Right to resist

Last updated
Memorial to Yugoslav Partisans in Serbia, an "intuitive case of resistance". Kosmaj spomenik2.jpg
Memorial to Yugoslav Partisans in Serbia, an "intuitive case of resistance".

The right to resist has been put forward as a human right, although its scope and content are controversial. [2] The right to resist, depending on how it is defined, can take the form of civil disobedience or armed resistance against a tyrannical government or foreign occupation; whether it also extends to non-tyrannical governments is disputed. [3] Although Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the most distinguished jurists, called the right to resist the supreme human right, this right's position in international human rights law is tenuous and rarely discussed. Forty-two countries explicitly recognize a constitutional right to resist, as does the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Contents

History

According to philosopher Heiner Bielefeldt, "The question of the legitimacy of resistance—including violent resistance—against established authority is as old as political and social thought itself." [4] The right to resist was encoded in the earliest versions of international law and in a variety of philosophical traditions. [5] Support for the right to resist can be found in the ancient Greek doctrine of tyrannicide included in Roman law, as well as by concepts in the Hebrew Bible, jihad in the Muslim world, the Mandate of Heaven in dynastic Chinese political philosophy, and in Sub-Saharan Africa's oral traditions. [4] [5] Historically, Western thinkers have distinguished between despots and tyrants, only authorizing resistance against the latter because these rulers violated fundamental rights in addition to their lack of popular legitimacy. [6] A few thinkers including Kant and Hobbes absolutely rejected the existence of a right to resist. [7] John Locke accepted it only to protect property. [8] Views differ on whether the right to resist goes beyond restoring the status quo or defending the constitutional order. Marxists went even farther than the authors of the French Revolution in supporting resistance to change the established order; Mao Zedong said that "it is right to rebel against reactionaries". [9]

Although Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the most distinguished jurists, called the right to resist the supreme human right, this right's position in international human rights law is tenuous and rarely discussed. [10] The United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders' mandate excludes anyone who does not use exclusively peaceful means, regardless of the severity of rights infringement. [11] According to Shannonbrooke Murphy, the lack of respect for the right to resist is discordant with the reality that the United Nations itself and the entire architecture of human rights might not exist if their supporters had not resorted to the use of force against the Axis powers. [12] Furthermore, Murphy argues that this rule is unfair to human rights defenders in the worst situations and its effect "has led to a perverse situation whereby international human rights law effectively abandons the majority of people facing grave or massive human rights violations". [13] In 1964, Nelson Mandela defended the recourse to violence in the struggle against apartheid, in his speech "I Am Prepared to Die". [14] According to political philosopher Gwilym David Blunt, "The right to resistance is a necessary part of the political conception of human rights". Without it, rights would only be privileges, but the right to resist provides "an ultimate remedy to human rights violations". [15] [16]

Cases

Resistance vs. terrorism

National liberation movements using violence as occurred in Algeria, Palestine, and Ireland have often elicited mixed reactions, between being denounced as terrorism and the assertion that sometimes force is necessary to resist oppression. [17] Political theorist Christopher Finlay wrote a book based on just war theory articulating when he believes armed resistance is justified. [18]

A specific example is the Palestinian right to resist the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is denied by Israel. [19]

Counterterrorism and resistance

Especially after the 9/11 attacks, state counterterrorism strategies included proscribing many organizations as terrorist organizations, even if they could be seen as exercising a legitimate right to resist in accordance with internationally recognized principles. In particular, states proscribing organizations that oppose these states poses a high risk of denial of the right to resist. [20] Mark Muller QC cites the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 as a law that could potentially encompass any non-state organization carrying out an armed campaign and one that contains no exception for lawful exercise of self-determination or fighting against a nondemocratic and oppressive regime. [21] To avoid the problem of competing legal frameworks that evaluate an action differently, Georg Gesk proposes that anti-terrorism laws should focus on obviously criminal actions that could not be justified regardless of the cause, while violent resistance against an allegedly unjust state should not be seen as terrorism unless proven to be the case. [22]

Global poverty and injustice

Although political theorists have debated what obligations the wealthy have in light of global poverty and injustice, there has been less thought on what the victims of these regimes are entitled to do to achieve justice. According to political theorist Simon Caney, the downtrodden have a right to resist global injustice; "to engage in action that transforms the underlying social, economic, and political structures that perpetuate injustice in order to bring about greater justice in the future". [23] Based on the principle of necessity, Caney argues that some people have the right to take direct action to immediately better their standard of living. Examples he gives include evading border controls; stealing essential food, medicine, or energy that they could not afford; and violating intellectual property law. [24] A second type of resistance involves attempting to alter unjust global systems to bring about greater justice; he cites land occupations; obstruction and blockades, for example to protect the environment; sabotage; refusing to pay debt; rioting; and rebellion, for example the Haitian Revolution or anti-colonial wars. [25] Blunt argues that poor people in the Global South have the right to resist their condition by immigrating to the Global North, even against the law; he analogizes this to slaves' right to resist by fleeing their masters. [26]

There is no generally agreed legal definition of the right. Based on Tony Honoré, Murphy suggests that the "'right to resist' is the right, given certain conditions, to take action intended to effect social, political or economic change, including in some instances a right to commit acts that would ordinarily be unlawful". [27] This right could be exercised individually or collectively, ranges from overthrow of the system through more limited goals, and encompasses all illegal actions from civil disobedience to violent resistance. [28] This right is conditional on being necessary and proportionate to achieve an aim compatible with international human rights law, and could not justify infringing others' rights. [29]

International law

In international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. [9] It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination, foreign occupation, and racist regimes that deny a segment of the population political participation. According to international law, states may not use force against the lawful exercise of self-determination, while those seeking self-determination may use military force if there is no other way to achieve their goals. [30] Fayez Sayegh derives a right to resist from the Charter of the United Nations' recognition of an inherent right of national self-defense in the face of aggression. [31] Based on the charter, the 1970 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 explicitly endorsed a right to resist "subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation". [32] Based on this, many scholars argue that the right to resist exists in customary international law where self-determination is at issue. [33]

Some scholars have argued that a right to resist oppression is implicit in the International Bill of Human Rights. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". [34] The drafters of the declaration, however, intended to exclude the right to resist. [35] The European and Inter-American regional human rights treaties do not include a right to resist. [36]

Article 20(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights states that "colonised or oppressed peoples" have a right "to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognised by the international community". There is no similar provision in other human rights treaties. [37] Murphy suggests that besides foreign invasion and occupation, "peoples facing massive violations amounting to crimes against humanity or genocide, coups d'état or other unconstitutional rule could qualify." [37] The revised 2004 Arab Charter on Human Rights, but not its 1994 predecessor, grants an unqualified "right to resist foreign occupation". [38]

Constitutions

Constitutional right to resist by country, dark red (current) light red (former) Constitutional right to resist world map.svg
Constitutional right to resist by country, dark red (current) light red (former)

The right to resist was guaranteed in Magna Carta [39] and is one of the central elements of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen issued during the French Revolution in 1791. This provision is incorporated into the preamble of France's 1958 constitution. [2] [9] As of 2012, 42 countries recognize a right to resist in their constitution and another three formerly recognized such a right. [40] Most of these countries are located in Latin America, Western Europe, or Africa. [41] Most provisions were adopted in four waves: "revolutionary republican, post-fascist, post-colonial and post-Soviet". [39] In Latin America, such constitutional provisions were commonly adopted in the aftermath of coups d'état, while elsewhere these provisions were intended as a forward thinking measure against democratic backsliding. [42]

The philosophical basis of the constitutional right to resist differs; in some cases based on natural law; in others obliging the citizen to take action against unconstitutional seizure of power; and in a third set of countries authorizing action against state interference in individual rights. [43] There is also variance in whether the right to resist is conceived as optional or a duty of citizens. [44] The laws vary in scope; some grant the right to resist an unlawful coup or foreign aggression while others are more broad, encompassing human rights violations or other oppression. [39]

Constitutional right to resist installed by revolutionary governments may later be cited by opponents of these regimes. In 1953, Fidel Castro was arrested for the attack on Moncada Barracks. In his defense speech, "History Will Absolve Me", he invoked the "universally recognized principle" and Cuba's constitutional right to resist. [45]

The right of resistance granted in Article 20 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law is part of the liberal democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany and is considered a right that is equivalent to a fundamental right. This right was introduced as part of the 1968 German Emergency Acts and allows any German to resist anyone who undertakes to abolish the constitutional principles (Article 1-20 GG) when no other remedy is possible. Above all, it is directed against constitutional institutions themselves, which try to abolish the existing constitutional order through political decisions. This is based on the knowledge that constitutional institutions can behave unconstitutionally, even if they act on the basis of a law (Nazi seizure of power through the Enabling Act of 1933). The right of resistance is the result of a long historical development, which, based on an absolutist or legal positivist background, assumed that state action could never be wrong: "The King can do no wrong". Any criminal offenses committed and other violations of rights are justified by the right of resistance. However, the resister must always use the mildest means, if this is possible for him. Such a constitutional regulation is not very widespread worldwide. [46]

In 2021, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the conviction of two migrants in the Vos Thalassa case for a July 2018 protest on board the Vos Thalassa ship in which they resisted being returned to Libya, due to the risk of torture and mistreatment in that country. [47]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-determination</span> The right of all people to freely participate in the political procedures of their government

Self-determination refers to a people's right to form its own political entity, and internal self-determination is the right to representative government with full suffrage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</span> Declaration adopted in 1948 by the UN General Assembly

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a UN committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of society and the state.

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) was a functional commission within the overall framework of the United Nations from 1946 until it was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006. It was a subsidiary body of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and was also assisted in its work by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR). It was the UN's principal mechanism and international forum concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights.

Some philosophers distinguish two types of rights, natural rights and legal rights.

A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in addition to numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.

Economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to health, victims' rights and the right to science and culture. Economic, social and cultural rights are recognised and protected in international and regional human rights instruments. Member states have a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social and cultural rights and are expected to take "progressive action" towards their fulfilment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global justice</span> Issue in political philosophy

Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern about unfairness. It is sometimes understood as a form of internationalism.

In political philosophy, the right of revolution is the right or duty of a people to "alter or abolish" a government that acts against their common interests or threatens the safety of the people without justifiable cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.

<i>Filártiga v. Peña-Irala</i> United States court case

Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, was a landmark case in United States and international law. It set the precedent for United States federal courts to punish non-American citizens for tortious acts committed outside the United States that were in violation of public international law or any treaties to which the United States is a party. It thus extends the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. The case was decided by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consisting of judges Wilfred Feinberg, Irving Kaufman, and Amalya Lyle Kearse.

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws aimed at fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

Costas Douzinas is a professor of law, a founder of the Birkbeck School of Law and the Department of Law of the University of Cyprus, the founding director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at Birkbeck, University of London, the President of the Nikos Poulantzas Institute and a former politician.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Martin Scheinin</span> Finnish professor of law

Martin Scheinin is an international law scholar who served as the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism in 2005–2011. He was selected for this position after serving for eight years (1997–2004) as member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body monitoring states' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While on the committee, he was known as a defendant of the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples and opponent of capital punishment, as well as the drafter of the committee's General Comment No. 29 on states of emergency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norman Paech</span>

Norman Paech is a retired German professor and member of the political party The Left.

<i>Politics as Usual</i> (book) 2010 book by Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge

Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric is a 2010 book by Thomas Pogge. The book is a discussion on issues of global significance and their relationship to poverty. Politics as Usual is based on previously compiled essays. Pogge's book present an alternate view than the one where "Education, health-care, technology, and political participation are becoming ever more universal, empowering human beings everywhere to enjoy security, economic sufficiency, equal citizenship, and a life in dignity." according to Crop. He presents one where Poverty and oppression persist on a massive scale, one where the affluent states and international organizations knowingly contribute and even benefit from these evils.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right to truth</span> Right for victims to know what happened

Right to truth is the right, in the case of grave violations of human rights, for the victims and their families or societies to have access to the truth of what happened. The right to truth is closely related to, but distinct from, the state obligation to investigate and prosecute serious state violations of human rights. Right to truth is a form of victims' rights; it is especially relevant to transitional justice in dealing with past abuses of human rights. In 2006, Yasmin Naqvi concluded that the right to truth "stands somewhere on the threshold of a legal norm and a narrative device ... somewhere above a good argument and somewhere below a clear legal rule".

The Palestinians' right to resist is a significant issue deeply rooted in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, particularly in relation to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This right, recognized under international law, is based on the principle of self-determination for all peoples under foreign and colonial rule.

Many scholars have argued that Palestinians have the right to resist under international law, including armed resistance. This right to resist is in a jus ad bellum sense only; the conduct of such resistance must be in accordance with laws of war. This implies that attacks on Israeli military targets could be allowed but attacks on Israeli civilians are prohibited. Whether it is Palestinians who have the right to resist against the Israeli occupation, or it is Israel that has the right to self-defense against Palestinian violence, is one of the most important questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

References

  1. Blunt 2018, 20.
  2. 1 2 Bielefeldt 2003, p. 1100.
  3. Bielefeldt 2003, pp. 1097, 1100–1101.
  4. 1 2 Bielefeldt 2003, p. 1097.
  5. 1 2 Murphy 2012, p. 91.
  6. Turchetti 2006, p. 871.
  7. Bielefeldt 2003, pp. 1099–1100.
  8. Douzinas 2014, pp. 87–88.
  9. 1 2 3 Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1206.
  10. Murphy 2012, p. 92.
  11. Murphy 2012, p. 93.
  12. Murphy 2012, p. 94.
  13. Murphy 2012, pp. 95, 108.
  14. Murphy 2012, pp. 94–95.
  15. Blunt 2020, p. 70.
  16. Blunt 2018, 8.
  17. Finlay 2015, p. 313.
  18. Finlay 2015, pp. 313–314, passim.
  19. Francis 2014, pp. 42–43.
  20. Muller 2008, pp. 118–119.
  21. Muller 2008, pp. 122–124.
  22. Gesk 2012, pp. 1093–1094.
  23. Caney 2020, pp. 510–511.
  24. Caney 2020, p. 512–513.
  25. Caney 2020, p. 513–515.
  26. Blunt 2018, 1.
  27. Murphy 2012, p. 109.
  28. Murphy 2012, pp. 109–110.
  29. Murphy 2012, p. 110.
  30. Muller 2008, p. 116.
  31. Sayegh 1965, p. 49.
  32. Ginsburg et al. 2012, pp. 1206–1207.
  33. Murphy 2012, pp. 104–106.
  34. Murphy 2012, pp. 95–96.
  35. Murphy 2012, p. 97.
  36. Murphy 2012, pp. 99–100.
  37. 1 2 Murphy 2011, abstract.
  38. Murphy 2012, p. 104.
  39. 1 2 3 Murphy 2012, p. 101.
  40. Ginsburg et al. 2012, pp. 1242–1259.
  41. Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1218.
  42. Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1211.
  43. Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1221.
  44. Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1227.
  45. Ginsburg et al. 2012, p. 1237.
  46. Blankennagel, Alexander (2004). Verfassungen im Diskurs der Welt (in German). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. p. 345. ISBN   3-16-148361-8.
  47. Peers, Steve (27 May 2022). "EU Law Analysis: Italian Court of Cassation: Vos Thalassa judgment acquits migrants who resisted return to Libya". EU Law Analysis.

Sources

Further reading