Legal Term for Rebellion

There are a number of terms associated with rebellion and rebellion. They range from those with positive connotations to those with pejorative connotations. Examples: In political terms, rebellion and revolt often differ in their different goals. While rebellion usually seeks to escape and/or obtain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power and the laws associated with it. The goal of rebellion is resistance, while revolt seeks revolution. [ref. needed] If power shifts relative to the external adversary, or if power shifts within a mixed coalition, or if positions on both sides harden or soften, an insurgency can fluctuate between the two forms. [ref. A rebellion arises from a feeling of indignation and disapproval of a situation and then manifests itself in the refusal to submit or obey the authority responsible for that situation. [ref. needed] Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful (civil disobedience, civil resistance and non-violent resistance) or violent (terrorism, sabotage and guerrilla warfare). [ref.

needed] In his book Why Men Rebel, Ted Gurr explores the roots of political violence itself, applied to a framework of rebellion. It defines political violence as: «any collective attack within a political community against the political regime, its actors […] or its policies. The concept represents a series of events whose common property is the actual or threatened use of force. [10] Gurr sees violence as a voice of anger that manifests itself against the established order. Specifically, individuals get angry when they feel what Gurr calls relative deprivation, which means they feel like they`re receiving less than you`re entitled to. He formally calls it «the perceived gap between value expectations and value capabilities.» [11] Gurr distinguishes three types of relative deprivation: Civil resistance movements have often sought and provoked the overthrow of a government or head of state and could be considered a form of rebellion in these cases. In many of these cases, the opposition movement saw itself not only as non-violent, but also as the bearer of its country`s constitutional system against an illegal government, for example if it refused to acknowledge defeat in an election. As a result, the term rebel does not always capture the element in some of these movements to defend the rule of law and constitutionalism. [5] The following theories are all based on Mancur Olson`s work in The Logic of Collective Action, a 1965 book that conceptualized the inherent problem of an activity that concentrated costs and diffused benefits.

In this case, the benefits of rebellion are considered a public good, that is, a non-excludable and non-rival good. [32] In fact, when a rebellion succeeds, the political benefits are usually shared by all members of society, not just the individuals who participated in the rebellion itself. Olson thus challenges the assumption that mere common interests are all that is necessary for collective action. In fact, he argues that the possibility of «free rider,» a term that means reaping the benefits without paying the price, will deter rational individuals from acting collectively. That is, if there is no clear advantage, a rebellion will not take place en masse. Thus, Olson shows that «selective incentives» available only to individuals who participate in the collective effort can solve the free rider problem. [33] The decision to join a rebellion may be based on the prestige and social status associated with membership in the rebel group. More than material incentives for the individual, rebellions offer their members club goods, public goods reserved only for members of this group. Economist Eli Berman and political scientist David D.

Laitin`s study of radical religious groups shows that the lure of club assets can help explain individual membership. Berman and Laitin discuss suicidal surgeries, that is, actions that result in the highest cost to an individual. They note that in such a framework, the real danger to an organization is not volunteering, but preventing defections. In addition, the decision to join such a high-stakes organization can be simplified. [39] Berman and Laitin show that religious organizations replace the state if it does not provide an acceptable quality of public goods such as public safety, basic infrastructure, access to public services, or education. [40] Suicide operations «can be explained as a costly signal of `commitment` to the community.» [41] They further note that «groups that are less adept at extracting engagement signals (victims) may not be able to consistently apply incentive compatibility.» [42] Thus, rebel groups can organize to demand evidence of their commitment to the cause from their members. The club`s assets are not so much to persuade individuals to join, but to prevent defectors. Kalyvas` most important idea is that the dynamic between the center and the peripheral is fundamental in political conflicts.

According to Kalyvas, each individual actor enters into a calculated alliance with the collective. [56] Rebellions cannot therefore be analyzed in molar categories, nor should we assume that individuals automatically agree with the rest of the actors solely on the basis of ideological, religious, ethnic or class divisions. The agency is located both in the collective and in the individual, in the universal and in the local. [56] Kalyvas writes: «The alliance involves a transaction between supralocal and local actors, the former providing the latter with external muscles, thus enabling them to obtain crucial local advantages, in return the former rely on local conflicts to recruit and motivate supporters and obtain local control, resources and information – even if their ideological agenda is opposed to localism.» [56] Thus, individuals will try to use rebellion to gain some kind of local advantage, while collective actors will strive to gain power. According to Kalyvas, violence is a means as opposed to an end. The following theories are largely based on the Marxist interpretation of rebellion. Rebellion, in the words of Theda Skocpol, is examined by analyzing «objective relations and conflicts between differently situated groups and nations, rather than the interests, views or ideologies of particular actors in revolutions.» [7] To the extent possible, the government tends to make accusations based more on actions than words. The numerous armed confrontations between famed Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government have led to a long list of lawsuits, but none for rebellion and insurrection. The reason they decided not to charge the crime may be obvious in the wake of the federal prosecution of his sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who were acquitted of equally vague conspiracy charges after keeping an Oregon nature preserve in an armed stalemate.

If rebellion amounts to treason, it is punishable by death under U.S. law. If it is a simple procedural resistance, it is usually punishable by a fine and imprisonment. Any person who incites rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws or participates, participates in or provides assistance or comfort to such rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws is liable under this Title to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both; and is unable to perform its duties under the United States. The prohibition of rebellion and insurrection appears in a short passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits inciting, supporting, and participating in any rebellion or uprising against the authority of the United States and its laws. The penalty for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office. Political scientist Christopher Blattman and World Bank economist Laura Alston call rebel activities a «career choice.» [37] They draw a parallel between criminal activity and rebellion, arguing that the risks and potential gains that a person must calculate when making the decision to join such a movement remain similar between the two activities.