Essay

A piece of 900 words which attempts to justify breaking the law.

The Justification for Disobedience

​

People sometimes wonder if there is any moral justification for breaking the law. Can there be a good reason for disobeying any law from the relatively trivial - not tagging one’s dog- to the major – murder or terrorism for example. In all these cases, a set of rules has been provided contravention of which renders the contravener liable to a form of sanction by the State. That in some cases the sanction is extremely slight and in others might include capital punishment does not seem to be of any relevance. Whether or not contravention of those rules is justified does not, it seems to me, depend on the severity of the sanction.

 

Justification for disobedience, in one sense, begs the question. The question arises only once one has accepted the State’s rule of law and the power of that State to enforce it. If one rejects the State and its institutions, then disobedience does not hold meaning and justification is not required. This State of affairs might apply to invading foreign forces or to subsets of the population who live by their own rules (e.g. some criminal groups or possibly other groups such as Romanies). In the first instance the question of justification surrounds the initial invasion but, once invasion has occurred, the invading power would be unlikely to accept the rule of law of the invaded State. In the second instance, Romanies and other gypsy groups, for example, have been known to occupy private land not necessarily because they feel justified in breaking the rules but because they do not accept those rules in the first place. 

 

If we assume for the moment that a group of travellers does accept the rule of law but feels justified in disobeying, by occupying private land, because they have nowhere else to go, that example can be extended to many other situations. The suffragettes felt justified in breaking the law because they considered the law to be inequitable. Union members have felt justified in civil disobedience in order to improve their appalling working conditions. Others have felt justified in breaking the law by providing assistance to the State’s enemies because they considered their country’s position to be morally wrong.

 

A point often missed, it seems to me, is that an Act of parliament which states, let us say, that ‘breaking and entering’ will get you three to five years is not, strictly speaking, telling us that we must not ‘break and enter’. What it is saying is that if you ‘break and enter’ and if you get caught and the case is proved then you are liable to three to five years. The law does not create a moral or legal imperative. It simply creates a choice. If Welsh coal miners or the suffragettes in the early 20th century decided that their situation was so unjust that breaking the law was necessary, a justification exists. All laws, good and bad, trivial and severe, create choices and, if we feel justified in breaking them, we have made our choice. It is of course true that people of unsound mind or extreme views might decide to break the law for nonsensical reasons and it is equally true that the State still has the power to enforce the sanctions that are a consequence of disobedience even of dangerous, bad and inept laws. But neither of these issues affects the central point that justification for disobedience is available to every individual.

 

What of the State itself? Can it be justified in breaking its own rules and those laid down through international law? First of all, the question is begged to a greater degree than for individuals. International law is meaningless unless the State has signed an agreement to obey it. A State cannot contravene international law if, for that State, the law does not exist. Justification is entirely beside the point. For example, the US has refused to sign the convention for the rights of the child (thus not rendering illegal the execution of minors). If the law has been accepted, the State may well have agreed no more than to work towards its compliance. An example of this is the UN convention on human rights. Many countries have signed up even though non-compliance occurs every day.

 

It seems to me that a State must reserve to itself the possibility of disobeying an international law that it had agreed to comply with if it feels that that is in its own best interest. The decision might be based on greed, selfishness, self aggrandisement or simple stupidity but these are consequent issues, possibly having a profound effect on some reputations, but do not effect the availability of justification. And can a State justify breaking its own rules? Of course. It simply changes them. 

 

For individuals, I believe the answer to be simple though the consequences may well not be. If an individual believes that a law is unjust, unfair or immoral, there is a justification for disobeying it. But it is essential to recognise that the state has a legal right to take whatever consequential action it has at its disposal.