I am an Assistant Professor in Legal Theory at the School of Law at UCLan Cyprus and the project manager of the Centre for the Rule of Law and European Values (CRoLEV) at UCLan Cyprus https://crolev.eu
My research interests lie in democracy, the rule of law, democratic obligations and civil disobedience. More specifically, I am interested in mechanisms for stronger democracy and broader democratic engagement, including through control of decision-makers. I also carry out research in the field of protest and civil disobedience, exploring how such occasions represent democratic politics.
For a fuller profile including a list of past research projects see https://www.uclancyprus.ac.cy/academic/dr-andreas-marcou/ and https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7311-1356
-
Abstract Faced with a choice between escaping without consequences and submitting to a democratic decision, Socrates chooses the latter. So immense is Socrates’ duty to obey law, we are led to believe, that even the threat of death is insufficient to abrogate it. Crito proposes several arguments purporting to ground Socrates’ strong duty to obey, with the appeal to the Athenian system’s democratic credentials carrying most of the normative weight. A careful reading of the dialogue, in conjunction with the ‘ Apology ’, reveals, however, a more complex picture. If Crito sets the conditions that render a regime legitimate, and therefore warranting of obedience, the Apology reveals a legal system’s shortcomings that justify disobedience. This article substantiates this position by delineating circumstances that can justify resistance. Contemporary forms of political resistance can also rely on similar conditions. Plato’s texts anticipate the current democratic turn of civil disobedience.
The proliferation of civil disobedience in recent times has prompted questions about violence and justified resistance. Non-violence has traditionally been associated with civil disobedience. If civil disobedience is a political exercise, there are good normative and pragmatic reasons for adhering to non-violence. But some violent actions may be compatible with civil disobedience. This paper defines violence as the application of force intending to cause or reckless about causing harm, and seeks to distinguish violent actions compatible with civil disobedience from conduct too violent to qualify. Whereas civil disobedience is irreconcilable with attacks against other human beings, some violence against property, targeted and symbolic, coheres with the communicative ends of civil disobedience. More intriguing questions arise when disobedience entails extensive attacks against property, such as activities of environmental groups against environmentally harmful practices (ecotage). Despite the extent of violence against property, such activities might still qualify as civil disobedience.
Faced with a choice between escaping without consequences and submitting to a democratic decision, Socrates chooses the latter. So immense is Socrates’ duty to obey law, we are led to believe, that even the threat of death is insufficient to abrogate it. Crito proposes several arguments purporting to ground Socrates’ strong duty to obey, with the appeal to the Athenian system’s democratic credentials carrying most of the normative weight. A careful reading of the dialogue, in conjunction with the ‘Apology’, reveals, however, a more complex picture. If Crito sets the conditions that render a regime legitimate, and therefore warranting of obedience, the Apology reveals a legal system’s shortcomings that justify disobedience. This article substantiates this position by delineating circumstances that can justify resistance. Contemporary forms of political resistance can also rely on similar conditions. Plato’s texts anticipate the current democratic turn of civil disobedience.
Research became imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic, which presented unprecedented challenges for communities around the world. The urgency of the pandemic and the need for accelerated research placed research ethics committees (RECs) under significant strain. This guidance summarises seven serious challenges for RECs during COVID-19 and identifies recommendations and good practice for expedited ethics review. Recognising the collective responsibility of RECs, policymakers, funders, and research institutions in ensuring the efficacy of expedited procedures, advice is provided separately for REC members and other stakeholders. -- Funded by the European Union. UK participants in Horizon Europe Project PREPARED are supported by UK Research and Innovation grant number 10048353 (University of Central Lancashire). Swiss participants in Horizon Europe Project Prepared are supported by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency or UKRI or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.
The harassment of scientists is a complex problem. To help alleviate the burdens on scientists, we have shortened, synthesised, and simplified the main types of problems that scientists may face. Our aim is to present the information in a way that is both easy to digest and useful, adding practical advice as well as visuals that allow for text hopping. The report has two sections, which can be read independently: Awareness raising about harassment in science Questions you might ask, with advice The report has been developed primarily for use by scientists, and most examples are drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not address harassment by state authorities. -- Funded by the European Union. UK participants in Horizon Europe Project PREPARED are supported by UK Research and Innovation grant number 10048353 (University of Central Lancashire). Swiss participants in Horizon Europe Project Prepared are supported by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency or UKRI or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.
Research became imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic, which presented unprecedented challenges for communities around the world. The urgency of the pandemic and the need for accelerated research placed research ethics committees (RECs) under significant strain. This guidance summarises seven serious challenges for RECs during COVID-19 and identifies recommendations and good practice for expedited ethics review. Recognising the collective responsibility of RECs, policymakers, funders, and research institutions in ensuring the efficacy of expedited procedures, advice is provided separately for REC members and other stakeholders. -- Funded by the European Union. UK participants in Horizon Europe Project PREPARED are supported by UK Research and Innovation grant number 10048353 (University of Central Lancashire). Swiss participants in Horizon Europe Project Prepared are supported by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency or UKRI or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.
Research became imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic, which presented unprecedented challenges for communities around the world. The urgency of the pandemic and the need for accelerated research placed research ethics committees (RECs) under significant strain. This guidance summarises seven serious challenges for RECs during COVID-19 and identifies recommendations and good practice for expedited ethics review. Recognising the collective responsibility of RECs, policymakers, funders, and research institutions in ensuring the efficacy of expedited procedures, advice is provided separately for REC members and other stakeholders. -- Funded by the European Union. UK participants in Horizon Europe Project PREPARED are supported by UK Research and Innovation grant number 10048353 (University of Central Lancashire). Swiss participants in Horizon Europe Project Prepared are supported by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency or UKRI or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.
The harassment of scientists is a complex problem. To help alleviate the burdens on scientists, we have shortened, synthesised, and simplified the main types of problems that scientists may face. Our aim is to present the information in a way that is both easy to digest and useful, adding practical advice as well as visuals that allow for text hopping. The report has two sections, which can be read independently: Awareness raising about harassment in science Questions you might ask, with advice The report has been developed primarily for use by scientists, and most examples are drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not address harassment by state authorities. -- Funded by the European Union. UK participants in Horizon Europe Project PREPARED are supported by UK Research and Innovation grant number 10048353 (University of Central Lancashire). Swiss participants in Horizon Europe Project Prepared are supported by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency or UKRI or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.
