In different talks, we will analyse or consider the question of a duty to disobey in a more specific light. Here, one might for example think of

• Are there differences regarding the duty to disobey between civil servants, judges and the general population?
• Is there a difference between refusing general conscription and refusing to apply the law as a civil servant?
• Is the duty to disobey, if it exists, a legal or a moral one? What implications would this have?
• What is the meaning of the doctrine of contra legem is this regard? Is a decision contra legem a form of disobedience or not?
• What is the relationship between a supposed duty to disobey and the rule of law?
• Can the Toeslagenaffaire provide an angle from which we could contemplate in- and exclusion from the law – the parent who makes a mistake; the civil servant who might decide not to follow the law to the letter?
• How can conscientious objectors account for their actions?
• How can a community demand of civil servants not to follow the law?
• Where do the questions of legal philosophy (‘when is disobedience mandatory?’) and politics and political accountability (‘what kind of community seeks accountability at the level of administration and jurisdiction, but not of politics?’) meet?
• (If there is a duty to disobey), how can we offer those who disobey (and e.g. whistleblowers) better protection?
• Does it matter whether the law that ought to be disobeyed is municipal, national, regional, or international?

These questions are illustrative and non-exhaustive.

Programme