Melbourne Law School - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemPolitical dissent, law and legitimacy in China's Hong Kong( 2023-11)Hong Kong’s mass protest movements of the 2010s triggered clampdowns on fundamental rights, the closure of the political system, the denunciation of politically incorrect ideas, and the retreat of regional autonomy in favour of sovereign state power. This research challenges mainstream claims that Hong Kong’s rule of law was in good health during this period. It argues that by 2020 Hong Kong’s once-trusted legal institutions had reached a crisis of legitimacy due to sustained pressure from authoritarian politics. It substantiates the argument via an examination of law’s interactions with, and responses to, political dissent. Legitimacy, the extent to which an entity rightfully exercises its power, is central to the thesis. Drawing on literature on political legitimacy, democracy and authoritarianism, and the rule of law, I propose an original, multifaceted model for political and legal legitimacy. It comprises two main categories, intrinsic legitimacy and consequential legitimacy—or legitimacy drivers and effects—the presence or absence of which is indicative of an entity’s legitimacy. I posit that democratic systems have greater intrinsic legitimacy, largely derived from consent, and consequential legitimacy, with benefits including stability and liberty, compared with authoritarian systems where dissent and its suppression indicate illegitimacy. Legal legitimacy rests on comparable bases, with adherence to rule of law principles being a particularly important component of intrinsic legitimacy, and consequential legitimacy including rights protection and moderation of executive authority. Chapter 1 introduces the research and provides background on Hong Kong. Chapter 2 explains and justifies the analytical framework and outlines the legitimacy models of China and Hong Kong. The next four chapters are case studies of conflict, whereby political dissent triggering a politico-legal state response with legitimacy implications. Chapter 3 examines the use of national symbols to express dissent. It argues that contrary legislation protected an ideocratic authoritarian aesthetic lacking legitimacy in Hong Kong. The courts upheld that legislation in deference to political power, facilitating further repression and diminishing their rights-protection and independent institutional credentials. Chapter 4 considers protests before and during the 2014 protests, then before and during the 2019 protests. It argues that public order legislation, police conduct and political intransigence were contrary to norms and expectations shared by Hongkongers and the international community. The courts’ inconsistent record upholding protest freedoms and regulating contentious politics diminished their authority. Chapter 5 charts the state’s efforts to close down political opposition, demonstrating a retreat from democratic to authoritarian political ideals. In the face of executive power, the courts were unable to maintain their independent authority, and their rationalisation efforts rendered them agents of state authority. Chapter 6 completes the picture of a judiciary powerless to limit the state’s deployment of exceptional measures despite the excessive nature and popular rejection of those measures. The thesis concludes that Hong Kong’s legal apparatus, under pressure from authoritarian politics, wavered in its commitment to upholding rights and regulating power, detracting from its legitimacy, while fidelity to law’s technical requirements in furtherance of a repressive, undemocratic political agenda was also damaging to legal legitimacy.