Civil Disobedience in Open and Closed Societies and Legal-Political Systems (Review of John Rawls and Hannah Arendt's Theories)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 استاد دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 Ph.D Student,Public Law.Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshty University,Tehran,Iran

Abstract

Civil disobedience in open and closed political-legal systems and societies (review of John Rawls and Hannah Arendt's point of views
Theoretical discourses on the concept, justifications and functions of civil disobedience are challenging. In this article two point of views by Hannah Arendt and John Rawls have been studies in order to assess their functional consequences in non-democratic countries. Rawls believes that civil disobedience is an apparent, political and intentional violation of law which has taken by predicting its criminal consequences in order to persuade the majority people to make a trend and change the unjust situation to justified one. This model of civil disobedience belongs to democratic countries but in non-democratic countries, these movements follow fundamental changes. The question is whether this theory which is originally belong to democratic countries, can be applied to non-democratic countries or not?
Arendt’s point of view doesn’t have those conditions. The act of a group of people has violated law without any personal benefit can be categorized as civil disobedience even if they want to make a fundamental change. This interpretation has mostly evaluated with the situation in non-democratic countries. Finally, the civil disobedience will be indicated as a concept which has two criteria: firstly, it should be coordinated with political and legal diversity within the society and secondly it can consider real developments in its concept

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع فارسی
کتابها:
۱. آرنت، هانا، خشونت واندیشه هایی در باره سیاست و انقلاب، مترجم عزت الله فولادوند ،تهران، خوارزمی،۱۳۹۵.
۲. آقابخش، علی، و افشاری، مینو، فرهنگ علوم سیاسی ،تهران، چاپار،۱۳۷۹ .
۳. رالز،جان، نظریه عدالت، مترجمین سید محمد کمال سروریان ومرتضی بحرانی، تهران،پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی واجتماعی،۱۳۸۷.
۴. مک‌‌کالوم، جرالدکوشینگ، فلسفه سیاسی، مترجم بهروز جندقی، قم، کتاب طه،۱۳۸۳.
۵. موحّد، محمد علی، در هوای حق و عدالت :از حقوق طبیعی تا حقوق بشر، تهران ،کارنامه، ۱۳۸۱.
۶. هریس، ورنه،« نلسون ماندلا، پندارها و گفتارها»خودگویی های من، مترجم علی اکبر عبدالرشیدی، اطلاعات، ۱۳۹۴.
 
 
مقالات:
۷. توحیدفام، محمد ، چرخشی در نظریه عدالت جان رالز ،از آرمان گرایی متافیزیک تا واقع گرایی سیاسی، فصلنامه علمی ،پژوهشی رهیافت های سیاسی بین المللی، بهار۹۱،شماره ۲۹.
 
۸ . علی‌حسینی، علی، و دیگران، روش شناسی هانا آرنت در فهم پدیده های سیاسی،فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشیروش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، س۲۳، پاییز۱۳۹۶ ،ش۹۲.
 
 
 
 
 
 
منابع انگلیسی:
 
 
Books:
 
 
9. Arendt, H. Crises of the Republic, Ed1, New York, Harcourt Brace & Company San Diego, 1972.
 
10. Arendt, H. the Human Condition, Ed2, the University of Chicago Press, 1998.
 
11. Arendt, H. the Promise of Politics, Ed2, Schocken, 2009.
 
12. Arendt, H. the Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1973.
 
13. Gelderloos, P. Haw Nonviolence Protects the State, Ed1, Boston, South End Press, 2007.
14.Goldstone, J, A. Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2014.
15. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, Cambridge, the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.
 
16. Raz, J. the Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Oxford, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1979.
 
 
17. Reinhardt, M. the Art of Being Free: Taking Liberties with Tocqueville, Marx, and Arendt, London, Cornell University Press, 1997.
18. Tai, ‌‌‌B,Y,T. Rule of law and Civil Disobedience, Ed1, Routledge, Studies in Asian Law , 2017.
 
19. Tully, J. Public Philosophy in a New Key, Ed1, Cambridge University press, 2009.
 
Articles:
 
20. Arato, A. & Cohen, J. ‘‘Civil Society and Social Theory’’, Thesis Eleven, V21, 1988.
 
21. Austen, D& S. ‘‘Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes’’, American Journal of Political Science, V 37, 1993.
 
22. Celikates, R. ‘‘Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation—Beyond the Liberal Paradigm, ’’Constellations V 23, 2016.
 
 
23. Foster, L, J &Nwiyor, A, B.‘‘A Philosophical Justification of CivilDisobedience in a Democratic State,’’ Journal of Humanities and Social Policy, V3, 2017.
 
 
24. Lyons, D, ‘‘Moral Judgment, Historical Reality and Civil Disobedience” Philosophy and Public Affairs, V27, 1998.
 
25. Moraro, P. “Violent Civil Disobedience and Willingness to Accept Punishment,” Essays in Philosophy, V8, 2007.
 
26. Morreall. J, “The justifiability of violent civil disobedience,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy V6, 2013.
 
 
27. Sabl, A. “Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and its Non-Rawlsian Lessons”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 2001.
 
28. Saikumar, R. “Ethics of Disobedience, Towards a Theory of Civil Disobedience for Contemporary India”, the Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, Policy Report. N 2, 2013.
 
29. Smith, K, H. “Therapeutic Civil Disobedience: A Preliminary Exploration”, 31U. Mem, L. Rev.99, 2000.
 
30. Smith, W. “Reclaiming the Revolutionary Spirit, Arendt on Civil Disobedience,” European Journal of Political Theory, V9, 2010.
 
31. Delmas, C. in Defense of Uncivil Disobedience, 2017, http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/...
 
32. Fitzpatrick, K. Change the world, not yourself, or how Arendt called out Thoreau, https://unidirectory.auckland.ac.nz...                                                                 
 
 
 
‌
 
Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 23, Issue 91 - Serial Number 91
December 2020
Pages 277-302

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 06 December 2020
  • Accept Date: 08 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics