Feodalizmden Liberalizme Avrupa'da Devrim Hakkı
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
The right to resist, does not mean the civil disobedience displayed against the political authority as it is known and adopted today, but the revolt that includes removing it and replacing it if necessary. If the theoretical development of the Right to Revolution is examined, it will be seen that the right to resist and the Right to Revolution are not separate but one and the same thing. The intellectual accumulation of legal and political philosophers on the right to resist begins with creating the concept of tyrant and overthrowing it. Since the basic claim is the injustice of the tyrant, correct justice must first be determined, and then wrong justice must be corrected. For this reason, divine law and natural law have been used as tools over time as the legitimate reason for overthrowing the political authority. The fundamental break in whether the governed would dare to put divine law against the prevailing law is seen in the philosophies of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas of Aquino. Consequent to daring, the discussion shifted from divinity to secularity. Liberal philosophers have developed new perspectives on disobedience by synthesizing the two stages experienced. Social contract theory equated the governing and the governed around the contract in the presence of God. If it fails to fulfil the contract, the political authority is treated as an equal by the ruled from the moment it violates the contract; and gets removed in accordance with the original contract. From correction of the corrupt justice of the tyrant to restitution of the contract, not every philosopher is an unconditional defender of the Right to Revolution, but they have put forward the attitude that the political power should adopt so that it does not lead to revolutions. This accumulation in political theory eliminated the Right to Revolution.