The insight of the right to resist in social contract theorists

This study examines the ways in which social contract thinkers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau addressed the right to resist. The right to resist refers to the right of individuals to revolt or rebel against an authority they consider legitimate when it violates the principles of freedom or justice. While Hobbes argued that the existing order must always be preserved to prevent disruption, and largely rejected the right to resist, Locke considered it legitimate for people to rebel and resist their rulers when their inherent natural rights were violated. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that a society whose sovereignty rests with the people lacks true resistance, but argued that a form of government that opposes the general will must be ended. In this respect, this study aims to analyze the views of social contract thinkers on the right to resist from historical, philosophical, and political perspectives using qualitative research methods, revealing their contributions to the modern understanding of democracy. In the study, which reached a conclusion on the basis that the right to resistance, which ensures the guarantee of rights, can exist in different dimensions and situations, it was determined that there were differences between the views of these three thinkers on this subject.