Introduction

The conflict between conscience and law puts individuals in a position to determine whether their conscience allows them to obey or disobey the law (Allan 1996: 103). When they morally decide to disobey orders, dissenters do not aim to destroy the legal system. Their act of civil disobedience is a ‘way of manoeuvring between these conflicting moralities’ (Walzer 1970: 24). Dissenters base their acts on the grounds that political circumstances clash with their deepest moral convictions. Therefore, the act of disobedience naturally involves conscientious grounds (Bedau 1961: 659). Such commonality, the fact that acts of both conscientious objection and civil disobedience encapsulate conscientious foundations, raises questions over the determination of the rights and duties of individuals. To what extent conscientious disobedience can be tolerated is also debated (Brownlee 2012: 4). Furthermore, to date no agreement has been reached over whether violence eliminates the civility of acts or whether the authorities should distinguish between ordinary criminals and law-breakers with a conscientious reason. As a result of these disagreements, it is hard to come to a comprehensive definition of civil disobedience; therefore, its scope remains ambiguous (Bedau 1991: 49).

In an attempt to clarify the differences and similarities between conscientious objection and the act of civil disobedience, one can draw on Rawls's definition of civil disobedience and conscientious refusal as a point of departure. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls (1999: 320) defines civil disobedience ‘as a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government’. He further points out that ‘[b]y acting in this way one addresses the sense of justice of the majority of the community and declares that in one's considered opinion the principles of social cooperation among free and equal men [sic] are not being respected’ (Rawls 1999: 320). Each civil disobedience element suggested by Rawls raises concerns over the definition and scope of civil disobedience. However, before examining these elements in depth, it is important to analyse Rawls's focus on ‘the sense of justice of the majority’.