Civil olydnad i Sverige : - Går det att rättfärdiga?

Sammanfattning: John Rawls defines civil disobediance as a ”public, nonviolent, 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.” (Rawls, 1999:320). Rawls has developed a theory of civil disobediance that has been widely discussed (Månsson, 2004:153). His theory explains when one can break the law and what has to be taken into consideration (Rawls, 1996:345-346). The theory is designed only for the special case of a nearly just society where the members of the community are rational beings. Rawls has a democratic and constitutional perspective that cares for a stable state power. The theory has been criticized by philosophers such as Kimberley Browlee and Tomas Månsson that claim that it is too narrow (Månsson, 2004:157-159, Brownlee 2012:2). The Swedish legal system does not regulate civil disobediance in any particulary law, rather it is the criminal acts that are connected to the civil disobediance that are prohibited. A dilemma for the criminal law is the amount of tolerance that should be allowed for criminal acts that we morally can understand (Asp & Ulväng, 2019:13). In common practice there has been a very low acceptence of civil disobediance. There has not been any case of discharge and the court has expressed a concern in judging these acts too light (NJA 1982 s. 376).