Along with fundamental rights such as liberty and property, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 also envisions a right to resist oppression. Irrespective of one's place on the political spectrum, resistance has been employed as an alternative both to submission and to revolt. After briefly sketching a historical and theoretical account of resistance I propose two parallel sets of criteria to further characterize good resistance. I submit that the first set is normative (I call it emancipatory) and the second set is critical (meaning it can be empirically assessed). I further break this typology down as follows: (1) Resistance is emancipatory when it is (a) nonviolent, (b) progressive, and (c) civil; and (2) it is critical when it seeks to (a) change policies and practices that are unjust, and (b) empower citizens to enjoy their full rights. I show the usefulness of this scheme by applying it to the political situation in Iran and by evincing these criteria in three instances of resistance there. Thus, in this context, I argue, resistance is a preferable alternative to both revolution and reform.

中文翻译：

---

关于抵抗：正如伊朗政治事务所证明的那样

除了自由和财产等基本权利外，1789 年的《人权和公民权利宣言》还设想了反抗压迫的权利。无论一个人在政治领域的地位如何，抵抗都被用作屈服和反抗的替代方法。在简要概述了阻力的历史和理论说明后，我提出了两组平行的标准来进一步表征良好的阻力。我认为第一组是规范性的（我称之为解放性的），第二组是批判性的（这意味着它可以根据经验进行评估）。我进一步将这种类型学分解如下：（1）当它是（a）非暴力的，（b）进步的，和（c）文明的时，抵抗是解放的；(2) 当它寻求 (a) 改变不公正的政策和做法时，它是至关重要的，(b) 赋予公民充分权利。我通过将其应用于伊朗的政治局势并在三个抵抗实例中证明这些标准来展示该方案的有用性。因此，在这种情况下，我认为，抵抗是比革命和改革更可取的选择。