Legitimacy and legality of revolution in the theoretical thought of Edmund Burke

Within legal doctrine, a longstanding debate has persisted as to whether revolution may be regarded as a legitimate and lawful means of altering state authority. From the perspective of a democratic constitutional order, revolution constitutes a violent change of state authority; however, within certain ideological frameworks, it is perceived as an instrument for transforming authoritarian regimes. Historical experience demonstrates that while some revolutions have constituted the only “effective” remedy against autocracy, others have served merely as a means of its establishment. The French Bourgeois Revolution and the October Socialist Revolution represent the opposing poles of these interpretations. Each, in its own manner, revealed both positive and negative consequences, as they were ultimately betrayed by their leaders, who appropriated them for their own ends. This study employs a range of scientific methods—most prominently historical, comparative, inductive, and hypothetico-deductive—in pursuit of an integral approach aimed at highlighting the importance of Edmund Burke’s theoretical thought. It should not be overlooked that the distinguished Serbian legal theorist Slobodan Jovanović devoted particular attention to this author, especially in the context of examining revolution as a means of violently replacing one political order with another.