The right to civil disobedience could not be deduced from the so-called "positive right". The "positive right" expresses a particular state sovereignty embedded in law, namely, it means its own will. Therefore, there is no "legal" right to disobedience (which could be only contradictio in adiecto), but there are very strong juristic ordinances that prescribe "respect the Constitution and laws" in every states founded by law. In spite of that, I argue that the general theoretical ground of the so-called "natural right", as well as the ethical, religious, juristic and other humanistic teachings could (and also must) provide a theoretical and valuable basis for a certain "over-law right" to rebellion against "lawful injustice" (if it exists). Inasmuch as basic human rights are considered to be "natural" (which should be read as - cultural) and to exist before any political order, they represent not only the basis of (democratic) political order, but also a quite legitimate reason for the shifting - if they become a brake for their primary values and goals. As part of human rights, the right to civil disobedience represents some kind of meta-right that overarches any existing political order. In the same vein of thought, civil disobedience in contemporary political theory appears as conscious political activity confronting the existing ("bad") law, but not morality itself. Its roots lie in "law culture" or in "background values" of political culture or in the "public conception of justice" (Rawls). In addition, the main goal of civil disobedience is not to awaken people's aggression toward authority but to develop moral virtue, civil courage and human dignity in them.