It is commonly stated, by both whistleblower protection laws and political philosophers, that a breach of state secrecy by disclosing classified documents is justified if it serves the public interest. The problem with this defense of justified whistleblowing, however, is that the operative term – the public interest – is all too often left unclarified. This is problematic, because it leaves potential whistleblowers without sufficient certainty that their disclosures will be covered by the defense, leading many to err on the side of caution and remain silent, depriving the public of much-needed information. Failing an agreed upon definition of the public interest or a process to determine it, judges’ applications of the public interest in whistleblowing cases have been criticized for demonstrating ‘judicial idiosyncrasy’. The present paper, therefore, sets out to (1) provide some clarity concerning the concept of the public interest, and (2) to ascertain the extent to which a public interest defense for whistleblowing is feasible and desirable.

中文翻译：

---

举报公共利益辩护的可行性

举报人保护法和政治哲学家都普遍认为，如果符合公共利益，则通过披露机密文件来违反国家机密是合理的。然而，这种对正当举报的辩护的问题在于，有效的术语——公共利益——常常没有得到澄清。这是有问题的，因为它使潜在的举报人无法充分确定他们的披露是否会被辩护方涵盖，导致许多人在谨慎方面犯错误并保持沉默，从而剥夺了公众急需的信息。由于未能就公共利益的定义或确定该定义的程序达成一致，法官在举报案件中对公共利益的应用被批评为表现出“司法特质”。目前的论文，