RIGHT OF REBELLION: ON THE PROBLEMS OF REHABILITATION OF PARTICIPANTS IN ANTI-SOVIET REBELLIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN

Many participants in the anti-Soviet uprisings of the Kazakhs have not yet been rehabilitated. The obstacle to this is the norms of the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which do not allow the rehabilitation of persons who participated in armed struggle and murders of representatives of the authorities and the military. At the same time, in international and national law there is such an institute as jus resistendi - the right of resistance or the right to rebellion. This legal institution enables the rehabilitation of participants of anti-Soviet uprisings due to the recognition of their natural and inalienable rights.

Algunos antecedentes del liberalismo constitucional en España: El pensamiento político de la segunda escolástica

The name «School of Salamanca» is refered to a group of theologians and Natural Law philosophers who taught in the University of Salamanca, following the inspiration of the great tomist Francisco de Vitoria. They developed some original theories on Political Thought, like the pactum translationis (or the delegated power to the kings from the civil society) and the right of resistance to tyranny. Theories that will revive at the times of the French invasion of Spain (1808-1812). Key words: Scholastics, liberalism, School of Salamanca, 1812 Spanish Constitution. JEL codes: B11. Resumen: Tanto en lo referente a la teoría del contrato social, como a los fundamentos «democráticos» de la autoridad civil, las universidades españolas llevaban varios siglos enseñando unas doctrinas que luego pusieron de moda los teóricos del liberalismo (desde Locke hasta Rousseau); pero que, como sostendremos a continuación, ya habían sido expuestas desde la época de Vitoria y —sobre todo— Suárez, hasta las postrimerías del siglo XVIII. Y que resumidamente podemos expresar así: según las teorías escolásticas del pactum translationis, la autoridad civil recae directamente en el pueblo, quien la delega en el soberano. Al faltar éste, ese poder vuelve a la sociedad; que justamente sería la circunstancia histórica de 1808 con la invasión napoleónica de España y el surgimiento de unas Juntas a ambos lados del Atlántico, como garantes de la legitimidad gubernativa. Palabras clave: Escolástica, liberalismo, Escuela de Salamanca, Cortes de Cádiz. Códigos JEL: B11.

The idea of the right of resistance to oppression in the Eastern political, legal and religious thought

Introduction. The triumph of liberal democracy in developed countries did not reduce the protest activity of citizens, revolutions and uprisings are still a phenomenon of modern time. The issue of the essence and mechanism of exercising the right of resistance (right of rebellion, right of revolution, iusresistendi) is becoming relevant, which also requires a historical analysis of Eastern political, legal and religious thought. Theoretical analysis. The author found out that the doctrine of the right of resistance is not the concept developed exclusively by Western lawyers and philosophers. Representatives of Chinese philosophical and Islamic religious thought made a significant contribution to the development of the idea of iusresistendi. The author concludes that there is no significant contribution of legal scholars from African countries in defining the essence of the right of resistance. Еmpirical analysis. The author conducted a comparative analysis of the teachings and legislation of several countries, which allows to solve the issue of the possibility of recognising criteria for legitimizing forms of resistance to oppression and the mechanism for their exisicing by acts and international documents in the future. Results. The idea of the right to resist oppression is fully reflected in Eastern political, legal and religious thought, which means its independence and self-sufficiency. The author revealed the essence of this right formulated by philosophers, jurists and authors of international law documents, the criteria for legitimizing resistance.

A Prodigy Child of the Dutch Revolt: Immediate ‘Precursors’ to Grotius on Just Revolt

One of the odd things about Grotius’s thought is that he – advocate of a rebellious regime – was not very supportive of the right of resistance. Justifying the revolt at the time not only meant legitimizing the new regime he was serving; it also meant ruling out opposition against it. That posed an intricate puzzle; a puzzle Grotius solved by drawing on the theorizing on just revolt of the previous decades. This paper purports to show the connection between Grotius’s thought on just revolt and the intellectual and political environment in which Grotius came of age. It also sets out to show that the solution to the puzzle lies in the element of authority and the particular view taken on the constitutional position of the States in the Low Countries.1

Politics

Løgstrup firstly argues that the differences between the estate-based society of Luther’s time and our modern society mean that we cannot simply apply Luther to today’s problems. Løgstrup turns to specific political issues: state funding of culture, the influence of non-governmental organizations and pressure groups, and the rules of diplomacy in foreign policy. One particular problem related to Luther concerns the right of resistance, since Luther and the Reformers clearly forbade rebellion. But today, due to the structure of power in democracies, we not only have a right of resistance, but a duty to resist oppressors. Løgstrup discusses the problem of how to maintain high standards (e.g. in education and culture) in a democratic society, because democracy involves the risk that the knowledge of experts will be set aside by the will of the uninformed many. Løgstrup also discusses democracy’s risk of becoming a utopian trust in progress and development.

El derecho de resistencia en Francisco Suárez

Este trabajo presenta y valora el reciente libro de Pablo Font, El derecho de resistencia civil en Francisco Suárez. Virtualidades actuales, deteniéndose especialmente en los precedentes y contexto del derecho de resistencia, las cuestiones fundamentales de la teoría política de Suárez y en los tres niveles de la doctrina suareciana del derecho de resistencia al tirano: desobediencia, deposición y occisión o tiranicidio. This paper presents and values Pablo Font's recent book, El derecho de resistencia civil en Francisco Suárez. Virtualidades actuales attending especially to the precedents and context of the right of resistance, the fundamental issues of the political theory of Suárez and the three levels of Suárez’s doctrine of the right of resistance to the tyrant: disobedience, deposition and occision or tyrannicide

The Right to Resist Global Injustice

This chapter tries to motivate support for what it terms the Right of Resistance against Global Injustice, where this should be understood as a right to bring about greater global justice. More specifically it defends two conceptions of this core idea. Roughly stated, the first maintains that persons have the right to take direct action that will immediately and directly secure their rights or the rights of others (what is referred to as the Right of Resistance against Global Injusticei (RRGIi)). The second holds that persons have the right to engage in action that transforms the underlying social, economic, and political structures that perpetuate injustice in order to bring about greater justice in the future (what is referred to as the Right of Resistance against Global Injusticeii (RRGIii)). These formulations are approximate and need to be explicated more fully, but they express the key ideas. The chapter seeks to specify these more fully, and to address various questions about the meaning, content, grounding, and limits of these rights.

Göttinger Naturrecht. 300 Jahre Gottfried Achenwall (1719 – 1772) – eine Einführung

This article serves as an introduction to this special issue on Gottfried Achenwall (1719-1772). Section I briefly sketches Achenwall’s intellectual biography, outlines the disciplines he taught at Göttingen and closes by highlighting the importance and extensive use of Achenwall’s textbooks, in particular his Ius naturae, at universities in eighteenth-century Germany. Section II provides an overview of Achenwall’s natural law doctrine as found in the first edition of his natural law textbook, the Elementa iuris naturae (1750), touching on the principle of obligation and the system of duties, innate and acquired rights, the law of societies, public law and the justification of state power. In section III, we turn to Immanuel Kant’s engagement with Achenwall, pointing out general features of Kant’s critical reception of Achenwall by means of a number of examples before discussing particular differences in the justification of legal coercion, the conception of the household society and marriage law, and, finally, the discussion of the right of resistance. Section IV provides a brief overview of the subsequent articles that deal with Achenwall’s theory of natural law.

Über den wahren Begriff der Kantischen Rechtsphilosophie und die richtige Art ihre Probleme aufzulösen

The Doctrine of Right is one of Kant’s most disputed works: Defamed as an alleged sign of Kant’s emerging senility by Schopenhauer, it is now considered a classic of both philosophy of right and philosophy of the state. But to this day, even the reliability of the original edition of the Doctrine of Right is an object of learned and heated discussions. According to Martin Heuser’s recently published study Zur Positivität des Rechts in der kritischen Naturrechtslehre Immanuel Kants the whole scholarly disputes on Kant’s Doctrine of Right originate from a complete misunderstanding of the Doctrine’s very methodology, the method of synthetic a priori knowledge. In a critical discussion of Heuser’s book, this paper hence re-reads Kant’s Doctrine of Right. It first takes into consideration some methodological issues with the Doctrine of Right and its interpretation. Afterwards, it investigates the metaphysical character of Kant’s philosophy of right. In a further step, it confronts Kant’s intrapersonal foundation of right with its interpersonal foundation by both Fichte and Hegel. Thereupon, it analyzes the status of private law, the state, and the relation of natural law and positive law in Kant’s Doctrine of Right. The paper ends with a critical examination of Kant’s matrimonial law and his rejection of any right of resistance.