to accept punishment used in responsibility to concept moral of defense the The other is interpreting alsoanother Encounteringway claims, these there that of genuineness In this sense, ‘awaiting punishment’ is seen as an induction of a principle of 1969, 177). a sacrifice, thedepth and completeness of one’s commitmentis likely to be questioned (Cohen the law tomake a dramatic self-sacrifice,one then seeks to avoid the penalty,which makes it because itis aprotest effectivenessits sharply reducesas aprotest. having If,after disobeyed the general belief in that commitment. But the to effort have the illegal conduct excuse A willingness to accept public punishmentfor adeliberate public violation strongly reinforces sui generis act of civil disobedience. It follows that the protester does not 55 ought that CEU eTD Collection in the opposite direction. At any rate, avoiding punishment does not seem to pose a cardinal ofviewarguing skeptical points tothe vulnerable acceptpenalties arequite necessity moral to It ispunishment. possibleargue to in both directions, butcertainly argumentsthe for the moderation disobedience, which would outweigh the justifiability of each and every case of it. contrast with the fidelity to law, the same could be said about the very act of civil in acts one that by punishment refusing Ifitis acknowledged acceptpunishment. ineluctably alwaysitis abiding, superfluous to assume for a necessary civil the duty to disobedient are state the of laws that claim the of invalidity the stigmatizes disobedience civil as respect, me, I am not law if I choose to live within a legal system, and to enforceSecondly, itthe is remarkablelaw as towell remember when that “whilethis I fallsam ordinarily to morally bound to obeyconstitute the not would merely punishment avoiding Hence, orders. legal other many with compliance a sufficientlaw tothe his/her undertakings or assuchinanumberofways respect deliberate ground for Firstfidelity”isexpressingof 1985,650). (Buttle all, it obvious that onecangive to evidence the disobedient meansfidelity of expressing thelaw,to weneednotagree thisthat is only the means of person’sisa conduct one’s of accept the legalconsequences to “willingness Although of concept. the disrespect to illegal sanction acts citizens. of the right legitimate to thein their of terms rule of laws other of thesupervision negates he/she mean notthat itlaw.does law, by a particular created injustice challengesperson the despite disobedient factthat the the Therefore, Rucker 1966). 1983, (Rawls ingeneral laws this the respectof isto due penalization the acceptance of separable from In movements. revolutionary itthis issense, commonly one’s argued, These considerations demonstrate theThese high level of demonstrate considerations as thesophistication regards to The above interpretation fidelityof to law,however, looks like a cursory configuration vis a always morally morally doso, allbound to considered”things (Farrell In this 1977, 169). recalcitrance of the civil disobedient person into his/herperson attitude disobedient civil of the recalcitrance 56 CEU eTD Collection concern about public benefit to be attained through the removal or the remedy of the injustice the of remedy the or removal the through be attained to benefit public about concern As itisseen in the chapters,theirprevious motivation issupplemented moral by animplied situations from a fair play of point view. scheme complycontinue to inwith law the question. Ithink is thatthere apuzzlein such cooperative the of members other whilst occurs far thus disobedience civil basis, justifiable is on a morally Although his/her particular of atthis point carried out compliance defiance exceptframework particular one which islawframework. orpolicy, of acomponent that anarchic dissidentindividual attitude, maintains his/her cooperation with systemicthe an to As opposed circumstances. these under position exceptional inan theperson emplaces nevertheless disobedience civil in Engaging citizens. fellow the of efforts cooperative is sustained by that laws by system the providedof the thebenefits alsohe/she accepts law regimein rule of and the the legitimacy of particular, thegeneral recognizes person, motivated arevolutionarily citizen, unlike disobedient acivil since that assume can plausibly one respect, this In schemeof cooperation. by social the generated benefits the of acceptance skeptical facethe of approaches. those dimension for the discussion, which, Ithink,is potent torejuvenate the first type of posture in problematic on another basis. In this sense, afair play perspective could open newa might axes asubversiveto foster ofButitbe related tothese threat disobedience. civil advancement as regards libertiesto rights, andjustice.Avoidance of ispunishment notlikely its pertains latter the motivationpolitico-moral to and inrolecontributory societal disobedience. Whereas the former is about the form and content of this sort of political action, inquestion justificatory either the definitional or functional and properties civil of Obviously, civil disobedient people do not seekObviously, notpeople privategain noncompliance. civil by disobedient do their voluntary the was Rawls by described as play fair for conditions the of One 3.3.2 A‘Fair’ Anticipation ofPunishment 57 CEU eTD Collection of the reconcilability of the act with the principles of fair play. prima facie disobedients’ civil as it consider I analysis, final the At disobedience. civil of exceptionality couldcourts even decide not topunish.All injudicial all, cannot authorities disregard the The more relatively serious. or symbolic, be quite might penalty the In sense, this parameters. and contextual anumberof other on of attitude law,the protester the behavioral the of content the conduct, the of justifiability the on depend will answer The here. consideration the state offact,As andhow whether amatter in engage disobedience. to civil place decision inone’s subvert the conditions offair play. notto or to reconstitute inpunishment order accept to willingness disobedient’s requires the this that thinkcitizen. dissident I of the part the sacrifice on unpaid compensation the of of fair play reconstitution the conditions. entails sacrifice or compliance of absence in the benefits receiving which in In cases of civil play Atprinciples. disobedience, point, itis this relevantremember situations to suggestions Klosko’s about the reconstitutionby the challengedcaused injustice of state deepness the of irrespective corresponds and regulation,justifiable, is disobedience civil of episode there to seemsthe to be a problematica extentparticular matter towhatin general.legitimate No as system they the recognize that situation in terms of fairhand, refuse pay to these in burdens virtue of injusticethe but they are still beneficiaries the of other the on disobey, civilly who Those compliance. their underlying benefit consequential forthe are necessitated that sacrifices and give burdens the policycarry continue or law unjust allegedly the with comply who those that fact the change not does it But occurred. It is worth giving emphasis on the notion of ‘willingness’ since it resides to a central should duty duty acceptpunishment,due notto aforementionedto the butaccount reasons, on punish an act of punish isan act question,civil disobedience an isbeyond of my open which 58 CEU eTD Collection analytical discussion of civil disobedience, on violence and punishment in particular. punishment and violence on disobedience, civil of discussion analytical Instead, obligation. political of theory plausible most the as it account play fair present to intention is my inclinationavoiding penalties to claim wouldthe contradict thatintrinsic with its the principleprinciplesdoingisviolence notbecause andaccepting preferable punishment not sowill with contradict featuresof fairfrom abstention The play. play. fair of that perspective, another from It waspunishment are and violence by noand applicablemeans myvirtues andof civiluseful sense of in word. broadest the the aspects disobedience,for an disobedience, but they might also be unnecessary to supplement the completionbut of these becausepunishment only arenot definitional for the unproblematic justificatory and of aspects civil use of of avoidance violence and use ofpermissible suggest that to wanted I subject, thesis’ violence for the important more and Second articulations. opposite constitute and to be used can also inpunishment cases of civil The disobedience. thatsuchapproximationsgrounds based are on accepting and nonviolence of favor in propositions the of weakness the show to wanted Deploying the most common directions of arguments, I had two related aims in mind. First, I idea or principle quite canbe differently interpreted upwith conclusions.ending dissimilar samenotion, the that indicates conceptualization of of patterns diversity The emphasis. civil disobedience. oneIt isof possiblethe most interestingto argue in one yet way controversial or another depending topics withinon the pointthe philosophical of discussions on What I wanted to accentuate, on the other hand, was the possibility to elaborate to possibility was the hand, theother on accentuate, to I wanted What The questions onthepermissibility violenceof andtheacceptance are punishment of 59 CEU eTD Collection the phenomenon. In this realm of discussion, I observed that there exist divergent answers to se necessary to comprehend what is so special about civil disobedience as a politicalperspectives. different action interest in themy stimulated reflections questions to the on these respect presence of diversity with the alternative The tocarry out. I wanted that of the analysis thestarting point constituted be penalized to ways in which itthe extent towhich the use isviolenceof is permissible, and whether the protester shouldpossible accept to in The interrogating of discussions questions civil theconventional disobedience. theoretical contribute to the literature theorist. political individual the of interest from provide literature that of areaof scrutiny depending afertile emphasis on pointthe and the anymore. issues several useless tothink andabout are Indeed,within there the questions problem is an itoutdated assume that to lead one not should era the of atmosphere agitative of the and1970sdueto inconcentration oncivil 1960s predominantly academicdisobedience the debates the Hence implications. empirical its of terms in attention close merits also disobedience civil resistance, political of strategy influential most the of one As ways. certain in act to individuals bind that regulations and policies laws, undesirable of implementation the against resistance of forms various consider to necessitates italso but authority, state to unjustpolitical produce regimes outcomes doesnotonly develop entail to askeptical attitude Thefactthat appears as in philosophy. most of issues strikingone the political contemporary supervisory authority of governmental power into account, the notion of civil disobedience , and to conceive the politico-moral motivations behind thejustification behind motivations conceive politico-moral the , andto As preliminary stages to excavate certain puzzles within the subject matter, itmatter, was within excavate certain subject the puzzles to stages As preliminary violence andpunishment of dimensions the In this paid attention to particular I thesis, Taking the transforming conceptions about the limits of political obligation and of the C ONCLUSION 60 and justifiability of justifiability per CEU eTD Collection which use of bewhichviolence reasons problematic avoiding and of punishment seems to use that due to moral duty of citizens that they owe to each other, as a contributory fair however,As a Iintroduced of typeclaims, principles on first proponent the of play the perspective according to direction. in opposite plausible the claims thatdevelop in facecertain counter-arguments the I indicate nonviolence for penalties andfurther, accepting weaknesstried of arguments tothe step one Taking disobedience. civil of aspects justificatory and definitional the of terms in beseem not absolutely necessary to does acceptance of violencepunishment or permissible of use the disfavoring favoring or that I observed chapters, two first from the inferences I construed problemthe inviolenceof and punishment On particular. basisofmy the of justification civil disobedience. and idiosyncrasies first and general purpose the explicated these considerations any laws.Atrate, morality of the and morality one’s own of the thesis to show the between ‘perennial conflict’ so-called tothe questions thatrelated significant hand, posed openendedness other the on justifiability, for conditions ofThe the controversial. much so not were discussions that strategies on the motivations behind civil disobedience was an indicator of the multitude of justification more politico-moral variety inof mind.The became increasingnumberof questions with complicated discussion the justification, its of terms In definition. of boundaries rigid very notyethave usefulness decisive, necessity to the and in mind,Iaccentuated concept of the feature case hard thejudicial bearing Yet, disobedience. of civil asanexample action to an over-specification of definition the could that make itdifficultidentify to any political lead also might elements itsof descriptive multiplication the its peculiarcharacteristics, depict disposition to conclude thethat same whilst questions narrow on definitionaldefinitions and ofjustificatory the term do notaspects seem of tocivil suffice disobedience. to It was my Having constructed a conceptual background with necessary necessary further aconceptual backgroundHaving for with analysis, tools constructed 61 CEU eTD Collection appear to be morally more legitimate strategies in practices of strategies inpractices belegitimate appear to civil morallymoredisobedience. Therefore, nonviolence and accepting punishment out of out a nonviolence punishment and accepting Therefore, citizens. fellow their to fair being consider they that expect to is itreasonable another, or particular laws. However, given that civil disobedient people rely on moral ground in one way with noncompliance behind motivation tothe commitment tothe adducing tactic plausible alsobea could avoiding Similarly,on punishment insistence impactthe of protest. the strengthen to strategies be among could these violence Useof form the of civil disobedience. in noncompliance of justifiability for conditions and justification of ways and disobedience, over citizens. The cardinal is that question tobeaddressed strategiesinterrogate should of havingauthority and supervisory is framework power as long governmental asthere alegal thesis. of the purpose thespecific accomplish to attempted I Hereby, explanations. conventional by offered those from different are Defiance lawsof will be in political agendas in present day as well as future societies 62 prima facie duty of fair play fair of duty CEU eTD Collection Hall,Robert T.1971. Van Den. Haag, Ernest 1972. Hay, 1995.Time, Douglas. Inequality, andLaw’sViolence. In Hart, H.L.A.Are 1955. ThereAny Natural Rights? Disobedience.Greenawalt,Nonviolent 1991.Justifying Kent. In Theory.1981. DisobedienceandFrancis, Mark. Democratic Hook, Sidney.Hook, andSocial Civil 1971. Protest Disobedience. In CivilDisobedienceFarrell,Justifiable and Problem M.1977.PayingthePenalty: the Daniel Cohen, Carl. 1969. Law, Speech and Disobedience. In Cohen, Marshall. 1972. Liberalism and Disobedience. Cohen, Marshall.Liberalism 1972. Buttle, Nicholas. 1985.Civil andPunishment.Disobedience Disobedience. of Civil a Paradigm Case of Kimberley. Features Brownlee, 2004. Brown, Stuart M.Jr. 1961.Civil Disobedience. Bay, Christian. 1967. Civil Disobedience: Prerequisite for Democracy in Mass Society. In ______. 1971. Barker, Rodney.Civil 1992. Disobedience as and Dworkin Greenham Persuasion: Common. Arendt, Hannah.Arendt, 1972. R EFERENCES & Row. Adamed. Hugo LondonBedau, 170-188. and Routledge. NewYork: (Apr), 175-191. Company, Inc. Violence Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, 141-173. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. of Punishment. (Spring): 283-314. London: Columbia University Press. Practice 10: 337-351. 669-681. Press. Atherton Political Theory andSocialChange Political Studies , ed. Hugo Adam , ed. NewYork:Bedau, Pegasus. 165-177. , ed. Jeffrie G. Murphy, 53-63. Belmont: Wadsworth Wadsworth Murphy,Belmont: Publishing G. 53-63. , ed.Jeffrie Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics, and the Law andthe Tactics, Conscience, Civil Disobedience: The Morality of CivilDisobedience Crisesthe Republic of Philosophy andPublic Affairs 40:290-298. Political Violence andCivil Disobedience . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 63 The Journal ofPhilosophy , ed.David Spitz, 163-183.NewYork: Philosophy andPublic Affairs The Philosophical Review 6,no.2 (Winter): 165-184. . New York: Harper & Row. Civil Disobedience: Theoryand Civil Disobedience: Politics Political Studies Civil Disobedience in Focus Law’s ViolenceLaw’s 16, no. 1 16, (May): 18-32. Civil Disobedience and Civil Disobedience . New York: Harper 58,no.22 (Oct.): . New York and 33: 649-656. , ed. Austin , ed. Res Publica . 64, no. 2 1, no. 3 , CEU eTD Collection Sarat, Austin and Thomas R. Kearns. 1995.Rucker, Darnell. The Moral of 1966. Grounds Civil Disobedience. Making Peace with Violence: Robert Cover on Raz, Joseph.Civil 1991. In Disobedience. ______. 1999.Legal Obligation and the DutyofFair Play. In Pyrcz, and G.1981.Obedience, Support, Authority: TheLimits of in Obligation Political a Prosch, Harry. 1965.Limits to the Moral Claim in Civil Disobedience. Paul Power, F. 1972.Civil Disobedience asFunctional Opposition. Justification. In Radical and Its Disobedience Pech, 1969. Bruce. Rawls, John. 1983. Parla, Taha. 2008. VicdaniParla, Taha. 2008. Reddin Felsefi Gerekçeleri. In 2004. Klosko,George Civil and Kellner,Marc. 1975.Democracy Disobedience. Menachem Morreall, John. 1991. The Justifiability The Justifiability Disobedience. In Morreall,John.of 1991. Violent Lyons,Historical David.1998.Moral Judgment, Reality, CivilDisobedience. and Lefkowitz, David. 2007. On a Moral Right toCivil Disobedience. Martin,Civil Rex. 1970. Disobedience. Honderich, 1989. Ted. Kearns, 211-250.Michigan: University of Michigan Press. In Law and Legal Theory. 145. Bedau, 159-169.London and NewYork: Routledge. ed. Samuel Freeman, Cambridge: 117-129. Harvard University Press. Democracy. 103-111. 34, no.1 (Feb): 37-55. and Practice Özgür Heval Ç New York: Routledge. New York: 37, no.4 (Nov.): 889-911. Focus and Public Affairs Publishers. & Littlefield , ed. HugoAdam , ed. LondonBedau, 130-143. and Routledge. NewYork: A TheoryofJustice The Principles ofFairness andPoliticalObligation Violence forEquality:Inquiries in PoliticalPhilosophy Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science , ed. HugoAdam , ed. NewBedau, 263-268. York:Pegasus. Õ nar and Co 27, no. 1 31-49. (Winter): ú kun Istanbul:Üsterci, 95-100. Ileti . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ethics Law’s Violence Civil Disobedience inFocus Civil 64 80, no. 2 80, no. (Jan): 123-139. , ed. Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Çarklardaki Kum: Vicdani Red Kum: Çarklardaki 14,no. 2(Jun.): 337-352. Civil Disobedience: Theory Civil Disobedience: Ethics Ethics Rawls: CollectedPapers Rawls: The Journal ofPolitics The Journal of Politics The Journal of Ethics Civil Disobedience in 117(Jan):202-233. 76,no.2(Jan): 142- ú im. . Lanham: Rowman , ed. Hugo Adam Hugo , ed. 75,no. 2(Jan.): . London . London and Philosophy , ed. , CEU eTD Collection Weisberg, Robert. 1995. Private Violence as Moral Action: The Law as Inspiration and Action: LawasInspiration Private The 1995.Violence asMoral Weisberg, Robert. Wasserstrom, toObey A. Obligation Richard Law.In the 1969.The Woozley,A. D. 1976. Civil Disobedience and Punishment. ______. 1970. Henry Thoreau, David. 1962. Taylor, William L. 1969. Civil Disobedience: Democracy David. Disobedience. Spitz, Problem of 1954. Civil and The Observations on the Strategies of Protest. In Turenne, Sophie.Civil 2004.Judicial Responses to AComparativeDisobedience: Approach. 1987. Tolstoy, Leo. Walzer, Michael. Obligation 1967.The Disobey. to In Speck, Andreas and Rudi Friedrich.Dünyada 2008. Vicdani Red Hareketi Deneyimleri. In Smith, William. 2004. Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience. Deliberation Democracy, William.Smith, 2004. Singer, 1973. Peter. Civil______. 2005. Obey and Disobedience Duty the to Law.In the Simmons, A. John. 1979. The Principle of FairA.Simmons, of Principle Play. John. 1979.The Andrew.Sabl, 2001.Looking toJustice: Forward RawlsianCivilDisobedience and its Non- Example. In Example. Theory andPractice Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Cambridge ed. David 186-202.NewYork: Spitz, Atherton Press. York: Pegasus.York: andPractice Civil Disobedience:Theory Political ScienceReview Res Publica Society Publishers. Collier Books. 164. Istanbul: Ileti Çarklardaki Kum:VicdaniRed Çarklardaki 353-377.(Dec.): Blackwell Publishing. Ethics to Applied (Summer): 307-337. Rawlsian Lessons. Rawlsian Democracy andDisobedience WritingsCivil on Disobedience and Nonviolence : Harvard University Press. University : Harvard 10:379-399. Law’s Violence Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War and Citizenship. , ed.R.G. Frey and HeathWellman, Christopher Oxford: 50-61. ú The Journal ofPolitical Philosophy im. , ed. HugoAdam , ed. Pegasus.Bedau, 256-262.NewYork: Walden andonthe DutyofCivilDisobedience 48, no. 2 48,no. (Jun.): 386-403. , ed. Austin, ed. andSarat Thomas R. Kearns, 175-210. , ed.ÖzgürHeval Ç 65 . London: Oxford University Press. , ed. Hugo Adam Hugo New , ed. Bedau, 98-105. PhilosophyAffairs andPublic Political Theory andSocialChange Ethics Õ nar and Co 86, no. 4 (Jul.): 323-331. 9,no.3: 307-330. Res Publica . Philadelphia: New Philadelphia: . Civil Disobedience: ú kun kun Üsterci, 153- The American A Companion . NewYork: 10, no. 4 8, no. 4 , CEU eTD Collection Zwiebach, 1975. Burton. ______. 2002. Zinn, 1997. Howard. York: Seven Stories Press. Seven Stories York: Cambridge: South Cambridge:End Press. South Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law Disobedience andDemocracy:NineFallaciesonLaw Order The Zinn The Zinn Reader: WritingsonDisobedienceandDemocracy Civility andDisobedience 66 . London: Cambridge University Press . New .