Civil Disobedience – Is it a Legitimate Strategy?

The final panel addressed the question of whether civil disobedience is or can be a legitimate strategy for Environmental Defenders to achieve their pursued goals. Civil disobedience is characterised by exceeding social and legal norms in favour of a moral cause. Related questions, such as the (legal) justification or the philosophical concept, were addressed by the speakers.

In her presentation Megan Blomfield (University of Sheffield) illustrated the philosophical concept of civil disobedience and broke down the characteristics of the term. She further discussed the differences between violent and non-violent civil obedience as well as the justification of violent civil obedience and the limitations of the civil obedience paradigm. 

Felix Butzlaff (WU Vienna University of Economics and Business) addressed civil disobedience and direct action as tools of social movements. First, he discussed the changing perception of the work of movements and argued that movements and protests have become engines of democratization. Butzlaff also discussed the different motives of citizens for active participation and the demand for direct social action. The “democratic alienation in contemporary climate movements” was also addressed: Civil disobedience and contentious politics are understood as key elements for democratization. The fact that existing political mechanisms are increasingly failing to integrate the interests represented within social movements has reinforced this.

The last speaker Ingeborg Zerbes (University of Vienna) was unfortunately unable to attend in person but nevertheless shared her thoughts on “The climate necessity defence” digitally with the participants. Based on current case law on “traditional” protest actions in the name of the environment, climate or animal protection, Zerbes aimed to discuss the justification of climate action in terms of criminal law. Zerbes concludes that the question of justification is always a question of weighing interests, and that some forms of climate activism could be justifiable based on a case-by-case assessment.

The exciting lectures were complemented by content-rich and diverse contributions from the conference participants, for example on the role of human rights complaint bodies and monitoring institutions. These contributions opened up a discursive space in which the ideas presented by our speakers were further elaborated on and deepened. In addition, the conference offered the opportunity to get in contact with experts from various fields – national authorities, courts, international practice, NGOs, academia. The organisers from the Institute for Law and Governance are pleased about the lively interest in this important topic!