The legitimacy of the insurgency
Запись от Кирилл Сызранский размещена 12.06.2012 в 14:48
Alexander Goldfarb
The legitimacy of rebellion
man threw a stone at a policeman, and he that formed a bruise. Or, worse, he threw a Molotov cocktail with more dramatic consequences. Who is this man - a criminal or a freedom fighter?
In the history of all revolutions and national liberation movements, acts of civil disobedience and even violence against the current government legitimized after the fact. Yesterday's an extremist and a bully, after receiving the Order of Victory, and his persecutor, and police in the best case fell under an amnesty.
That is if you, say, a judge, and you see the intruder like public safety, then you tell him: "Young man, come after the revolution, and I will justify. And while you are injured in the performance of the police and thereby committed an offense under such article. Certainly in prison. With all sympathy to you, nothing I can do, because we have the rule of law. "
In the last sentence and the crux of the matter. In order to meet the rebel, does not need to wait for the revolution, if it is a lawless state.
"When the government systematically violates their fundamental obligations, there is a subject the right to terminate its relationship with the state (but not bond with their fellow citizens), in which case the state loses the right to determine the legality of the use of the subject of violence. For this subject and others who as members of society have the right and decide to join it, are no longer members of a joint project with the state and its representatives. moral barriers do not resort to violence to them have disappeared.
Therefore, the rebels are no longer limited to the rule not to resort to violence ... For them, the power of any government is illegal. They may be regarded as state security forces of the enemy, and can be used against them any means ... keeping only those restrictions that are required to comply with the state in the wars with each other ".
This is not from Lenin but from lectures at Oxford University law professor Tony Honore on "Criminal law and human rights." That is the issue, legal or illegal, moral or not moral throwing stones in the streets and squares of unlawful state should take into account not the Criminal Code and the Geneva Convention.
The same logic guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing the right of the "rebellion against tyranny and oppression ... as a last resort."
Explaining the new Russian law on the responsibility for speaking against the government, Putin refers to the practice of European countries. Smart Europeans in response to this will say: "In Europe, the rule of law, you also, Mr. Putin, who does not. Why your country should be treated not as, say, to Italy, where the revolt against the government does not follow but as, say, to China, where it is a great courage. "
On the previous day's detention, 22 people were charged with public order offenses. Today, their number may increase. Perhaps against them there any evidence. The propagandists of the regime will again say that everything is done according to European standards.
Question: how to treat these people. There are many arguments why the fight with riot police in this context may not be worth it, for a variety of tactical, political and other pragmatic reasons. But to condemn them from a moral point of view or to deny them their legal "right to revolt" would automatically recognize the legitimacy of illegitimate power.
Udaltsov said yesterday that the release of these men should be the first requirement of the protest. He's right - both morally and tactically. "Rebellion against tyranny" would be avoided if it will disappear in any other way, but the right to it "as a last resort" should not give up. It is possible that they still have to use it.
It.
The legitimacy of rebellion
man threw a stone at a policeman, and he that formed a bruise. Or, worse, he threw a Molotov cocktail with more dramatic consequences. Who is this man - a criminal or a freedom fighter?
In the history of all revolutions and national liberation movements, acts of civil disobedience and even violence against the current government legitimized after the fact. Yesterday's an extremist and a bully, after receiving the Order of Victory, and his persecutor, and police in the best case fell under an amnesty.
That is if you, say, a judge, and you see the intruder like public safety, then you tell him: "Young man, come after the revolution, and I will justify. And while you are injured in the performance of the police and thereby committed an offense under such article. Certainly in prison. With all sympathy to you, nothing I can do, because we have the rule of law. "
In the last sentence and the crux of the matter. In order to meet the rebel, does not need to wait for the revolution, if it is a lawless state.
"When the government systematically violates their fundamental obligations, there is a subject the right to terminate its relationship with the state (but not bond with their fellow citizens), in which case the state loses the right to determine the legality of the use of the subject of violence. For this subject and others who as members of society have the right and decide to join it, are no longer members of a joint project with the state and its representatives. moral barriers do not resort to violence to them have disappeared.
Therefore, the rebels are no longer limited to the rule not to resort to violence ... For them, the power of any government is illegal. They may be regarded as state security forces of the enemy, and can be used against them any means ... keeping only those restrictions that are required to comply with the state in the wars with each other ".
This is not from Lenin but from lectures at Oxford University law professor Tony Honore on "Criminal law and human rights." That is the issue, legal or illegal, moral or not moral throwing stones in the streets and squares of unlawful state should take into account not the Criminal Code and the Geneva Convention.
The same logic guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing the right of the "rebellion against tyranny and oppression ... as a last resort."
Explaining the new Russian law on the responsibility for speaking against the government, Putin refers to the practice of European countries. Smart Europeans in response to this will say: "In Europe, the rule of law, you also, Mr. Putin, who does not. Why your country should be treated not as, say, to Italy, where the revolt against the government does not follow but as, say, to China, where it is a great courage. "
On the previous day's detention, 22 people were charged with public order offenses. Today, their number may increase. Perhaps against them there any evidence. The propagandists of the regime will again say that everything is done according to European standards.
Question: how to treat these people. There are many arguments why the fight with riot police in this context may not be worth it, for a variety of tactical, political and other pragmatic reasons. But to condemn them from a moral point of view or to deny them their legal "right to revolt" would automatically recognize the legitimacy of illegitimate power.
Udaltsov said yesterday that the release of these men should be the first requirement of the protest. He's right - both morally and tactically. "Rebellion against tyranny" would be avoided if it will disappear in any other way, but the right to it "as a last resort" should not give up. It is possible that they still have to use it.
It.
Всего комментариев 0
