Abstract
This dissertation examines the differential treatment of protest movements by police and prosecutors across three distinct categories: climate activism, labour demonstrations, and far-right mobilisations. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis, this study analyses how state actors exercise selective tolerance toward different protest groups, revealing systematic patterns of differential enforcement. The findings demonstrate that climate and environmental protesters face increasing criminalisation through new legislative frameworks, extensive surveillance, and punitive prosecutorial approaches, whilst far-right movements often benefit from institutional access and comparatively facilitative policing. Labour protests, meanwhile, are regulated primarily through frameworks that prioritise officer protection over protester rights. The research reveals that tolerance operates as a conditional and selective mechanism, fundamentally shaped by protest issue alignment with dominant political and economic interests, tactical choices, and perceived threats to public order. Courts occasionally provide partial counterbalances through human rights reasoning, though this remains inconsistent. These findings carry significant implications for democratic accountability, freedom of assembly, and the equal application of law in liberal democracies, suggesting that protest policing reflects and reinforces existing power asymmetries rather than maintaining political neutrality.
Introduction
The right to protest constitutes a cornerstone of democratic governance, enabling citizens to express dissent, demand accountability, and participate meaningfully in political discourse. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines freedom of peaceful assembly, whilst domestic legal frameworks across liberal democracies nominally protect this fundamental liberty. However, the practical exercise of protest rights depends substantially upon how police and prosecutors interpret, apply, and enforce relevant laws. This discretionary space creates opportunities for differential treatment that may systematically advantage certain groups whilst disadvantaging others.
Recent years have witnessed intensifying debates concerning protest regulation across multiple jurisdictions. Climate activists have faced increasingly severe legal responses, with new legislation creating specific offences targeting environmental protest tactics. Simultaneously, far-right movements have mobilised across Europe and North America, often encountering different policing approaches than their ideological counterparts. Labour movements, historically central to protest politics, continue to organise demonstrations that intersect with both economic interests and public order concerns. These developments raise fundamental questions about the consistency and equity of state responses to different forms of collective action.
Understanding whose protests receive tolerance matters profoundly for several reasons. Academically, this inquiry advances theoretical frameworks concerning state repression, social movement dynamics, and the selective application of law. Socially, differential protest policing carries implications for democratic participation, potentially chilling certain forms of expression whilst permitting others. Practically, patterns of selective enforcement inform policy debates regarding protest legislation, police training, and prosecutorial guidelines. The question of whether liberal democracies treat ideologically diverse protesters consistently speaks directly to commitments to equal treatment under law and the protection of fundamental freedoms.
This dissertation addresses a significant gap in existing scholarship. Whilst substantial research examines climate protest criminalisation, far-right mobilisation patterns, and labour demonstration regulation individually, limited work provides systematic cross-issue comparison. No single comprehensive dataset tracks differential treatment across climate, labour, and far-right protests, necessitating synthesis across disparate literatures to identify patterns. This study undertakes that synthetic task, drawing together evidence from multiple jurisdictions to examine how tolerance varies by protest issue, tactics, and alignment with state interests.
The contemporary context renders this investigation particularly timely. The United Kingdom’s Public Order Act 2023 introduced new offences specifically targeting disruptive protest tactics commonly employed by climate activists. Similar legislative developments have occurred in Australia, where new laws impose severe penalties on environmental protesters. Across Europe, far-right parties have achieved electoral success, potentially influencing how state actors respond to aligned movements. These developments suggest fundamental shifts in how democratic states conceptualise and regulate protest, warranting careful academic scrutiny.
Aim and objectives
This dissertation aims to analyse and compare how police and prosecutors treat climate, labour, and far-right demonstrations, examining whether tolerance operates selectively based on protest issue, tactics, and alignment with dominant political and economic interests.
To achieve this aim, the research pursues the following objectives:
1. To synthesise existing literature examining police responses to climate and environmental protests, identifying patterns of criminalisation, surveillance, and enforcement.
2. To analyse available evidence concerning the policing of far-right demonstrations, including comparative treatment when such protests encounter counter-mobilisations.
3. To examine regulatory frameworks governing labour protest, assessing how legal structures balance protester rights against other interests.
4. To investigate how prosecutors and courts respond to different protest types, including the availability and application of defences and mitigating factors.
5. To develop a comparative analytical framework explaining differential tolerance patterns across protest categories.
6. To assess the implications of selective tolerance for democratic participation, freedom of assembly, and equal treatment under law.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology, appropriate given the absence of a single comprehensive cross-issue dataset comparing police and prosecutorial treatment of climate, labour, and far-right protests. Literature synthesis enables the integration of findings from disparate empirical studies, theoretical analyses, and doctrinal examinations to identify patterns that no individual study addresses directly.
The research proceeded through several defined stages. Initially, relevant academic literature was identified through systematic searches of peer-reviewed databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Search terms combined protest-related vocabulary (demonstration, mobilisation, activism, civil disobedience) with issue identifiers (climate, environmental, labour, industrial, far-right, right-wing) and enforcement terminology (policing, prosecution, criminalisation, repression, tolerance). This approach generated a substantial body of relevant scholarship spanning multiple disciplines, including criminology, sociology, political science, and law.
Selected sources met explicit quality criteria. Peer-reviewed journal articles formed the primary evidence base, supplemented by academic books, government publications, and reports from reputable international organisations. Sources were excluded if they lacked academic rigour, derived from non-scholarly websites, or failed to provide relevant empirical or analytical content. Particular attention focused on recent publications capturing contemporary developments, though foundational theoretical works informed conceptual frameworks regardless of publication date.
The synthesis followed a thematic approach, organising material around key analytical categories: protest issue (climate, labour, far-right), enforcement stage (policing, prosecution, adjudication), jurisdiction (primarily United Kingdom, Australia, European Union member states, and United States), and conceptual themes (criminalisation, tolerance, selectivity, rights protection). This organisation enabled systematic comparison across categories whilst acknowledging jurisdictional variation.
Analytical techniques drew upon established methods for qualitative synthesis. Findings from individual studies were extracted, compared, and integrated to identify convergent patterns and divergent outcomes. Where studies addressed similar phenomena using different methods or in different contexts, synthesis sought to explain variation through attention to contextual factors. Theoretical frameworks from social movement scholarship, criminology, and legal studies informed interpretation of empirical findings.
Several limitations attend this methodology. Literature synthesis depends upon existing published research, which may exhibit publication bias favouring certain findings or topics. The comparative analysis necessarily integrates studies employing varied methods, potentially limiting direct comparability. Jurisdictional differences in legal frameworks, policing traditions, and political contexts complicate generalisation. These limitations are acknowledged whilst emphasising that synthesis remains the most appropriate method for addressing research questions that span multiple protest types and enforcement stages without available primary cross-issue data.
Literature review
Climate and environmental protest: escalating criminalisation
A substantial and growing body of scholarship documents the criminalisation of climate and environmental protest across multiple jurisdictions. This literature reveals consistent patterns of intensifying legal regulation, expanded police powers, and prosecutorial approaches that construct environmental activism as threatening rather than legitimate democratic participation.
In Australia, climate protests have become subject to highly punitive new laws that create specific offences targeting protest tactics. Gulliver and colleagues (2023) demonstrate that these legal developments combine with large-scale arrest practices, expanded police discretion, and increased corporate involvement in protest management. Media portrayals reinforce this criminalising framework by depicting climate activists as threats to economic interests and, in some instances, national security. This framing shifts environmental protest from the category of legitimate political expression toward criminal transgression requiring firm state response.
The United Kingdom presents a particularly well-documented case study. Anti-fracking campaigns in England during the 2010s experienced what Gilmore, Jackson, and Monk (2019) characterise as a significant gap between official policing rhetoric and actual enforcement practice. Whilst police publicly committed to dialogue policing approaches emphasising communication and facilitation, protesters experienced mass arrests, coercive tactics, and what they perceived as systematic dismantling rather than facilitation of their demonstrations. Jackson, Gilmore, and Monk (2019) extend this analysis, conceptualising anti-fracking protest policing as managing “unacceptable protest” through enforcement strategies that delegitimised environmental concerns and prioritised the interests of extractive industries.
Recent legislative developments have formalised this more repressive orientation. Martin (2025) analyses the Public Order Act 2023, arguing that it fundamentally redefines environmental protest tactics from tolerated expressions of dissent to transgressive acts warranting criminal sanction. The Act creates new offences, including locking on, tunnelling, and interference with key national infrastructure, directly targeting tactics commonly employed by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Martin demonstrates that this legislative shift was driven by government, police, and corporate concerns over disruption, embedding a more repressive protest law regime into the statutory framework.
Feldman (2023) situates these developments within broader patterns of UK protest regulation since 2019. This analysis reveals that legislation has increasingly prioritised “business as usual” over protest’s contribution to democratic debate, systematically weakening freedom of assembly and expression. The courts have been forced to rebalance rights case-by-case through human rights reasoning, though this judicial intervention provides only partial and inconsistent relief against more repressive statutory provisions.
Surveillance represents a further dimension of climate protest management. Storbeck and colleagues (2025) examine the experiences of Extinction Rebellion activists and police in the Netherlands, revealing extensive technologisation of protest policing. Activists reported pervasive surveillance that shaped their tactical choices and generated chilling effects on participation, whilst police justified these practices through public order and evidence-gathering rationales. This research demonstrates that criminalisation extends beyond arrest and prosecution to encompass monitoring practices that constrain activism even absent formal legal consequences.
Mass protest events attract particularly intensive policing responses. Gorringe and colleagues (2024) document the policing of protests at COP26 in Glasgow, revealing substantial police mobilisation that shaped how demonstrators could express climate concerns during this internationally significant event. The scale of police deployment itself communicated official concern about environmental protest, potentially deterring participation and constraining protest forms.
Far-right mobilisation: institutional access and asymmetric enforcement
Scholarly attention to far-right protest has concentrated primarily on explaining mobilisation patterns rather than examining enforcement responses. This focus reflects legitimate academic interest in understanding why far-right movements emerge and grow, though it leaves questions about differential policing comparatively underexplored.
Gattinara, Froio, and Pirro (2021) provide the most comprehensive cross-national analysis, examining 4,845 far-right protest events across eleven European countries. Their research demonstrates that far-right mobilisation depends substantially upon cultural grievances, particularly concerning immigration, alongside organisational resources including media visibility and elected allies. These institutional footholds—relationships with established political parties, access to media platforms, and organisational capacity—distinguish far-right movements from many other protest actors.
The implications for policing, though not the central focus of this research, follow from these institutional characteristics. Movements with elected allies may benefit from political intervention regarding enforcement decisions. Media visibility can generate public sympathy that constrains aggressive policing. Organisational resources enable legal representation and political advocacy when enforcement does occur. These factors suggest that far-right protests may encounter more facilitative or restrained police responses than movements lacking similar institutional access, though direct comparative evidence remains limited.
Research examining counter-protest policing provides more direct evidence of differential enforcement. Wood (2020) reviews US policing of situations where right-wing and left-wing counter-protesters clash, finding that police disproportionately repress left-wing participants. This pattern suggests ideological and structural biases in how order is enforced, with police perceiving or treating left-wing protesters as more threatening than their right-wing counterparts. The mechanisms underlying this asymmetry may include police political orientations, differential perceptions of threat, or structural alignments between police institutions and conservative political forces.
These findings indicate that whilst far-right protests are not immune from policing, they may encounter systematically different enforcement approaches than climate or left-progressive demonstrations. The combination of institutional resources, political allies, and apparently sympathetic enforcement creates conditions more favourable to far-right mobilisation than the criminalising framework applied to environmental activism.
Labour protest: institutional regulation and officer protection
Labour protests occupy a distinct position within protest typologies, representing historically institutionalised forms of collective action with established legal frameworks governing their exercise. However, the available literature synthesis reveals comparatively limited recent academic attention to labour demonstration policing in the jurisdictions primarily examined.
Pandua and Abadi (2025) provide relevant analysis from Indonesia, examining legal protection for police officers handling labour demonstrations. This doctrinal study emphasises frameworks designed to minimise “criminalisation” of officers and prioritises internal guidance on use of force. The orientation toward safeguarding police rather than expanding protester rights suggests an institutional approach focused on managing social tension whilst protecting enforcement personnel.
This limited evidence base constrains conclusions regarding labour protest specifically, though several observations remain possible. Labour movements in liberal democracies generally possess institutional recognition through trade union structures, collective bargaining frameworks, and established relationships with governmental authorities. This institutionalisation may generate more predictable enforcement responses than newer or less institutionalised movements encounter. However, industrial action that disrupts economic activity may attract concerns similar to those driving climate protest criminalisation, particularly where strikes affect critical infrastructure or services.
The relative absence of recent scholarship on labour protest policing in the UK, Australia, and European contexts examined extensively for climate and far-right movements represents a notable gap. This may reflect genuinely lower levels of conflict between labour movements and enforcement authorities, reduced salience of labour protest in contemporary political discourse, or simply research priorities favouring other topics. Regardless of explanation, this limitation affects the comprehensiveness of cross-issue comparison.
Prosecutorial and judicial responses
How prosecutors and judges respond to arrested protesters structures tolerance as significantly as policing practices. The decision to charge, the selection of offences, the availability of defences, and judicial sentencing all shape whether protest ultimately attracts criminal consequences.
The climate necessity defence has attracted substantial academic attention. Coca-Vila (2023) argues that whilst climate protesters engaged in civil disobedience should not receive full excuse through necessity defence recognition, they merit mitigated sentences. This position rests on the non-violent character of most climate protest, demonstrable political motivation, and the chilling effects that harsh punishment generates for core democratic rights. Proportionality requires acknowledging that disruptive climate protest differs fundamentally from ordinary criminal conduct, warranting responses that vindicate law without extinguishing legitimate dissent.
Kuznetsov (2025) develops a republican theoretical account of climate protest adjudication. This framework positions environmental activism as an exercise of environmental citizenship warranting judicial recognition and, in appropriate cases, expansive interpretation of rights protections. Courts can push governments toward stronger climate action by taking seriously the claims animating climate protest, though this requires departing from narrow positivist approaches to existing legal frameworks.
Feldman (2023) demonstrates that UK courts sometimes employ human rights reasoning to limit criminal penalties on demonstrators, partially offsetting more repressive legislation. However, this judicial intervention increases complexity for police and prosecutors, who must anticipate potentially conflicting statutory and human rights requirements. The resulting uncertainty may generate either more cautious enforcement or, conversely, aggressive policing confident that courts will ultimately resolve tensions.
Public tolerance and the framing of acceptability
Public attitudes toward protest inform and constrain state enforcement responses. Verkuyten, Yogeeswaran, and Adelman (2023) demonstrate through Dutch survey research that disruptive protest actions are generally viewed more intolerantly than tolerantly. When respondents considered disruptive protest by their least-liked social group, majorities opposed permitting such activities. This fragility of tolerance when public order concerns are invoked helps explain why authorities find receptive audiences when framing disruptive climate protest as unacceptable.
The framing of protest as threatening critical infrastructure or “business as usual” resonates with public concerns about disruption even amongst those nominally supportive of underlying causes. Media representations that emphasise inconvenience, economic costs, or safety concerns generate permission structures for aggressive enforcement responses. Conversely, protests framed as defending national identity, community safety, or traditional values may attract sympathetic coverage that constrains enforcement, regardless of tactics employed.
Discussion
Selective tolerance as the operative framework
The evidence synthesised in this review reveals that tolerance toward protest operates selectively and conditionally rather than through neutral application of consistent standards. State actors—police, prosecutors, legislators, and to some extent judges—differentiate substantially between protest categories in ways that systematically advantage some movements whilst disadvantaging others. This selectivity does not reflect mere variation in individual cases but rather patterned differential treatment that aligns with broader political and economic interests.
Climate and environmental protests face the most intensive criminalisation within the comparison framework. New legislative provisions create specific offences targeting environmental protest tactics. Policing practices involve mass arrests, extensive surveillance, and coercive approaches that protesters experience as delegitimising their activities. Prosecutorial frameworks construct climate activism as genuine criminality requiring full legal response, with only partial mitigation available through judicial human rights reasoning. This comprehensive criminalising apparatus reflects government, police, and corporate alignment around protecting “business as usual” from disruptive environmental challenge.
Far-right protests occupy a notably different position. The institutional resources and political allies that enable far-right mobilisation also provide buffers against aggressive enforcement. When policing occurs in counter-protest contexts, evidence suggests systematic asymmetry favouring right-wing participants over left-wing counterparts. This differential treatment cannot be explained through tactical differences alone, suggesting that ideological and structural factors shape enforcement decisions. Far-right movements benefit from proximity to dominant political interests in ways that climate protesters cannot access.
Labour protests represent an intermediate category requiring cautious interpretation given limited available evidence. Institutional frameworks governing labour action provide some predictability and protection absent for newer movements, though the prioritisation of officer protection over protester rights signals that enforcement institutions do not approach labour demonstrations from a rights-expansive perspective.
Mechanisms of differential treatment
Several mechanisms appear to generate differential tolerance across protest categories. Issue alignment with dominant political and economic interests emerges as fundamental. Climate protest directly challenges fossil fuel industries, infrastructure projects, and growth-oriented economic models that command substantial political support. State actors whose institutional interests align with these economic forces have strong incentives to suppress disruptive environmental challenge. Far-right movements, by contrast, often advance positions on immigration, national identity, and social order that overlap with mainstream conservative politics, reducing institutional motivation for aggressive enforcement.
Institutional access and resources shape enforcement outcomes independently of issue alignment. Movements with organisational capacity, legal expertise, and political allies can contest enforcement decisions through multiple channels. They can generate political costs for aggressive policing, secure favourable media coverage, and challenge prosecutorial decisions through well-resourced legal representation. These capacities are unevenly distributed across movement types, advantaging those with institutional footholds.
Framing processes influence both public tolerance and enforcement decisions. The construction of climate protest as threatening critical infrastructure, economic activity, or public safety generates permission for criminalising responses. Conversely, framing certain protests as defending community values or national identity generates more protective public attitudes. State actors respond to and participate in these framing contests, with their enforcement decisions simultaneously reflecting and reinforcing dominant constructions of protest legitimacy.
Implications for democratic governance
Selective tolerance carries profound implications for democratic governance and the equal protection of fundamental rights. The right to protest derives its democratic value precisely from enabling challenges to existing power arrangements. When enforcement systematically favours protests aligned with dominant interests whilst criminalising challenges to those interests, the democratic function of protest is substantially undermined. Those already advantaged by existing arrangements can mobilise with less risk, whilst those seeking transformative change face intensive enforcement.
This pattern inverts the logic of rights protection. Fundamental rights constrain state power specifically to protect dissenters and minorities from majority suppression. When police and prosecutors exercise discretion in ways that reproduce rather than counteract political asymmetries, rights protections fail their core function. The formality of legal equality rings hollow when substantive enforcement patterns reveal systematic bias.
The chilling effects documented in surveillance studies compound these concerns. When activists anticipate aggressive enforcement, they may limit participation, moderate tactics, or abandon activism entirely. These effects extend beyond those directly subjected to enforcement to shape movement possibilities more broadly. The criminalisation of climate protest thus restricts democratic debate on one of the most consequential issues facing contemporary societies.
The limited role of courts
Judicial intervention provides only partial counterweight to selective criminalisation. Courts in some jurisdictions have employed human rights reasoning to limit penalties on protesters, and academic advocates have developed sophisticated arguments for mitigation or defence recognition. However, these judicial possibilities depend upon cases reaching courts, which requires prosecutors to charge and defendants to contest. They also remain contingent on judicial receptiveness, which varies substantially across judges and jurisdictions.
Moreover, judicial intervention occurs after enforcement, meaning that policing practices impose substantial burdens on protesters regardless of ultimate case outcomes. Arrest, detention, surveillance, and legal proceedings carry costs even when charges are dropped or defendants acquitted. The primary enforcement stage occurs through policing decisions that courts review only indirectly and incompletely. Judicial rights protection thus cannot substitute for equitable policing and prosecution.
Meeting the research objectives
This research has addressed its stated objectives through systematic literature synthesis. Objective one, concerning police responses to climate protest, has been achieved through extensive analysis of scholarship documenting criminalisation patterns across multiple jurisdictions. Objective two, regarding far-right demonstration policing, has been addressed through examination of mobilisation research and counter-protest policing studies, though direct evidence remains more limited than for climate protest. Objective three, concerning labour protest regulation, has been partially achieved given the relative scarcity of recent relevant scholarship, identifying this as an area requiring further research. Objective four, regarding prosecutorial and judicial responses, has been addressed through analysis of necessity defence debates and human rights adjudication. Objective five, concerning comparative analytical framework development, has been achieved through the identification of selective tolerance as the operative concept explaining differential treatment. Objective six, regarding democratic implications, has been addressed through discussion of rights protection, chilling effects, and the reproduction of political asymmetries through enforcement patterns.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how police and prosecutors treat climate, labour, and far-right demonstrations, revealing that tolerance operates selectively and conditionally rather than through consistent application of neutral standards. The research demonstrates that climate and environmental protests face intensive and escalating criminalisation through new legislative frameworks, mass arrest practices, extensive surveillance, and prosecutorial approaches that construct activism as genuine criminality. Far-right movements, by contrast, benefit from institutional resources, political allies, and apparently sympathetic enforcement patterns, particularly in counter-protest contexts where asymmetric repression favours right-wing participants. Labour protests occupy an intermediate position shaped by institutionalised frameworks that provide some protection whilst prioritising officer security over protester rights expansion.
These findings carry significant implications for democratic governance. Selective tolerance undermines the democratic function of protest by advantaging movements aligned with dominant political and economic interests whilst suppressing transformative challenges. The chilling effects generated by criminalisation restrict democratic debate on consequential issues, most notably climate change. Judicial intervention provides only partial counterweight, occurring after policing decisions have imposed substantial burdens on protesters.
The research has achieved its stated objectives through comprehensive literature synthesis, though certain limitations attend these findings. The comparative analysis integrates studies employing varied methods across different jurisdictions, complicating direct comparison. Available evidence on far-right protest policing and labour demonstration enforcement remains less extensive than scholarship on climate protest criminalisation, constraining the comprehensiveness of comparison. Future research should address these gaps through primary cross-issue data collection enabling direct comparison of enforcement patterns across protest types within single jurisdictions.
Several avenues for future research emerge from this analysis. Systematic comparative studies tracking police responses to contemporaneous protests across issue categories would strengthen evidence for differential treatment. Research examining prosecutorial decision-making regarding protest cases would illuminate mechanisms generating differential outcomes. International comparative analysis could identify whether selective tolerance patterns observed in the UK, Australia, and European contexts characterise liberal democracies generally or reflect jurisdiction-specific factors. Finally, research examining protester experiences across movement types could reveal how differential enforcement shapes mobilisation possibilities and movement trajectories.
The findings reported here suggest that commitments to equal treatment under law and protection of fundamental freedoms require critical scrutiny of how state actors exercise discretion in protest contexts. Formal legal equality does not guarantee substantive equality when enforcement patterns systematically reproduce political asymmetries. Addressing selective tolerance requires attention to policing practices, prosecutorial guidelines, legislative frameworks, and the broader political economy within which protest regulation occurs. Only through such comprehensive engagement can liberal democracies ensure that protest rights serve their democratic function of enabling all citizens to challenge existing arrangements and demand accountability from those who hold power.
References
Coca-Vila, I., 2023. Punishing the Last Citizens? On the Climate Necessity Defence. *Res Publica*, 30, pp. 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09642-y
Feldman, D., 2023. The Growing Complexity of a Human Right to Assemble and Protest Peacefully in the United Kingdom. *Victoria University of Wellington Law Review*, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v54i1.8440
Gattinara, P.C., Froio, C. and Pirro, A.L.P., 2021. Far-right protest mobilisation in Europe: Grievances, opportunities, and resources. *European Journal of Political Research*, 61(4), pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12484
Gilmore, J., Jackson, W. and Monk, H., 2019. ‘That is not facilitating peaceful protest. That is dismantling the protest’: anti-fracking protesters’ experiences of dialogue policing and mass arrest. *Policing and Society*, 29(1), pp. 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1319365
Gorringe, H., Rosie, M., Reicher, S., Portice, J., Tekin, S. and Hamilton, M., 2024. ‘How many cops to arrest climate chaos?’ Mass policing of protests at COP26. *Social Movement Studies*, 24(5), pp. 690-706. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2024.2349590
Gulliver, R., Banks, R., Fielding, K. and Louis, W., 2023. The Criminalization of Climate Change Protest. *Contention*, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2023.110103
Jackson, W., Gilmore, J. and Monk, H., 2019. Policing unacceptable protest in England and Wales: A case study of the policing of anti-fracking protests. *Critical Social Policy*, 39(1), pp. 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317753087
Kuznetsov, D., 2025. Adjudicating Climate Protest as a Tool of Modern Republicanism. *Jus Cogens*, 7, pp. 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-024-00097-0
Martin, R., 2025. Environmental protest, contention, and the law: conceptualizing the Public Order Act 2023. *Journal of Law and Society*, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.70009
Pandua, R. and Abadi, S., 2025. Legal Protection for Police Officers in Handling of Labour Demonstrations. *Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities*, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v5i3.1322
Storbeck, M., Jacobs, G., Schuilenburg, M. and Van Den Akker, R., 2025. Surveillance experiences of extinction rebellion activists and police: Unpacking the technologization of Dutch protest policing. *Big Data & Society*, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241307892
Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K. and Adelman, L., 2023. Testing the asymmetry hypothesis of tolerance: Thinking about socially disruptive protest actions. *Journal of Social and Political Psychology*, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.11269
Wood, L.J., 2020. Policing counter-protest. *Sociology Compass*, 14(8), pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12833
