Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:48:38.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil disobedience as transnational disruption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

WILLIAM SMITH
WILLIAM SMITH*
Affiliation:
Department of Government & Public Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Civil disobedience has been theorised as an informal guardian of the constitution in democratic societies, but such accounts struggle to accommodate protest that has an international or global dimension. This article addresses this issue through offering a theory of civil disobedience as transnational disruption. Civil disobedience is ‘transnational’ insofar as it is an appeal to a national, international or global public that highlights failures to observe moral, political or legal values that are an appropriate source of normative authority in global contexts. Civil disobedience is ‘disruptive’ insofar as it obstructs the routine activities of relevant parties in order to draw attention to the demands of protesters. The core argument is that civil disobedience can uphold normative standards that have been incorporated into a dense network of treaties, conventions and global regulatory frameworks. It can thus make a modest but valuable contribution to the processes through which publics deliberate about the meaning and interpretation of these contested norms.

Keywords

civil disobediencedisruptionglobal normsprotesttransnational
Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 477 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rawls, J, A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999) 319.Google Scholar Civil disobedience is ‘public’ in that it is carried out openly without attempts to escape arrest; it is ‘nonviolent’ in the sense that it avoids causing physical or emotional harm to persons and destruction of their property; it is ‘conscientious’ in that it is motivated by a sincere opposition to law and policy on grounds of moral, ethical or political principle; and it is ‘political’ in the sense that it aims to communicate this opposition in the hope of bringing about change in law, policy or practices. This article adopts these core features of the Rawlsian definition of civil disobedience, though it does not share his view that protesters must give ‘due notice’ of their action. For an exploration and defence of a broadly Rawlsian interpretation of civil disobedience, see A Sabl, ‘Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and Its Non-Rawlsian Lessons’ (2001) 9 The Journal of Political Philosophy 307.

2 Rawls (n 1) 319.

3 Ibid 320.

4 Ibid 336.

5 See, for instance, Cabrera, L, The Practice of Global Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) 131–53;Google Scholar S Caney, ‘Responding to Global Injustice: On the Right of Resistance’ (2015) 32 Social Philosophy and Policy 51; Celikates, R, ‘Learning from the Streets: Civil Disobedience in Theory and Practice’ in Weibel, P (ed), Global Activism: Art and Conflict in the 21st Century (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2015) 65–72;Google Scholar T Ogunye, ‘Global Justice and Transnational Civil Disobedience’ (2015) 8 Ethics and Global Politics 1; Scheuerman, WE, ‘Civil Disobedience in the Shadows of Postnationalization and Privatization (2016) 12 Journal of International Political Theory 237.Google Scholar

6 Arendt, H, Crises of the Republic (Harcourt Brace & Company, New York, NY, 1972) 49–102;Google Scholar Dworkin, R, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth, London, 1977) 206–22;Google Scholar Habermas, J, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Polity, Cambridge, 1996) 379–84;Google Scholar Raz, J, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1979) 262–75;Google Scholar Singer, P, Democracy and Disobedience (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973).Google Scholar

7 Tarrow, S, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011) 101.Google Scholar

8 This shift is a necessary response to the transformation of political power in conditions of increasing globalisation and deregulation, as argued forcefully by Scheuerman (n 5) 247–8. It should be stressed, however, that – as a reviewer for this journal quite rightly points out – the costs of civil disobedience in such cases are typically borne by domestic governments and publics, whether or not they are the intended target of the protest.

9 The focus on persons means that the theory does not consider the claim that states or state-like entities can carry out civil disobedience as a means of promoting legal or political reform. A problem with this latter claim is that states – to a much greater degree than individuals – typically rely on the use or threat of coercive violence to achieve their goals, which places their actions beyond the category of civil disobedience as it is defined here. Of course, the actions of states in the international system might nonetheless be compared with that of civilly disobedient citizens in certain circumstances. For interesting discussion of these circumstances, see Allen, M, ‘Civil Disobedience, International’, Encyclopedia of Global Justice (Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011) 133–5Google Scholar; Franceschet, A, ‘Theorizing State Civil Disobedience in International Politics’ (2015) 11 Journal of International Political Theory 239Google Scholar; Goodin, R, ‘Towards an International Rule of Law: Distinguishing International Law-Breakers from Would-Be Law-Makers’ (2005) 9 Journal of Ethics 225.Google Scholar

10 An institution is defined as ‘persistent and connected sets of formal and informal rules within which attempts at influence take place’, see Keohane, RO, ‘Governance in a Partially Globalized World’ in Held, D and McGrew, A (eds), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Polity, Cambridge, 2002) 327Google Scholar. On the related concepts of a ‘regime’ and a ‘network’, see respectively Krasner, SD (ed), International Regimes (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, NY, 1983)Google Scholar and Slaughter, A, A New World Order (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2004)Google Scholar. On ‘global risks’ and their implications, see Beck, U, World Risk Society (Polity, Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar and Held, D, Democracy and the Global Order (Polity, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar

11 Tarrow, S, The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005) 25.Google Scholar

12 Habermas, J, The Lure of Technocracy (Polity, Cambridge, 2015) 29–30.Google Scholar

13 Cohen, J, ‘Minimalism about Human Rights: The Best We Can Hope For?’ (2004) 12 The Journal of Political Philosophy 190, 195.Google Scholar

14 Buchanan, A and Keohane, RO, ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’ (2006) 20 Ethics & International Affairs 405, 407.Google Scholar

15 The current global order is characterised by some as an uneasy marriage of ‘Westphalian’ norms based on the interests of states and ‘cosmopolitan’ norms based on the interests of individuals. See, for instance, S Benhabib, ‘On the Alleged Conflict between Democracy and International Law’ (2005) 19 Ethics & International Affairs 85; Habermas, J, ‘The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society’ (2008) 15 Constellations 444–50.Google Scholar

16 Tarrow (n 11) 60.

17 These dynamics have been subject to extensive empirical analysis in the literatures on social movements and civil resistance. Daniel Ritter, for instance, discusses how revolutionary movements in autocratic societies can use non-violent tactics to apply pressure on regimes that are closely aligned with Western liberal-democracies, in D Ritter, The Iron Cage of Liberalism: International Politics and Unarmed Revolutions in the Middle East and North America (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015) 16–22. Thanks to a reviewer for alerting me to the relevance of this literature, which often tends to be overlooked by philosophical and normative approaches.

18 The idea of normative standards that are a matter of ‘international concern’ is discussed at length in Beitz, C, The Idea of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).Google Scholar

19 A representative sample of such criticism can be found in J Habermas and J Derrida, ‘February 15, Or What Binds Us Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Core of Europe’ (2003) 10 Constellations 291–7.

20 Allen, M, ‘Civil Disobedience, Transnational’ Encyclopaedia of Global Justice (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011) 135, 136.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 To clarify: civil disobedience as transnational disruption can aim to achieve change through legal reform, as would be the case if the target of a protest were a domestic or foreign government. The conceptual possibility of protest that targets non-law-making bodies merely suggests that we should not take legal reform as a necessary objective of civil disobedience as transnational disruption.

23 Rawls (n 1). See also Scheuerman (n 5) 251–2.

24 D Lyons, ‘Moral Judgment, Historical Reality, and Civil Disobedience’ (1998) 27 Philosophy and Public Affairs 31.

25 Sabl (n 1) 314. For an attractive application of Sabl’s argument to the case of transnational civil disobedience, see Ogunye (n 5).

26 Cabrera (n 5) 148.

27 A nuanced discussion of violence can be found in Caney (n 5) 65–7.

28 Rawls (n 1) 319.

29 See, for instance, Wellman, CH and Simmons, AJ, Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).Google Scholar

30 Rawls (n 1) 5.

31 Mansbridge, J, et al., ‘A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy’ in Parkinson, J and Mansbridge, J (eds), Deliberative Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 1;Google Scholar see also Raz (n 6) 262. For more detailed discussion of these reasons, see Smith, W, Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, London, 2013) 5–7.Google Scholar

32 This claim is compatible with the thought that there is a moral right to civil disobedience in democratic societies (see, for example, Lefkowitz, D, ‘On a Moral Right to Civil Disobedience’ (2007) 117 Ethics 202Google Scholar). This is because acting within our rights is typically an insufficient basis for the claim that our conduct is justified; in order to vindicate the latter claim, it is necessary to show that we have exercised our rights in a way that is defensible all-things-considered.

33 Held, D, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (Polity, Cambridge, 2004) 119.Google Scholar

34 Ibid 120–36. Seyla Benhabib augments Held’s list by foregrounding the category of transnational migration, which she identifies as an important dimension of the ‘international human rights regime’ in Benhabib, S, Another Cosmopolitanism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006) 27–31.Google Scholar

35 Held (n 33) 132.

36 Ibid.

37 The conditions are presumptive in the manner envisaged by Rawls in his theory of civil disobedience. As he puts it, ‘no doubt there will be situations when they do not hold, and other arguments could be given for civil disobedience’, in Rawls (n 1) 326.

38 The recent decision of the Trump administration to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change is a paradigmatic example of such a case. Thanks to a reviewer for helpful discussion of this point.

39 To clarify: the argument here does not affirm or deny the contentious claim that non-members should be included in the decision-making process, but rather requires that the perspectives of those exposed to serious threats as a result of collective decisions should be heard. For an interesting discussion of broader issues about democracy and globalisation, see Thompson, DF, ‘Democratic Theory and Global Society’ (1999) 7 The Journal of Political Philosophy 111–25.Google Scholar

40 Sørensen, MJ and Martin, B, ‘The Dilemma Action: Analysis of an Activist Technique’ (2014) 39 Peace & Change 73.Google Scholar

41 Rawls (n 1) 339.

42 Wouters, R, ‘From the Street to the Screen: Characteristics of Protest Events as Determinants of Television News Coverage’ (2013) 18 Mobilization: An International Quarterly 83.Google Scholar

43 Oliver, PE and Meyer, DJ, ‘How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events’ (1999) 105 American Journal of Sociology 38.Google Scholar

44 Gavin, NT, ‘Pressure Group Direct Action on Climate Change: The Role of the Media and the Web in Britain – A Case Study’ (2010) 12 British Journal of Politics and International Relations 459.Google Scholar

45 The phrase ‘disruption fatigue’ was suggested by a reviewer for this journal. Thanks to that reviewer for prompting me to consider this issue.

46 Stevenson, H and Dryzek, JS, Democratizing Global Climate Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014) 147–8.Google Scholar

47 Ibid 148.

48 Wood, LJ, Direct Action, Deliberation, and Diffusion: Collective Action after the WTO Protests in Seattle (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 143–5.Google Scholar

49 Thanks to a reviewer for prompting me to consider these objections.

50 Eric Posner is one of many to suggest that international human rights law is overburdened with poorly defined legal obligations, which bestows considerable discretion on governments in determining whether and how to implement these rights. See Posner, E, The Twilight of Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 86–95.Google Scholar

51 Rawls (n 1) 340.

52 Ibid 339.

53 Ibid 340.

54 Ibid 327.

55 Habermas (n 6) 384.

56 Singer (n 6) 90–2.

57 Habermas (n 6) 382–4.

58 Singer (n 6) 85.

59 For a recent survey, see Tarrow (n 7) 234–58.

60 Keck, ME and Sikkink, K, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1998) 27.Google Scholar

61 Ibid.

62 Engler, M and Engler, P, This is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt is Shaping the Twenty-First Century (Nation Books, New York, NY, 2016) 189.Google Scholar

63 The prominent economist Joseph Stiglitz suggested that ‘until the protesters came along there was little hope for change and no outlets for complaint … it is the trade unionists, students, environmentalists – ordinary citizens – marching in the streets of Prague, Seattle, Washington, and Genoa who have put the need for reform on the agenda of the developed world’ in Stiglitz, J, Globalisation and Its Discontents (London, Penguin, 2002) 9.Google Scholar

64 Rawls (n 1) 326.

65 Ibid 327.

66 Lefkowitz (n 32) 219–20.

67 This move is said to set Rawls’s theory at odds with campaigns in democratic societies that have employed civil disobedience in support of numerous progressive causes. See, for instance, Cohen, JL and Arato, A, Civil Society and Political Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992) 572–7Google Scholar; Markovits, D, ‘Democratic Disobedience’ (2005) 114 The Yale Law Journal 1897; Singer (n 6).Google Scholar

68 See, for instance, Buchanan and Keohane (n 14).

69 Rawls (n 1) 342.

70 Ibid 341.

71 The contrast between the Civil Rights Movement and Operation Rescue was suggested by a reviewer for this journal.

72 Pettit, P, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997) 193.Google Scholar

73 Ganz, M, ‘Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization of California Agriculture 1959–1966’ (2000) 105 American Journal of Sociology 1003Google Scholar; Haug, C and Rucht, D, ‘Structurelessness: An Evil or an Asset? A Case Study’ in Porta, DD and Rucht, D (eds), Meeting Democracy: Power and Deliberation in Global Justice Movements (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013) 179–213Google Scholar; Polletta, F, Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2002); Wood (n 48).Google Scholar

74 Chabot, S, ‘Dialogue Matters: Beyond the Transmission Model of Transnational Diffusion between Social Movements’ in Givan, RK, Roberts, KM and Soule, SA (eds), The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Mechanisms, and Political Effects (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) 99–124.Google Scholar

75 Fraser, N, Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World (Polity, Cambridge, 2008).Google Scholar

76 Smith, W, ‘Anticipating Transnational Publics: On the Use of Minipublics in Transnational Governance’ (2013) 41 Politics & Society 461.Google Scholar

77 Tarrow (n 11) 170–2.

78 Ibid 178.

79 Ibid 128–31.

80 For an interesting set of case studies focusing on the role that deliberation has played in the organisation of global justice protest, see Porta, DD and Rucht, D (eds), Meeting Democracy: Power and Deliberation in Global Justice Movements (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar

81 Scheuerman (n 5) 245.