Abstract

What covering makes a break of law an act of civil disobedience? When civil disobedience is morally justified? How should the law respond to persons who enlist in municipal disobedience? Considerations of civil disobedience have tended to focus on the first two of these questions. On the most broadly acknowledged account of municipal disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), municipal disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious break of regulation undertaken with the aim of conveying about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the individuals who practice municipal disobedience are willing to accept the legal penalties of their activities, as this show their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organized forcible resistance, on the other hand.

Civil Disobedience

Introduction

The term 'civil disobedience' was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 term paper to recount his denial to pay the state sample levy applied by the American government to prosecute a conflict in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. In his term paper, Thoreau observes that only a very few persons - champions, martyrs, patriots, reformers in the best sense - serve their society with their consciences, and so necessarily oppose humanity for the most part, and are routinely treated by it as enemies. Thoreau, for his part, expended time in jail for his protest. Many after him have arrogantly identified their disputes as acts of municipal disobedience and have been treated by their societies - occasionally for the time being, occasionally indefinitely - as its enemies.

Throughout annals, actions of municipal disobedience very well have helped to force a reassessment of society's lesson parameters. The Boston Tea Party, the suffragette movement, the opposition to British direct in India commanded by Gandhi, the US civil rights action commanded by Martin Luther monarch Jr., Rosa Parks and other ones, the opposition to apartheid in South Africa, student sit-ins against the Vietnam conflict, to title a few, are all examples where municipal disobedience proved to be an important mechanism for communal change. The supreme impact of latest actions of civil disobedience - anti-abortion trespass demonstrations, the impairing of military house in disagreement to the Iraq conflict, or acts of disobedience taken as part of the ecological action or the animal rights action - continues to be seen.

Features of Civil Disobedience

This feature, highlighted in almost all accounts of civil disobedience, points to the seriousness, sincerity and moral conviction with which civil disobedient breach the law. For many disobedient, their breach of law is demanded of them not only by self-respect and moral consistency but also by their perception of the interests of their society. Through their disobedience, they draw vigilance to laws or policies that they accept as true need reassessment or rejection. Whether their trials are well-founded is another matter.

In civilly disobeying the regulation, an individual typically has ...