Rebels without a Cause? Civil disobedience, Conscientious Objection and the Art of Argumentation in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

Authors

  • Kati Nieminen University of Helsinki

Keywords:

Civil disobedience, conscientious objection, Articles 9 and 10 European Convention on Human Rights, Desobediencia civil, objeción de conciencia, artículos 9 y 10 de la Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos, Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos

Abstract

Civil disobedience is often seen as a political statement whilst conscientious objection is understood as a private matter. This article discusses real-life acts of disobedience in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The emphasis is on the argumentative strategies by which the potential for profound social change can be neutralised in legal argumentation. The cases discussed here concentrate on Turkey and represent acts of conscientious objection and civil disobedience. The main finding is that in legal argumentation there are two strategies for neutralising the potential for change: first, labelling the disobedient act as a private matter in order to deprive it of its political message, or second, labelling the act as violent, undemocratic behaviour so that it can be disregarded. The article shows that the law is unable, and perhaps unwilling, to fully acknowledge the political claims of disobedience.

A menudo se percibe la desobediencia civil como una declaración política, mientras que la objeción de conciencia se entiende como un asunto privado. Este artículo analiza actos de desobediencia de la vida real a través de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Se enfatizan las estrategias argumentativas por las que se puede neutralizar el potencial de cambio social profundo a través de la argumentación jurídica. Los casos analizados aquí se centran en Turquía y representan actos de objeción de conciencia y desobediencia civil. La conclusión principal es que en la argumentación jurídica existen dos estrategias para neutralizar el potencial de cambio: en primer lugar, etiquetar el acto de desobediencia como un asunto privado, para privarlo de su mensaje político, en segundo lugar, etiquetar el acto como un comportamiento violento y no democrático, para que pueda ser ignorado. El artículo demuestra que el derecho es incapaz de, y tal vez reticente a, reconocer totalmente las reivindicaciones políticas de la desobediencia

DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2691949

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Views 108
Downloads:
PDF 119


Author Biography

Kati Nieminen, University of Helsinki

Kati Nieminen (MA, LL.M.) is a Doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research interests include the relationship between law, power and violence, and the utilisation of discourse analysis in the study of law. Faculty of Law P.O. Box 4, FI-00014 University of Helsinki. kati.nieminen@helsinki.fi

Downloads

Published

02-12-2015

How to Cite

Nieminen, K. (2015) “Rebels without a Cause? Civil disobedience, Conscientious Objection and the Art of Argumentation in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 5(5), pp. 1291–1308. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/366 (Accessed: 23 December 2024).