Civil disobedience has long been used by marginalized groups to address systemic inequalities in society and bring about change. But what exactly is civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is not legally defined, making it difficult to determine when someone is engaging in it. Roger Hallam, founder of Extinction Rebellion, poses a provocative question on this topic: “What if you are simply talking to me about civil disobedience? Does that make you practice civil disobedience yourself? Under an authoritarian regime, you probably are. I am afraid that we are heading in that direction here in the United Kingdom. [1]

Hallam sees in radical actions, such as roadblocks and mass strikes, the only way to force authorities into meaningful negotiations in order to change society for the better. In a lawsuit against Greenpeace, the Amsterdam District Court described civil disobedience as a form of non-violent protest with a political-social goal. Any criminal intervention and liability for damages must be accepted by the activists. In the case of civil disobedience, the law is deliberately violated, but the activities are not aimed at undermining the democratic legal order, unlike acts of extremism. [2]

However, in today’s society, a disturbing trend has emerged where protesters are heavily penalized by the courts in order to address societal concerns on disorder and calls for retribution. In July last year, five activists of the environmental organization Just Stop Oil, including Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallam, were sentenced to five years in prison by the Southwark Crown Court in London for blocking the M25 motorway, an unusually harsh punishment for non-violent protest. [3] In a ruling on March 7 this year, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to four years’ imprisonment [4], but activists fear that this decision sets a dangerous precedent for harsher penalties on climate protests.  

One of the most famous activists that engaged in non-violent protest was Martin Luther King Jr.,   
a prominent leader of the civil rights movement in the US. In 1963, King was arrested for protesting against the infamous ‘Jim Crow’ laws that imposed racial segregation. While incarcerated, he shared his justification for breaking the law in the manifesto Letter from Birmingham Jail: 

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was ‘well-timed’ according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘wait.’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This ‘wait’ has almost always meant ‘never’.” [5]

There are uncanny parallels with modern-day oppressors such as the oil and gas companies that justify drilling for fossil fuels despite the overwhelming evidence that their actions are rapidly destroying the planet. Such was the case in the German state of Lower Saxony, where on August 13, 2024, the State Office for Mining, Energy, and Geology granted a permit to Dutch oil and gas exploitation company ONE Dyas to drill for gas off the coast of the German island of Borkum.  
 
A press release from ONE Dyas stated that this was actually good news because the gas is produced with the smallest possible CO2 footprint since it does not need to be imported. As long as we cannot switch to sustainable energy sources, ONE Dyas argued, gas from the North Sea remains the best choice. Moreover, the Netherlands and Germany would become less dependent on countries outside the EU for their energy supply this way. [6] Needless to say, it is improbable that the likes of ONE Dyas will change their insights any time soon.

So is non-violent direct action against the likes of ONE Dyas allowed, or would this have severe repercussions for those involved? Legal sociologist Kees Schuyt distinguishes various characteristics in his definition of civil disobedience. It must involve a deliberate violation of the law, with the aim of bringing about a change in the public interest when the use of legal means has not yielded results. The violation is also deliberate, conscientious, and non-violent, and takes place in public. The risk of punishment is accepted, cooperation with arrest and prosecution is voluntary, and the rights of others are as much as possible respected. [7]

Schuyt describes civil disobedience as a weapon against the majority that abuses its power by maintaining an unjust situation. In these cases, difficulties facing a minority are systematically ignored, and reasonable arguments simply not listened to. If this majority wants to maintain the favourable status quo, even if it leads to adverse consequences for other groups in society, civil disobedience ensures that the public dialogue is reopened.

The view of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on this matter is that the right to demonstrate must be protected, but demonstrators must take into account restrictions necessary to maintain public safety in a democratic society. This point of view aligns with the legalistic view of legal philosophers like Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls, who argued that citizens have certain rights which they can invoke, but they also have moral obligations to each other and political responsibility to the state, namely to obey the law.

German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt opposed this legalistic way of thinking in her essay “Civil Disobedience” (1972). Arendt distinguishes between activists who engage in civil disobedience and conscientious objectors. The first group acts from political ideas, and the second group from their conscience. According to Arendt, the conscience leads to a subjectification of judgments and therefore has no place in politics. Civil disobedience, according to her, is not an act of conscience but a political act that contributes to public debate. This can lead to new developments in society and simultaneously honours democratic values. [8]

Because civil disobedience in Arendt’s definition is political in nature, we must think about how to deal with citizens who disagree with the state’s actions. Arendt therefore advocates approaching civil disobedience not from a legalistic perspective, but from a political one. If conscientious actions are taken for political reasons in response to inaction on social problems, such as climate change, then these actions should not be categorized as regular crimes. This approach ensures the right to demonstrate and prevents the demonstrators from being prosecuted for crimes such as incitement.  

In this light, the four-year prison sentence handed to the Just Stop Oil activists for peacefully protesting against the destruction of the planet, views based on scientific evidence, is difficult to justify and should be revoked.