The right to strike, in the labor sphere, is part of the catalog of classic social rights. However, the recognition of this right in the legal systems in general and then, in a special way, in the contemporary Constitutions has been rather tortuous. The reluctance to recognize this right derives from the circumstance that, to validate its exercise, it is important to admit that the action of an individual may have the ability to restrict other rights, including constitutional rights. The unusual thing is that these restrictions derive from the sole will of a collective, without means of a previous state authorization or the consent of those affected. Its recognition, in the end, requires to admit that self-defense has some place in the law and that is not completely opposed with it. This complex relationship is gaining new momentum, as it is intended to extend the right to strike - always in the labor sphere - but outside the scope of collective bargaining, and even beyond the scope of labor law itself, In the last case, the so-called «right to social protest»; or, in more philosophical terms, the individual right to resistance, the collective right to civil disobedience or even the right to rebellion. The main issue that we intend to address are the conflicts of legal relevance that arise in connection with the «praeter legem» strike and the «contra legem» strike, all of which are related to rulings handed down last time by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, revolving around the right to strike.
Quintana Benavides, A. (2018). The complex relationship between self-protection and right. Revista De Derecho Público, 283–307. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5249.2018.51263
