top of page
Search

Overlapping Compliance and Complicity: the Role of Unjust Laws (Dr Joseph Yu)

  • josephgregoryyu
  • Apr 14
  • 9 min read

In politics, compliance and complicity are crucial concepts to evaluate accountability, ethical governance, and the enforcement of just laws. In this paper, I explore the question: when is compliance complicity? To better answer this question, I define compliance as the act of conforming to rules, standards, laws, or requirements set by a higher authority in politics (Leisering, 2024). Complicity, on the other hand, is the act of being involved with others in wrongdoing (Gillies, 1980). People who play an enabling, encouraging role, or are active bystanders who fail to apply any resistance to the incidence of wrongdoings can also be accounted as accomplices. By the definitions provided above, compliance assumes that laws and rules exist. Complicity assumes that the complicit is not the principal involved in the wrongdoing. Rather, they are following another principal agent. That said, the seemingly contradictory definitions of compliance and complicity can only be reconciled if we assume that laws are unjust, and the unjust laws are the principal agent by which the actors are adhering.

Therefore, the question boils down to what constitutes an unjust law. From a utilitarian perspective, laws are designed to ensure that society benefits more from their existence than from their absence. In other words, according to J.S. Mill, a law is unjust if abiding by it causes more harm than good for society as a whole (Crisp, 1997). However, it is important to note that not everyone who complies with unjust laws should be considered an accomplice. When attributing blame, it is crucial to consider whether the person had the freedom to act differently. If they did not, their compliance cannot be equated with culpability.


Compliance becomes complicity when individuals with the freedom to act otherwise follow unjust laws, perpetuating harm and supporting oppressive political systems. However, liability should not be assigned if the individual is not blameworthy. A person cannot be considered blameworthy if they lack the agency to decide whether or not to comply with the law. In the following paragraphs, I will explore how this dynamic plays out in different political contexts through three cases, where the accomplice has minimal, moderate, and significant agency over their compliance with the law.



Agent with minimal agency

Nazi Germany is a prime example of a regime enacting unjust laws for nefarious purposes. The chief characteristic of the Nazi terror was that it combined lawlessness and government by decree with complete arbitrariness (Arendt, 1951: 393). Under Adolf Hitler, the Nazi government enforced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, which suppressed Jewish rights under the guise of protecting 'German blood and honor.' These laws stripped Jews of their citizenship and associated rights, culminating in violence encouraged by the government during the November Pogrom, infamously known as 'Kristallnacht.' Starting in 1941, Jews were systematically deported to extermination camps, where they were murdered in gas chambers (Vashem, 2019). This ethnic cleansing resulted in millions of deaths, widespread hysteria, social division, and immense suffering. The human loss and suffering caused by these atrocities far outweigh any claimed benefits to the Nazi regime. From a utilitarian perspective, the scale of this loss overwhelmingly surpasses any conceivable benefit, rendering the actions entirely unjust (Tardi, 2024).


The systemic implementation of these injust laws involved extensive state apparatus and the complicity of many who were required to enforce them. Following the utilitarian framework, Germans who complied with Hitler’s unjust laws aimed at harming Jews can be considered accomplices. Legal professionals, the Gestapo, Schutzstaffel, and police forces played critical roles in enforcing anti-Jewish laws, conducting arrests, deportations, and executions (McNamara, 2019). Yet, these individuals had relatively significant agency to resist such unjust law – they are powerful enough to either openly or secretly reject the law. Their failure to attempt any form of resistance rendered their compliance a form of complicity. As Hannah Arendt noted, "The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal" (Arendt, 1963: 276). This highlights how ordinary individuals, not just fanatical leaders, perpetuated the regime’s policies by complying without resistance. Additionally, schools, universities, and other public institutions colluded with the Nazi regime to propagate antisemitic ideologies, reinforce discriminatory policies – such as by rejecting Jewish people from admission – all while having the agency to act otherwise (Friedländer, 2018). The Nuremberg Trials post-World War II highlighted that mere compliance with orders did not absolve individuals of responsibility. This precedent established that political actors, including the civil society, who enforce unjust laws without resistance are complicit in the resulting crimes. 


One potential counterargument is that some Germans could be acting with minimal agency. When making their decision to side with either the Nazi or the Jews, lower-ranking Nazi soldiers and the general German public were threatened with consequences including imprisonment, execution, court-martial, ostracism, both to them and their families. Nevertheless, resistance movements like the White Rose, which demonstrated that even under extreme oppression, acts of defiance were possible. The group of students and professors who voiced against anti-semitism and distributed anti-Nazi leaflets between 1942 and 1943 were caught and executed immediately following their rebellion (Ray, 2019). The existence of such resistance underscores that some degree of agency remained, challenging the notion that compliance was entirely unavoidable.

 

Agent with moderate agency 

The 'Jim Crow' laws, a series of state and local statutes enacted in the Southern and border states of the U.S. between the 1870s and 1960s, enforced racial segregation in public facilities and discriminated against the African Americans by denying their legal protections and access to voting rights. These laws, though claiming to be 'equal but separate', has for nearly a century perpetuated systematic and structural racial oppression in the U.S. These laws were unjust. They created a system where African Americans were denied equal access to education, job opportunities, along with various other resources (e.g. Woodward, 2002; Litwack, 1999; Klarman, 2004). Economically, these laws prevented many African Americans from entering the skilled workforce, thereby denying the U.S. the potential for greater development. Beyond the economic implications, the loss of opportunities for African Americans was a loss to humanity. Percy Lavon Julian (1899-1975), a pioneering African American chemist, made significant contributions to synthetic chemistry, particularly in the synthesis of medicinal drugs from plants (Stille, 2009). Despite his scientific achievements, Julian faced considerable discrimination throughout his career, including being denied a teaching position at Harvard due to fears that white students would resent being taught by an African American. In essence, Harvard denied its students the benefit of Julian’s wisdom. Julian’s struggle represents the broader experience of many African Americans, highlighting the societal loss engendered by Jim Crow laws.


Government officials, legislators, police forces, and sometimes the general public, by being creators and supporters of the Jim Crow laws, are accomplices. Local government officials enforced Jim Crow laws by placing signs designating “white” and “colored” spaces. Police forces perpetuated discriminatory mindsets by exercising excessive precaution and violence against the African American population. Business owners and educational institutions silently voiced their approval of these laws by refusing African American applicants and providing low-quality resources (Pilgrim, 2012). These individuals had significant agency to resist these unjust laws (Jett, 2021). Schools could have provided equal educational resources for all students. The media could have exposed the struggles of African Americans as a form of resistance. The police could have treated everyone equally. Their failure to act against these injustices made them complicit in maintaining a discriminatory system.


The political leaders and institutions that upheld Jim Crow laws were not only acting within a legal framework but were also reinforcing a political ideology of white supremacy. The political structure of the time was deeply intertwined with maintaining racial segregation and inequality. The complicity of these political actors is evident in their deliberate actions to legislate and enforce segregation, despite the ethical and moral implications. This demonstrates how political systems can perpetuate injustice through legal means, making compliance with such laws a form of complicity.

One counterargument is that, for a white person, helping an African American evade the unjust law might lead to more harm than good for the latter. Apart from legal consequences, they could also face vigilante violence. In other words, the act of disobedience can generate varying levels of utility and harm on both individual and societal levels. While protesting against Jim Crow laws might benefit society in the long run, an individual's isolated act of defiance, without broader societal support, could result in more harm than benefit at the individual level. Therefore, if a white person's decision not to help is thoroughly considered and the potential consequences for both themselves and the African American population are weighed, then the white person cannot necessarily be deemed an accomplice.


While the fear of reprisal is valid, the broader political implications of maintaining Jim Crow laws cannot be ignored. The failure of individuals and institutions to challenge these laws perpetuated a system of racial injustice that had lasting impacts on American society. By complying with these laws, political actors and ordinary citizens alike contributed to a political system that institutionalized racial discrimination. Hence, even if individuals faced personal risks, the collective failure to resist these laws constitutes a political and moral complicity in the broader system of racial oppression.

 

Agent with significant agency 

The Kafala system is a sponsorship system used in several Middle Eastern countries, including Qatar, to regulate the relationship between employers and migrant workers. Under this system, a migrant worker’s immigration status is legally bound to their employer (sponsor) for their contract period (Robinson, 2022). This system grants employers’ significant control over the workers, including their ability to change jobs and leave the country.


  Qatar recruited a large number of migrant workers from countries like Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines to build infrastructure for the 2022 FIFA World Cup, including hotels, stadiums, and other facilities (BBC author, 2022). Those migrant workers not only suffer from overworking as well as unsafe and unsanitary working environments, but also a lack of freedom in changing their jobs. In other words, during FIFA 2022, the Kafala system left migrant workers no other choice but to endure the inhumane working conditions (Holmes, 2021). By constituting human rights abuses, the Kafala system produced more harm than the utility, making the system unjust.

The accomplices of this unjust system include the government authorities in Qatar that created, maintained, and enforced the Kafala system. In addition to the government, employers and contractors responsible for constructing FIFA facilities are also complicit. By providing poor working conditions and cutting back on employment benefits to save costs, they are direct perpetrators of this unjust system (Bouri, 2023). These employers and contractors have significant agency; although the law does not require them to treat migrant workers humanely, voluntarily providing care to their employees does not violate any law. Therefore, those who fail to make any attempts to resist or improve the conditions of this unjust system can be considered accomplices.


One potential counter argument focuses on the non-migrant employees of the infrastructure firms. Some of these individuals, holding lower titles and ranks in the company, have little right and agency to say no to abuses. Turning against an order to treat his inferiors – the migrant workers – in an inhumane way might lead to him losing his job, one that he dearly needs to support his own family. Similar to the case in Holocaust, under such circumstances, these people should not be considered accomplices, but rather victims of the system. 


Conclusion

In this paper, to explore the interplay between compliance and complicity, compliance is defined as the act of conforming to established rules and laws, and complicity as involvement in wrongdoing by enabling or failing to prevent it. The central argument is that compliance becomes complicity when individuals or entities with the freedom to act otherwise choose to adhere to unjust laws, thereby perpetuating harm. In other words, while complying with laws is generally seen as a moral and civic duty when the laws are unjust, compliance without resistance can equate to complicity. The degree of agency individuals possess plays a crucial role in determining their moral and ethical responsibility – those with little to no agency, who face severe repercussions for resistance, should be viewed as victims of the unjust system.


Examples drawn from the Nazi regime, the Jim Crow Laws, and the Kafala system show that though with some exceptions – whether it be limited agency or fear of more severe repercussions – those who draft, enforce, and are supportive of unjust laws should be considered as complicit when they are complying with such unjust laws. 

In conclusion, recognizing the distinction between compliance and complicity is essential for understanding accountability and promoting ethical governance. By holding those who support unjust laws accountable, we can strive for a more just society where individuals and institutions are encouraged to resist and reform harmful legal systems.


References

 
 
 

Comments

© MMXX by Joseph Gregory Yu.

Unauthorised use of any materials from this site is strictly forbidden.

  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black Twitter Icon
  • Black LinkedIn Icon
logo2-2.png
bottom of page