The Future is Now and in Our Hands:
Civil Disobedience in Global Contexts
MSc Thesis Political Science: Political Theory
Written by
Sophie Melchinger
At the University of Amsterdam
Date of Submission 26th of June, 2020
Study Program & Track Political Science, Political Theory
Supervisor Second Reader
Dr. Gordon Arlen Dr. Afsoun Afsahi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... 4
2 INTRODUCTION ... 5
2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ... 5
2.2 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ... 6
2.3 INSUFFICIENCIES IN THE LITERATURE &JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT ... 6
2.3.1 Conceptual Confusion ... 6
2.3.2 Plurality of Definitions ... 7
2.3.3 Practical (In)Applicability ... 7
2.4 OBJECTIVES,RESEARCH QUESTION AND ARGUMENT(S) ... 8
2.5 RESEARCH METHODS &RESEARCH DESIGN ... 9
2.6 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ... 9
3 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10
4 BACKGROUND OF CD – TOWARD GLOBAL CONTEXTS ... 12
4.1 TRADITIONAL CD ... 12
4.2 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES CD -TOWARDS GLOBAL CONTEXTS ... 14
5 CASE STUDY ... 26
5.1 THE CASE, THE CONTEXT, AND THE DATA ... 26
5.1.1 The Data and Data Analysis ... 26
5.1.2 The Context of XR ... 26
5.2 EXPLORATION ... 28
5.2.1 Historical Timeline: XR ... 29
5.2.2 Extinction Rebellion (XR) – The Global Dimension ... 33
5.3 LIMITATIONS ... 35
5.4 REFLECTION ... 35
6 SIX NORMATIVE QUESTIONS FOR CONCEPTUALIZING GCD ... 36
6.1 WHY IS CD REQUIRED IN GLOBAL CONTEXTS? ... 37
6.2 WHAT CD IN GLOBAL CONTEXTS AIMING AT? ... 43
6.3 WHO SHOULD/CAN ENGAGE IN CD IN GLOBAL CONTEXTS ... 46
6.4 HOW SHOULD CD IN GLOBAL CONTEXTS BE INITIATED? ... 50
6.5 WHAT NEW INSTRUMENTS AND STRATEGIES ARE REQUIRED IN GLOBAL CONTEXTS? ... 53
7 CONCLUSION ... 59
7.1 REFLECTION &CONTRIBUTION ... 59
7.2 SUMMING UP &ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTION ... 61
7.3 OUTLOOK FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 62
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 63
1 Acknowledgment
This thesis deals with the political theory of traditional civil disobedience and global civil disobedience in connection with global justice and its theoretical debate, commissioned by the University of Amsterdam. My passion for, and interests in political theory in general has been greatly encouraged by the extensive study of civil disobedience in global contexts in conjunction with the empirical investigation of a recent case study of a global civil disobedience movement. During the process of developing my thesis, I have experienced how relevant empirical case studies can be for political theory, which has significantly increased my interest in ongoing global protest actions against global injustices of the current global order. The task of combining political theory on civil disobedience and global justice with the implementation of an empirical case study turned out to be very challenging during my writing process. Although working on my thesis during the outbreak of COVID-19 and living abroad and distant from my family was mentally difficult, my motivation for devoting myself to this project remained very strong.
With that in mind, I would like to thank my supervisor, Gordon Arlen, who motivated and guided me throughout the whole process of writing my thesis. Through his great interest in our different projects, we were always encouraged to discuss our questions in class and via zoom meetings. Given his extensive feedback on the thesis draft and the several individual zoom meetings, I was able to continuously improve my writing and argumentation for the final thesis.
2 Introduction
"By undressing in parliament, we are putting ourselves in an incredibly vulnerable position, highlighting the vulnerability that all of us share in the face of environmental and societal breakdown. There is an elephant in the room and it is demanding attention” (Dixon/Extinction Rebellion 20191). With this quote, a dozen activists of the Extinction Rebellion movement in the UK protested against global climate injustices and called for a global public discourse capable of holding every citizen accountable. Climate change is not isolated from other global injustices problems and call into question, whether the current global system can adequately address and counteract these. Hence, the topic of this master thesis is to develop a coherent conceptualization of global civil disobedience (GCD) that can help us challenge global injustices and advance a global public discourse.
2.1 Statement of the Problem
This thesis will address an important problem: the difficulty in developing a coherent and unified conceptualization of civil disobedience (CD) in global contexts. Current scholarship, I argue, fails to take into account the essential concepts required for achieving a coherent conceptualization and resolving tensions between applied concepts. Also, a lot of the current literature is often oriented towards the traditional understanding of CD within the domestic or national setting. This orientation makes it difficult to empirically substantiate a theoretical conceptualization of GCD through case studies. Another related problem is the plurality of definitions of CD in global contexts. Numerous definitions can be identified within current literature, i.e. international, transnational, transversal, or cosmopolitan CD (Allen 2011/2017; Ogunye 2015; Smith 2017; Bentouhami 2007; Cooke 2019; Cabrera 2010). Accordingly, there is wide disagreement about how exactly GCD differentiates itself from traditional CD. Consequently, the problem of practical applicability in current theories of GCD is another shortcoming that needs to be addressed.
Against this background, I would like to clarify what exactly the insufficiencies and shortcomings in the current literature are, in order to show what theoretical contribution I will make in view of these. Conceptual confusion, the plurality of definitions, and the lack of practical applicability within the current literature are, I argue, the main insufficiencies that I will resolve in the course of my theoretical analysis in reference to the conducted case study.
1 Dixon, H. (1 April 2019). “Dozen climate change protesters arrested after stripping off in Commons”, The
Telegraph, URL: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/01/dozen-climate-change-protesters-arrested-stripping-commons/ (retrieved 10 May 2020).
2.2 Background of the Research Problem
I will first give a brief background of the overall research problem to further justify my research project in light of the insufficiencies among current literature, which I intend to resolve. I will not only deal with traditional theories of CD but, above all, examine contemporary theories that shift the focus away from the national context and toward global contexts. Current accounts primarily deal with global injustices that transcend the national framework and extend beyond national borders, thus characterizing the current global system, which is shaped by processes of globalization, digitalization, global power transformations and changes in power origins, the emergence of international legislation, global climate change, opaque global and transnational regulatory structures and the complexity of global authority (cf. Celikates 2014: 1; cf. Bentouhami 2007: 2; Smith 2017: 478-479). In view of these facts about the new global order, I claim that traditional theories are no longer sufficient to adequately conceptualize CD in global contexts and to successfully achieve global legitimacy and effectiveness. Since CD has traditionally been located in the context of the state, its actions and justification have been limited territorially, which calls for a re-thinking of CD, taking into account the circumstances of the current global order and questions of how to achieve more justice at the global level.
2.3 Insufficiencies in the Literature & Justification of the Research Project
Given this background, I will now present the insufficiencies within current literature and demonstrate how they become apparent.
2.3.1 Conceptual Confusion
The concept of the right of resistance runs through the current literature on CD in global contexts, but is consistently conceptualized differently in light of the theorization of CD. Bentouhami (2007), for example, conceptualizes the right to resistance in terms of John Locke's theory (1960), in which resistance is justified on behalf of the political community, in the name of Nature Law and by the preservation of the political system (cf. ibid. 8). In this sense, the right of resistance can also mean acting in the interest of someone else, which can also be seen as a characteristic of GCD. The right of resistance is conceptualized quite differently in Ogunye's (2015) theory of transnational CD. She clearly distances herself from this concept, which she introduces through R. Gargarella's (2007)2 account, because she argues primarily for the duty, not the right, to engage in transnational CD (cf. Ogunye 2015:
2 Gargarella, R. (2007). “The Right of Resistance in Situations of Severe Deprivation“. In: Pogge, T. (Ed.)
1). Smith (2017) and Allen (2017) also elaborate on this concept, although they see it anchored in traditional and national settings (cf. Smith 2017: 478; cf. Allen 2017: 25ff.). Even though Allen can generally be distinguished from most of the other current accounts in terms of his specific approach, which is very much influenced by Rawls, he clearly brings out the identified conceptual confusion. Not only he, but also other accounts link the right of resistance with the rule of law and democratic theory, but do not find common ground with regard to the starting point of their analyses.
2.3.2 Plurality of Definitions
The second problem identified is the plurality of definitions of CD in global perspective. Distinctions are being made between international, transnational, transversal, and cosmopolitan CD in view of the targets, strategies, and goals of CD3. The plurality of definitions is not only offered by the different labeling (international, transnational, or transversal) of CD in global contexts, which is also linked to theoretical disputes about the meaning of civility for GCD. But it is also due to the paradigm shift - from resistance to protest - within current theories of CD in global contexts, which likewise points to the different conceptualizations of civility among resent accounts, thus, highlighting the significance of analyzing this plurality to advance a coherent and unified theory of GCD. The case under investigation, Extinction Rebellion, can make an important contribution to this issue by demonstrating that the shift to pragmatism is often misunderstood. The revolutionary component is still given in XR’s protests and highlights the importance of uniting resistance with protest, as well as organization with mobilization for achieving successful GCD.
2.3.3 Practical (In)Applicability
Another problem within current literature is practical inapplicability of theories about GCD. Very few conceptualizations are backed up by empirical data or case studies. Even contributions that do bring real examples of CD into the discussion are generally intended to reinforce specific theoretical statements. 4 Hardly any case studies are conducted independently from the theoretical claims being made. Accordingly, the cases of CD on a global level are not embedded in the theoretical discussion in the sense of separately conducted case studies, but are declared to be representative examples that are intended to
3 See, for instance, Allen’s (2011) distinction between international and transnational CD; Ogunye’s (2015)
definition of transnational CD as an amendment of Allen’s transnational civil disobedience (cf. ibid. 11); Bentuhami’s (2007) transversal conception of CD (cf. ibid. 3); Smith’s (2017) definition of CD ‘transnational disruption’ (cf. ibid. 477); Cooke’s (2019) and Allen’s (2017) cosmopolitan CD
empirically substantiate the corresponding theoretical argumentation. This becomes evident, for example, in Ogunye's (2015) and Bentouhami's (2007) account. Both authors provide case examples of CD on a global scale in their theoretical analysis but fail to take into account the complex reality of the practice of such protests, which, I argue, can only be achieved through an independently and thoroughly conducted case study of a current case of GCD, by working out theoretical insights from the protests of the case under investigation. Hence, it remains questionable, whether practical applicability of the theories of CD presented can be tested and confirmed in global contexts.
In view of these insufficiencies and the research problem, my research project is to be justified because it takes into account these problems within current literature by capturing and correcting them by means of theoretical analyzing contemporary accounts of CD in global contexts and through a case study of a current case of GCD.
2.4 Objectives, Research Question and Argument(s)
Given the background and justification for my research project, I developed the following research question:
How should scholars appropriately conceptualize GCD for the purpose of achieving definitional clarification, normative coherence and practical applicability?
In discussing the research question posed, the aim is to clarify the importance of resolving the identified insufficiencies in current literature by means of a clear theoretical positioning within the global justice debate and by conducting a case study of current case of GCD, namely XR.
First, I will devote myself to the problem of conceptual confusion and definitional plurality by asking three conceptual questions regarding the necessity of GCD, its aims, and who should engage in GCD. In view of these three questions, I will focus on the global justice debate to further stake out my explicit theoretical position, which will furthermore contribute in resolving the conceptual confusion of current literature. Second, I will devote myself to analyzing the applied theoretical concepts by identifying and working out analytical tensions between them. The next step will be the discussion of three practical questions regarding the practice of GCD, which should help in solving the problem of practical inapplicability of contemporary accounts by incorporating the empirical findings of the conducted case study. Overall I pose six questions for conceptualizing GCD coherently, while linking my analysis to the conducted case study and incorporating the empirical insights of XR’s protests.
2.5 Research Methods & Research Design
This thesis is theoretical in nature, substantiated by the empirical findings of a representative case of GCD. The applied methods are normative analyses of the relevant literature and the applied theories and concepts, as well as, conducting a case study of a global movement of CD, namely XR. Through a normative analysis of current literature, the theoretical discussion will be substantiated with the results of the case under investigation in order to subsequently advance a coherent theoretical conceptualization of GCD. Consequently, the principal methods of this thesis are analytical political theory (normative analysis) and a qualitative case study. The case study will be carried out by means of a media discourse analysis to further provide a reconstruction of the general case history by tabulating all the relevant protest actions of XR from the beginning of the movement up to now. The chronological tabulation of the case history will subsequently be supplemented by the exploration on the case in the present to illustrate a comprehensive empirical analysis of XR, on which my theoretical conceptualization of GCD will be draw.
2.6 Structure of the Thesis
The structure of my thesis follows my line of argumentation, which starts by introducing the theoretical and conceptual framework, followed by the literature review, which will be divided into three categories, covering first the literature on the research background, i.e. traditional theories of CD, second, the current literature on contemporary accounts of CD in global perspective, and, third, the literature for conducting my case study, which will be reviewed in section 4. The six questions posed for the conceptualization of GCD are not only supported by the empirical findings but represent an attempt to resolve the identified insufficiencies in current literature in order to enable a coherent conceptualization. After discussing all six questions in separate sections, I present a summary and reflection of my analysis with regard to the research problem presented above and insufficiencies in current literature to further show how I have contributed to resolving these. This will be part of my conclusion, finishing up with an outlook for possible further research.
3 The Theoretical Framework
I will start by reviewing traditional theories of CD, presented by Mohandas Gandhi (1932), David Henry Thoreau (1967), Martin Luther King (1963) and John Rawls (1999a; 1999b), to then analyze contemporary conceptions of CD at the international, transnational, or global level in relation to each other. Contemporary accounts are primarily represented by Hourya Bentouhami (2007), Luis Cabrera (2010), Temi Ogunye (2015), Robin Celikates (2014; 2015), William Smith (2017), Michael Allen (2011; 2017), and Steve Cooke (2019), and, thus, provide the theoretical basis for my conceptualization of GCD. In analyzing these accounts, I will also take into account the distinctions between international, transnational, and transversal CD (cf. Allen 2011; Ogunye 2015, Bentouhami 2007) that point toward different understandings of the addresses, protesters, and strategies, on which their analyses are based on.
Furthermore, since discussions of GCD are embedded within larger global justice debates, considering that GCD is directed against injustices prevailing in the currently unjust global order, an understanding of the two dominant positions – cosmopolitanism and statism - in the global justice debate is necessary. I will take a clear cosmopolitan stance in the course of my theoretical analysis since I claim that a neutral position is insufficient for conceptualizing GCD coherently and cannot be empirically substantiated. Moreover, I also argue that cosmopolitanism, unlike statism, focuses on specific concepts and theories that are required for a theoretical analysis of GCD. The cosmopolitan position(s) will mainly be presented by Thomas Pogge (1994), Simon Caney (2005), and Charles Beitz (1994), who can help in explaining why the concepts I apply are indispensable for a coherent conceptualization of GCD, and to further enable a coherent unification of the plurality of definitions of CD in global contexts. Nonetheless, I will also deal with objections raised by the statist position, primarily presented by David Miller (2007), to clearly defend my cosmopolitan line of reasoning.
I will now turn to three concepts that I consider crucial for conceptualizing GCD in a coherent and unified way but which must be contrasted with two other theoretical concepts. The first is the duty to engage in GCD, which can be seen as a possible instantiation of the natural duty to justice but which also presents conceptual tensions in their reciprocal reference (cf. Ogunye 2015: 5-6; Sabl 2001: 313). These will furthermore be contrasted with the right to resistance, which remains a fundamental point of reference when distinguishing between traditional and contemporary theories of CD within current literature. But, as I will be
showing in my analysis, the right to resistance needs to be conceptualized differently in view of the concepts to be discussed and taken up next, namely global solidarity and global political community. Nevertheless, I will elaborate on the traditional understanding of the right of resistance very briefly to further argue why the right of resistance creates a tension with the concept of global solidarity in light of global injustices and therefore needs to be re-conceptualized by bringing the global dimension in the forefront. The discussion on the right of resistance will be carried out in reference to Simon Caney’s (2015), John Locke’s (1960), Roberto Gargarella’s (2008), and David Lefkowitz’S (2007) accounts.
Furthermore, by taking a cosmopolitan approach throughout my analysis, I will explicitly deal with the concept of global solidarity, the global public sphere, global public discourse and global political community to adequately address the conceptual questions I pose for conceptualizing GCD, and to further advance normative coherence when discussing practical considerations about GCD.
Let me now turn to the literature, on which my theoretical analysis will be based on, starting with traditional theories of CD.
4 Background of CD – Toward Global Contexts
4.1 Traditional CD
The history of CD can be traced back to Mohandas Gandhi's, David Thoreau's and Martin Luther King's CD, which, on closer examination, already show an international dimension. Since protests of traditional CD took place within national borders, the global dimension of such protests has been pushed aside (cf. Allen 2017: 4-5). Even though a historical analysis of CD is not the focus of this thesis, it nevertheless seems to be necessary to give a brief overview of the relevant theories of traditional CD. I will begin by introducing John Rawls’s (1971; 1999a5) theory of CD, as I assume his conception to be the basis for many conceptualizations of CD, either in state-centric, or in global contexts.
CD traditionally understood was defined by Rawls (1999a) as “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in law or policies of government” (320). He argues that CD is explicitly linked to the condition of a “nearly just society, one that is well-ordered for the most part but in which some serious violations of justice nevertheless do occur” (319). In this sense, CD is only legitimate when a state and its society are regarded as nearly just, which he considers only in democratic regimes, in which the citizens recognize and accept the legitimacy of the constitution (cf. ibid. 319-320).
Overall, Rawls develops a constitutional theory of CD along three lines. He starts by defining the forms of resistance citizen can engage with that further justify CD as an appropriate means of bringing about a change in law or policies. Next, he states that a constitutional theory of CD needs to set out the grounds of CD, as well as the conditions that justify such kinds of action. And third, a theory of CD requires explaining the role of CD within a democratic regime and should also account for the appropriateness of this kind of protest within a free society (cf. ibid.).
Rawls (1999a) defines CD as a political act not only in the sense that such protests are addressed to the majority that hold political power but also in the sense that these acts are guided and justified by political principles, which he takes to be the principles of justice that regulate the constitution and social institutions in general (cf. ibid. 321). He furthermore argues that “by engaging in civil disobedience a minority forces the majority to consider whether it wishes to have its actions construed in this way, or whether, in view of the common sense of justice, it wished to acknowledge the legitimate claims of the minority”
(321). I take this view to be highly significant in light of the research problem, as this so called ‘common sense of justice’ appears to be problematic on the global level. I will come back to this point in the course of my theoretical analysis.6
CD in the Rawlsian sense is a public act because it is addressed to public principles and should also be practiced in the public (cf. ibid.). CD can thus be understood as “expressions of profound and conscientious political conviction, it takes place in the public forum” (321), which brings us to the next core feature: nonviolence. CD avoids violence because “any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one’s act” (321). Nonviolence is also important for another reason as it shows fidelity to law, while expressing disobedience to law. Accordingly, fidelity to law is expressed by citizens through their public, political and nonviolent acts of CD, which furthermore demonstrates their willingness to accept the legal consequences that follow from such acts (cf. ibid. 322).
Given Rawls’ definition of CD, he sets out the core features of traditional CD, which are not only relevant within traditional theorizing but are also of great importance in contemporary accounts and for providing the basis of conceptualizing GCD coherently.
Let me now turn to another theory of CD, presented by Thoreau, who is considered one of the founding figures of CD. In his essay On the Duty of Disobedience to the State (1849/1967) Thoreau calls for the right to oppose the law only when it is not compatible with one's own conscience and morality (cf. ibid. 13). He clearly states that a government can hardly prove itself to be useful when it derives its power from the majority, which he takes to be the strongest group within a society (cf. ibid. 12-13). He contends that no government can be based on justice even if the majority would have a common sense of justice (cf. ibid. 12). Therefore, one’s first obligation is to do what he or she believes to be right and resist when injustice occurs. In this sense, Thoreau conceives resistance as non-cooperation to the constituted political authority of a state (cf. Cidam/Scheuerman/Delmas et al. 2020: 11-12).7 Thoreau himself was punished with a prison sentence, on which he made the following statement: “under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also prison“ (Thoreau 1849: 235). Again I want to emphasize that CD has evolved out of an international context, which becomes apparent in Thoreau’s reaction to the war between the
6 See: question section 1: Why is CD required in global contexts?
7 Resistance as non-cooperation brings to light the shift to pragmatism – from resistance to protest – within
current literature, which, I claim, is not fully given when looking at ongoing GCD’s movements since they intend to unite resistance with protest in their approach. I will come back to this in the course of my analysis and the conducted case study.
US and Mexico. He refused to pay the state poll tax implemented by the US, which demonstrates that his actions were international in nature because he realized that Mexico was being unjustly overrun to expand the slave territory of the US (cf. Thoreau 1993: 16-18; cf. Allen 2017: 4). In this sense, it becomes quite clear that Thoreau's actions were indicative of an international scope that clearly shaped his theory of CD, as well as Gandhi's (1932), and King's (1963) theorization of CD.
In Letters from Birmingham Jail (1963/2018), King calls for the use of non-violent actions, such as sit-ins and demonstrations, to highlight injustices and foster creative tensions, which should help people to reunite from the "depths of prejudice and racial hatred" (3) to the heights of humanity, solidarity, and brotherhood to create a common understanding of justice (cf. ibid). Direct action and intervention is of great importance in King's CD and is also considered relevant in contemporary conceptualizations since it conveys the possibility for making injustices visible to the public. The purpose of direct, non-violent action is to create a ‘crisis-laden situation’ to further advance negotiation. According to King, communication is key to successfully challenge the injustice in question (cf. ibid. 83f.). And here too, King’s overall message made no distinction between national or international contexts in terms of transforming injustice into justice: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (10).
Also in Gandhi's CD, the international dimension becomes apparent. In his campaigns in South Africa and India, he was concerned with drawing attention to the precarious situation of subordinate people in the British Empire. By standing up for these people, he fought against the injustice that has been done to them. Even if his appeal was initially directed at national public opinion, it soon reached other countries and thus became international in scope (cf. Allen 2017: 4).
Therefore, the traditional understanding of CD clearly has international roots. The intention of King’s and Gandhi’s protests was to draw attention to injustices within the nation-state in order to subsequently place them in a global public sphere and to reach a global audience that could also become involved in the actions they had provoked (cf. ibid. 5). Hence, the history of CD already displays a clear international dimension, which is being brought to the forefront within current debates.
4.2 Contemporary Theories CD - Towards Global Contexts
In this section I will give an overview of theories of CD in global perspectives and elaborate more precisely on the identified insufficiencies within current literature.
Bentouhami in Civil Disobedience from Thoreau to Transnational Mobilizations (2007) proposes a transversal conception of CD inspired by N. Fraser’s theory of Abnormal
Justice, which takes into account the transversality of social contestation. The idea of Abnormal Justice addresses the theorization of social justice within global contexts and refers
to the theory of the public sphere in a globalizing world. Abnormal justice is intended to complete the theory of the public sphere by adding a supra-level of social and political struggle, which is present under globalization and the new global order (cf. ibid. 6).
Abnormal refers to the fact that social justice is multiple at the global level and cannot merely
be framed within domestic settings (cf. Fraser 2008: 52)8. In this sense, globalization gives rise to Abnormal Justice, “in which there are no shared norms about how to resolve disputes” (Fudge/Mundlak 2016: 2016). Bentouhami (2007) further elaborates on how CD is be characterized in light of the spread of the Internet and resulting media support for action have created advantages in terms of flexibility of resistance and the potential for multiplications of resistance fronts (cf. ibid. 2). However, Bentouhami raises the point that these advantages are based on an illusion: the idea that borders no longer exists (cf. ibid.).
Given current globalization processes and multiplications of legal arenas on the international level, the type of power and the state, to which traditional discussions of CD directly refer, is no longer given. Therefore, she advocates a transversal conception of CD, which takes into account two characteristic tendencies of new power distributions: “the apparent end of the State-Nation forms of political organization in a global world” and the “simultaneous reinforcement of those same frontiers” (2). The transversal use of CD by citizens represents a call to either international institutions against multinational corporations, to states against international politics, or to international institutions against state politics (cf. ibid. 3), and raises the following theoretical question: “does the resort to CD still imply a criticism of the state and invoke the corollary revolutionary utopia? And how is this compatible with the goals of anti-globalization?” (3). This question is particularly interesting in view of the new global order in which GCD operates.
Overall, Bentouhami addresses two key issues: first, the extent to which CD is consistent with tactical minimalism, thereby producing a shift to pragmatism; and second, the extent to which non-violent political CD reveals a struggle for entitlement (cf. ibid. 3). By referring to the case of Disobedience To Borders9, as a new form of CD, Bentouhami presents
8 See: Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of Justice: Reimaging Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York:
Columbia University Press.
her attempt to adapt CD to the international dimension, which implies a realistic assessment of current power transformations. This implied realism does not, according to Bentouhami, "affect the clear emancipatory content of some forms of resistance" (4). The ‘shift to pragmatism’, which is characteristic within current theories of CD, refers only to the choice of means of protest and not to the ‘ideological goal’ of CD (cf. ibid. 5).
Moreover, CD is a strategy of the excluded to demonstrate their membership within the public sphere. The question of membership, she argues, is essential only in terms of representation and addresses the question of legitimacy – “from where and in the name of
who and of what can CD make itself be heard?” (6), and the question of entitlement – “who is
entitled to express some claims and who is not?” (6). Here, Bentouhami focuses on the grammatical structure of the claims to legitimacy of CD, thereby discussing the locutions used by contestants: in the name of and on behalf of (cf. ibid.). By giving a real-life example of protesters acting on behalf of, and in reference to Locke’s theory of the right to resistance10, she shows the extent to which acting on behalf of, or in the interest of the political community nowadays extends beyond the state (cf. ibid. 7). She further explores the concept of the right of resistance, which is also done by Ogunye (2015), Allen (2017), Cooke (2019), and Celikates (2014; 2016), but conceptualizes it in terms of Locke's theory, thereby contributing to conceptual confusion among current literature concerning the role and importance of the right of resistance for GCD.
According to Bentouhami, social movements, who protest in the interests of are also protesting in the name of justice by showing how social and political problems nowadays are mostly border-conflicts, thus, “shifting from a material significance of the border to a symbolic one” (7). Accordingly, such social movements contribute significantly to the
politization of ignored problems (cf. ibid.) - problems that occur within the public sphere in
global contexts by which we all might be affected, but, due to globalization processes and new power transformations, no concrete agent can be held responsible for these. The practice of CD is a form of criticism of a legal loophole, which prevents some individuals or groups from claiming their rights. CD can thus be seen as an attempt to create a legal order, which is greatly lacking in international relations (cf. ibid. 8).
Also interesting in this regard are the contributions by Tarrow (2011) and Holloway (2002), dealing with social movements, social activism11 and contentious politics as a response to negative changes in political possibilities of participation and intervention (cf.
10 Locke, J. (1960). Two Treaties of Government, (edited by P. Laslett), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11 See also Ronzoni 2009
Tarrow 2011: 16), and the demands generated by social domination in today's world and societies (cf. Holloway 2002: 3). Additionally, Holloway further discusses the extent to which social revolt and dissatisfaction can be explained in light of this by elaborating the extent to which expressing social dissatisfaction through CD is a strategic choice of individuals that implies a shift to pragmatism (cf. ibid. 3; cf. Bentouhami 2007: 5). This shift to pragmatism - from resistance to protest - I argue, is crucial in light of the plurality of definitions in current literature concerning the meaning of civility for GCD.
Summing up, the transversality of CD, understood as a way to violate state law in order to contest the global order based on hegemonic powers, seems to be the only way to combat new forms of political and economic imperialism (cf. ibid. 8). And, moreover, by staying within the state context does not mean that activists recognize the state as a legitimate social organization. Instead, they use CD as a tactic to show that those who are de facto excluded can still enforce their participation in the public sphere with very limited resources. Altogether, Bentouhami does not clearly show how exactly transnational mobilization can be practical initiated and practiced nowadays to effectively combat transnational issues. Her special focus lies in the theoretical discussion of the question of legitimacy and entitlement, which is certainly significant for conceptualizing GCD, but which also contributes to the deficiency of practical applicability.
Celikates (2014; 2016) and Züger (2013) examine CD in light of digitalization, globalization and democratization and reveal the extent to which a re-conceptualization of CD is necessary in order to include the effects of these processes, thereby bringing the global context of CD to the forefront. Celikates (2014) presents an alternative model of CD, which largely builds on processes of globalization, digitalization and democratization. He argues in favor of this alternative model due to its pluralistic approach, which is largely restricted and idealistic in the traditional model of CD (cf. ibid. 5). Züger (2013) is also intensively engaged in re-conceptualizing CD, although she particularly deals with the processes of digitalization and corresponding advantages for GCD’s actions. In her discussion on the legitimacy of WikiLeaks and other forms of digital CD, she emphasizes the limitations of traditional CD in view of an increasingly interconnected world and the need to include the global dimension (cf. ibid. 7). Both authors, thus, present a re-conceptualization of CD, while simultaneously criticizing the liberal/traditional model of CD, but hardly address the question of how exactly protests of GCD are to be defined or can be made applicable at the global level.
I will now turn to Allen’s account on international and transnational CD, who largely deals with defining the specific features of each model.
Allen in Encyclopedia of Global Justice (2011) provides a distinction between international and transnational CD, which many other theorists base their conception of CD in global contexts on. According to Allen, international CD involves states “playing a role in protesting global injustices analogous to that of citizens protesting injustices within the borders of their own state in the case of domestic civil disobedience” (133), whereas transnational CD “is a form of non-violent, symbolic and illegal protest that specifically engages the concepts of global citizens and a global public” (135). According to the latter model, individuals are regarded as the central agents of CD targeting the “powerful and influential actors ranging from global financial institutions to multinational corporations able to shape the pluralism of informal regulatory ‘regimes’ more characteristic of coordination processes under globalization” (135). He himself criticizes the international model of CD because it proposes a reduced role to citizens and firmly sticks to the state paradigm.12 In this sense, the transnational model against global injustices seems to be more appropriate as it is grounded on “a novel kind of politics made possible by the increasing pace of global interactions and communication, in addition to growing awareness among citizens of diverse national publics of global interconnectivity and shared risks” (136). Allen’s model of transnational CD can also be criticized, as it seems, on the one hand, to focus primarily on informal regimes while, on the other hand, evading the formal institutions of law (cf. ibid. 137). Accordingly, both models of CD do not seem sufficient to conceptualize GCD coherently.
However, I also argue that both the transnational (Allen 2011) and transversal (Bentouhami 2007) model of CD tend to have a cosmopolitan approach, which both authors fail to stake out or even recognize in their analysis. Allen (2011), for example, explicitly refers to the concept of global citizenship and the global public sphere, thereby brining out the cosmopolitan dimension of his conceptualization. Bentouhami (2007), on the other hand, argues that transversal CD also means protesting against injustices that do not directly affect the ones engaging in transversal CD. In this case, protesters act in the interest of and on behalf
of the political community (cf. ibid. 6-7). No other than a cosmopolitan view of the political
community, i.e. global political community can justify such transversal protests. Thus, disarray regarding the theoretical approach adopted occurs, which further creates the difficulty of conceptualizing the employed concepts coherently and points towards conceptual confusion among current literature.
12 He rightly points out that the international model of CD is inadequate to effectively take into account the
Ogunye (2015) takes up Allen’s definition of transnational CD, thereby including states and other formal institutions as potential addressees and pointing out that there is no real ‘formal’ authoritative law-giver at the global level that can be identified as a concrete addressee of these protests (cf. ibid. 11). Nonetheless, her main concern is to establish an argument for wealthy individuals to engage in transnational CD with the aim of pressuring for institutional reform. While embedding her argumentation within the global justice debate, she argues that those who subscribe to either one of the two dominant positions - cosmopolitanism and statism - can both agree that the current global order is unjust, which she takes to be the condition for the rise of the duty to engage in transnational CD. Her main argument is that transnational CD is appropriate for promoting greater global justice and that some individuals explicitly have a duty to engage in it (cf. ibid. 3). This duty is grounded within the natural duty of justice but, as she clearly points out, the natural duty of justice, put forth by Rawls, is disjunctive in the sense that it “actually does not permit agents to support a regime that engages in systematic injustice because it demands that individuals either support an order that is just or oppose it if it is not” (5). Accordingly, she argues that “civil disobedience should be seen as one possible instantiation of the latter disjunct” (5) – to oppose an unjust order – demanding individuals to resist when an order is found to be unjust (cf. ibid. 5). It is certainly not her intention to claim that transnational CD is the only way to discharge the natural duty of justice. In fact, she claims that the duty to engage in CD is grounded in a more basic duty of justice, whereby transnational CD is one possible way to discharge this duty. The concept of the right to resistance to justify transnational CD is rejected against this background as Ogunye specifically argues for the duty to engage in it.
What is unclear, however, is how exactly she conceptualizes the right to resistance, because, unlike Bentouhami, she introduces the concept through Gargarella (2007). Thus, the concept of the right to resistance is conceptualized in a very different way than in the sense of Locke's (1960) theory and acquires a different theoretical meaning for transnational CD.
Moreover, Ogunye lays down the conditions that give rise to the duty to engage in transnational CD: the ‘nearly just requirement’. To be clear, what Ogunye is endorsing here is not the literal reading of the nearly just condition, but a particular interpretation of it: one that can capture more cases of transnational CD. She refers to what Sabl (2001) calls a ‘piecewise
just society’ - “one in which justice is prevalent (…) in relation within a powerful ‘in’ group
but is practiced to a very small degree, if at all, in dealings with an excluded or oppressed group. In order for civil disobedience to make sense, the society in which it is practiced must be at least piecewise just” (311-312).
However, by not subscribing to either the cosmopolitan or statist position, it remains unclear to what extent she is able to deal with the explicit conceptual prerequisites of her theoretical approach. Although Ogunye clearly states that she wants to remain neutral, she should nevertheless face the limitations in remaining neutral when conceptualizing transnational CD. In failing to do so, her approach cannot address some relevant considerations regarding the right to resistance in relation to the global public sphere, global solidarity and global normative standards, which I take to be significant for establishing a coherent conceptualization of GCD.
Overall, Ogunye deals with three essential normative questions, which I regard as crucial for conceptualizing GCD coherently. She elaborates on why transnational CD is required, who should engage in transnational CD, and how the protests should take place (cf. ibid. 15). With regard to the last question, she examines the case of Greenpeace, Shell and Brent Spar and identifies a key feature of transnational CD:
Greenpeace’s activists involved a global network of individuals with little allegiance to domestic borders. The Greenpeace activists say themselves as protesting not as Germans or Norwegians or even northern European citizens, but as global citizens engaging with a global public on an issue of global importance (17).
I consider this key characteristic of transnational CD to be crucial because it enables a clear differentiation from the traditional understanding of CD. Nevertheless, here again, it appears that neutrality seems to be problematic for a coherent discussion about the significance of this key characteristic of transnational CD because it assumes global citizens to be the relevant agents.
This takes me to other conceptions of CD in global contexts that clearly stake out a theoretical position. Luis Cabrera (2010) and Steve Cooke (2019) are both in favor of a cosmopolitan conception of CD, although they differ significantly in their particular focus when defining cosmopolitan CD.
Cabrera in The Practice of Global Citizenship (2010) argues that unlawful immigration, i.e. illegal immigration, differs from CD particularly in the respective motives, but can be equated in terms of moral justifiability. She argues that illegal immigration, in view of a cosmopolitan perspective of global citizenship, can be regarded as GCD, in which global obligations are assumed to be associated with human rights and their institutions, which are regarded as the substantive "guidance" of justice, and where the law of a global system is no longer exclusively nationally anchored (cf. ibid. 8-10). Overall, Cabrera
advocates a cosmopolitan conception of GCD, which focuses particularly on unauthorized migration.
Cooke (2019), in turn, provides a cosmopolitan justification for transnational CD, arguing that illegally protesting of individuals in other states may be justified under certain circumstances. By using a cosmopolitan reading of civility and the civil realm, Cooke introduces his argument for transnational protests being capable of “conforming to the normative and conceptual standards necessary for them to be labeled civil disobedience” (1). He elaborates on the diversity of transnational protests around the globe and simultaneously presents the different contexts of such protests, shaped by processes of globalization and resulting global interdependence. By taking up the discussion raised by O’Sullivan et al. (2017)13, who call for a re-conceptualization of CD in connection with the notion of global citizenship, his paper represents an attempt to answer this call by addressing the issues raised by the variety of transnational protests (cf. Cooke 2019: 2).
Cooke also presents Allen’s (2017) cosmopolitan conception of CD, which is largely based on the concept of decency found within Rawls’ (1999b). Cooke notes that Allen, like Rawls, excludes cases that protest against the conception of justice itself since the concept of decency requires disobedience to appeal to shared standards of justice. What Cooke (2019) clearly shows is the extent to which Allen's account of CD is conceptualized in terms of Rawls' theorization, focused on the primacy of the principle of self-determination of peoples over a liberal theory of justice (cf. ibid. 2-3). As an alternative, Cooke offers a “wholehearted liberal cosmopolitanism that retains the ethical primacy of individuals and their interests rather than of peoples” (3).
In the course of his discussion, Cooke faces the problem of sovereignty that gives reason to speak against the justification of breaking the constituted laws of a political community by agents not being members of that community (cf. ibid. 5). Although Cooke points out that interference in the affairs of a legitimate state may violate the right of its citizens to self-determination he simultaneously presents two ways, which, without challenging the right to self-determination, can overcome the problem of sovereignty (cf. ibid.). In advocating a cosmopolitan theory of transnational democracy, it would be wrong to assume the relevant political community for cases of transnational protests to be defined by national membership. Instead, he argues that the scope of democratic decision-making should be determined by the ones who are affected by it. Consequently, Cooke introduces the All
13 O’Sullican, S./ McCausland C./ Brenton, S. (2017). Animal activists, civil disobedience and global responses
Affected Principle, which extends the justification for CD to non-nationals, arguing that
illegal transnational protests may be justified when the interests of the protesters are negatively affected by a demos to which they do not belong or being excluded from (cf. ibid. 6).14
In acting on behalf of, or in defense of others15, the All Affected Principle faces its limits in providing the justification for such actions because “those acting are not themselves affected or subject to a democratic deficit” (9). Nevertheless, the issue raised here is not a particular problem of transnational protest itself but for any theory of protest (cf. ibid.). Accordingly, he argues that the ones protesting on behalf of others do so because those who they are acting on behalf of do not have a democratic voice. In this sense, Cooke’s cosmopolitan theory of CD departs from theories of CD that require agents to appeal to principles of justice, excluding those of which protesters need to act on behalf, such as non-humans (cf. ibid. 10).16
Overall, Cooke advocates a cosmopolitan theory of CD by taking a cosmopolitan view of the civil component:
The civil component of civil disobedience does not merely describe the domain in which the disobedience occurs, it also refers to the courteousness of the mode of the agent’s conduct. Part of what separates the uncivil from the civil protest lies in the communicative character of the act (3).
Cosmopolitan CD requires giving reason and being respectful in order to be civil in its communicative aspect (cf. ibid.). Consequently, Cooke argues that a cosmopolitan view of the civil realm, as well as the cosmopolitan claim to universal respect for the moral status of others is required to further allow transnational protests being labeled as CD. Both the civil realm and the notion of civility should be understood in cosmopolitan terms since, as Cooke states, “the notion of civility at work is overly conservative” (15). By referring to the case of
14 To provide a better understanding on this, here the following quote: “where decisions affect outsiders in ways
that violate their rights or significantly sets back their important interests, then they may gain a right to challenge that decision. The principle of sovereignty has built into it reciprocal respect for the sovereignty of others. (…) Where the actions of a demos violate the rights of others outside the political community, then transnational protest can be though of as a form of self- or other defense” (9).
15 Such as in the case of environmental protests and animal activists’ protests
16 In light of this, Cooke also presents Carter’s Defense of Radical Disobedience (1998) by highlighting that
acting on behalf of others’ interests, rather than on behalf of self-interest, is paradigmatically conscientious in nature (cf. ibid.).
the Arctic 30, Cooke describes how its protests were addressed to a global political community - one that transcends and stretches beyond state borders (cf. ibid. 16).17
Altogether, Cooke takes an interesting approach, which shows a clear cosmopolitan positioning but hardly deals with the plurality of definitions and the presumed shift to pragmatism to clearly differentiate his account from the ones already presented. Instead, he is concerned with theoretically justifying transnational CD in cosmopolitan terms.
Smith in Civil Disobedience as Transnational Disruption (2017) offers a theory of CD understood as transnational disruption. He defines ‘transnational’ as an appeal “to the sense of justice or reason of a national, international or global public that publicizes failures to observe moral, political or legal values that are an appropriate source of normative authority in global contexts” (479). CD is ‘disruptive’, and here he follows Tarrow’s (2011) definition of disruption, as “obstructs the routine activities of opponents, bystanders, or authorities and forces them to respond to the protesters’ demands” (101).
On Smith’s (2017) account, transnational CD can be understood as “a means of upholding normative standards that have been incorporated into a dense network of treaties, conventions and global regulatory frameworks” (480) and as a tool for stabilizing this emerging legal order also in a transformative sense of contested standards (cf. ibid.). Smith’s theory is innovative insofar as it offers a well-worked out definition of transnational CD that takes into account the various relationships between different societies embedded within the international system that is modeled roughly on contemporary conditions, capturing the various circumstances of ‘internationalism’18 (cf. ibid. 481). Accordingly, he conceptualizes transnational disruption as a type of collective action associated with internationalization, appealing to standards of normative authority in global contexts. He is well aware of the complex diffusion of such standards and explains how these standards are to be applied to three distinct, but related, aspects of global interaction: (a) “standards that address the internal organization of societies”, (b) “standards that address the relations between societies, the observance of which also function as an aspiration or requirement for equal standing in international contexts”, and (c) “standards that apply to miscellaneous source of power at the transnational level” (481). The invocation of normative standards is a distinctive feature of
17 “In this way, transnational protest not only falls within a global or transnational civil realm, but it may also
carry citizenship-based requirements of civility stemming from the bonds of loyalty and fidelity owed to the universal moral community, and to genuine community of transnational agents engaging in collective endeavors with a shared identity” (ibid.)
18 ‘Internationalism’ is defined by S. Tarrow (2005) as “a dense, triangular structure of relations among states,
non-state actors, and international institutions, and the opportunities this produces for actors to engage in collective action at different levels of this system” (25). S. Tarrow (2005) The New Transnational Activism.
transnational disruption not only conceptual, as Smith agues, but also in the sense that it contributes to the rationale for preferring transnational CD over other, more radical forms of protest, which lays in the ‘forward-looking’ feature of non-violence (cf. ibid. 485-6).19
On Smith’s account, transnational disruption contributes to the process of cultivating transnational public spheres by drawing attention to global injustices and triggering greater public discourse about the most adequate institutional response to these (cf. ibid. 502). The
transnationalization of the public sphere is an important theme in Smith’s theory, which is
linked to another aspect of transnational disruption: “the potential impacts of transnational disruption on opening up the public spheres of democratic societies” (503). In this sense, transnational disruption can be a transformative means of action because it disrupts established assumptions about the national frame of reference that has created the default setting in the domestic public sphere. The underlying dynamic of this disruption is that CD can create transnational discourses within the national public sphere, “thus making modest contributions to its capacity to include and process claims that are, or could be, underpinned by an appeal to global normative authority” (ibid.). Nonetheless he assumes that protests taking place within the national setting have better chances in promoting the spread of global norms and the diffusion of these, he argues, presupposes a transformative process within the nation-state (cf. ibid. 504). I consider this assumption to be contestable as it can be refuted by current examples of GCD, which I will demonstrate in the course of my analysis and in relation to XR's approach.
In view of the literature presented, it becomes apparent that the theoretical discussion on CD in global perspective is characterized by a plurality of definitions, ranging from international CD (Allen 2011), transversal CD (Bentouhami 2007), transnational CD (Allen 2011; Ogunye 2015; Smith 2017) to cosmopolitan CD (Cabrera 2010; Allen 2017; Cooke 2019). This definitional plurality is given above all by the disagreement regarding the conceptualization of the civil component or the civil realm of CD in global contexts.
Bentouhami (2007) proposes to understand CD in terms of Fraser's theory of
Abnormal Justice, which, in the face of current globalization, reveals the transversality of
social contestation. Transnational CD according to Ogunye's (2015) argumentation is to be understood as a new kind of empowerment (cf. ibid. 17). She advocates a forward-looking approach that commits individuals to engage in transnational CD given “today’s
19 His argument, which resembles Ogunye’s (2015) argumentation for preferring CD is rather modest: “if there is
reason to think that civil disobedience as an appeal has some prospects for success, this provides some basis for preferring it as a method of protest in the first instance” (486).
uncontroversially unjust context” (17). According to Smith (2017), CD in global contexts should be conceptualized as transnational disruption, which is a kind of collective action associated with processes of internationalization (cf. ibid. 481). The key characteristic of transnational disruption is the invocation of “normative standards that are an appropriate source of authority in international or global contexts” (485). Cosmopolitan conceptions of CD, advocated by Cooke (2019) and Cabrera (2010), focus precisely on the notion of civility and the civil realm. Cooke (2019) provides a cosmopolitan justification for transnational CD “on behalf of self and others” (1), thereby arguing that by adopting a cosmopolitan view of civility and the civil sphere, transnational protests are able to meet the conceptual and normative standards required for them to be called CD (cf. ibid.). Allen (2011; 2017), in turn, offers three conceptions of CD in global contexts: international, transnational, and cosmopolitan CD. He differs substantially from the accounts already presented since his models of CD are particularly conceptualized to capture only cases of global injustice, thereby presuming global affectedness of the ones protesting. Allen’s (2017) cosmopolitan CD is very much influenced by Rawls (1999a) and his concept of decency (Rawls 1999b). In this sense, Allen’s cosmopolitan CD is narrower in scope than Cooke’s cosmopolitan CD and offers insufficient justification for GCD.
All things considered, most of the literature shows a tendency towards a cosmopolitan approach but differ significantly in the theorization of the civil component given the variety of the concepts applied and deficiency of empirical verifiability. Moreover, the revolutionary component, anchored in the civil realm of GCD, seems to be largely undermined or misunderstood, which is due to the assumed shift to pragmatism – from resistance to protest. Consequently, I argue that in order to resolve this, one needs to conduct an extensive case study, independently from presumed theoretical claims being made, which I will do in the next section.
5 Case Study
The research objective of the case study is to evaluate the empirical data required for conceptualizing GCD in light of the overall research problem. Accordingly, the aim is to show how CD is operating in practice and being initiated at the global level.
5.1 The Case, the Context, and the Data
With regard to the question of how to develop a coherent and unified conceptualization of GCD, a well-known case of GCD can be applied to further facilitate a comprehensive analysis. The case under investigation here is the movement Extinction Rebellion (XR), which has been active worldwide for almost two years now, leading global campaigns in response to the worldwide climate crisis. Since XR is a quite new movement of GCD, the study of this case is a crucial contribution for discussing the six normative and practical questions I will pose. Furthermore, the case study also contributes in resolving the identified insufficiencies among the current literature, especially with regard to the problem of practical inapplicability. In the first sections of the case study, I will give a brief overview of the movement, its background, and main objectives, as well as an explanation and justification of the data collection and data analysis. Overall, the empirical findings should help illustrating the underlying theoretical framework of my conceptualization of GCD.
5.1.1 The Data and Data Analysis
The data used are taken mainly from newspaper sources and two books written by XR’s activists, researchers, and journalists. Additionally, a series of newspaper articles from The
Guardian, The Independent, and BBC News (etc.) have been analyzed, covering the period
from the beginning of the movement (October 2018) until 2020, with the purpose of mapping out a historical timeline of the most relevant protest actions by XR.
The two books - This is not a Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook (2019) and
Hope Dies – Action Begins (2019) - used for the case study are both collections of different
essays written either by researchers, scientists, or activists working for XR. Hence, both books are able to represent the case adequately and, in relation to the practice-related questions I pose for conceptualizing GCD, provide important insights about XR’s practice.
5.1.2 The Context of XR
XR has become one of the best-known international activists group fighting against climate and environmental injustice. Based on scientific research and studies, XR clearly states that we have reached a level where there is no way back. Furthermore, they show how and why
we have to take action in order to counteract the climate catastrophe we are facing nowadays. “The science is clear: we are in the sixth mass extinction event and we will face catastrophe if we do not act swiftly and robustly” (XR, Declaration of XR 2019: 1). So, the message is clear: we have to act now. The Declaration of XR presents the main objective of the movement by staking out what it means for every citizen in this world to act on behalf of our planet and on behalf of life.
It becomes not only our right but our sacred duty to rebel. We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract to be null and void; the government has rendered them invalid by its continuing failure to act appropriately. We call upon every principled and peaceful citizen to rise with us. (…) We refuse to bequeath a dying planet to future generations by failing to act now. We act in peace, with ferocious love of these lands in our hearts. We act on behalf of life (2).
XR started in October 2018, declaring an open rebellion against the UK government. Since then, the movement has not only spread internationally but its global network has become stronger than ever before. Within a short period of time, XR has managed to establish itself on the global level and has effectively brought CD to various countries around the world, demanding to stand up for climate justice (cf. XR/Knights 2019: 10). XR is a decentralized mass movement of world citizens who, through non-violent protests, urge everyone to get involved and become active. With its three main demands, XR sets a clear message by calling for a fairer climate and ecological policy internationally and for global justice in principle. These three main demands are:
1. “The government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for chance” (11).
2. “The government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero by 2025” (11).
3. “The government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizen’s Assembly on climate and ecological justice” (11).
The three demands of XR have been adapted in various international groups along similar lines to the decentralized system of the movement itself. But as Sam Knights rightly points out, the tactics and methods used in the UK were not always that effective in other countries, as some of them were repressive regimes or dictatorships, which did not allow such protests from happening (cf. ibid. 12). One of the most essential messages that XR tries to convey globally is solidarity with one another. We can learn from each other, support each
