The Ultimate Test of Fidelity: Judicial Responses to Civil Disobedience in Hong Kong and Taiwan

Democracy and Rule of Law in China's Shadow (Brian Christopher Jones ed., Hart Publishing, 2021) pp.33-63

University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2022/04

43 Pages Posted: 10 Jan 2022

See all articles by Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu

Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu

Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica

Anne S. Y. Cheung

The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Date Written: January 6, 2022

Abstract

Within less than a year in 2014, two large-scale social protests involving extraordinary acts of civil disobedience broke out consecutively in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The temporal proximity of Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement and Hong Kong’s Occupy Central is no coincidence, as both are aggravated social responses to the perceived threats from China. As both protests involved violations of law, it is inevitable that both invited legal responses in their wake. In this book chapter, we ask the following questions: How do we critically evaluate these legal and judicial responses? How do we conceive of rule of law in the particular contexts of Taiwan and Hong Kong’s democratic development? What do the disparity in the legal responses in the two jurisdictions reveal about the differences in the ideas of rule of law and democracy in the eyes of the courts and the protestors? We draw on Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick’s models of law and society [Law and Society in Transition], in particular their theories on repressive, autonomous and responsive law to characterize court responses in relation to the political power and the society. In repressive law, rules of law are subordinated to power politics, serving interests of the state; in autonomous law, law is independent of the state, acting as a restraint on political power, characterised by procedural justice; whereas in responsive law, law seeks not only to adjudicate but regulate society by responding to social needs and aspirations. What is reflected in the judgments is the judicial understanding of court autonomy and independence within the larger political and social context. When Hong Kong judges were adamant to be apolitical in the autonomous law model, we found deeply established conventions being only selectively applied against the protestors. There can be discerned a repressive instrumentalism behind their seemingly neutral stance. Across the Strait, the Taiwan courts wavered from adopting a responsive law model to a restrained autonomous law model in the application and interpretation of law. Contrary to the assumption that responsive law accords well with democratic states, adopting the autonomous law model may prove to be a more prudent move for a polarized Taiwan in the long run. Based on our analysis of Taiwan, we pose a challenge to Nonet and Selznick’s claim that responsive law is ideal for democratic societies. At least in the context of disobedience in a polarized democracy, autonomous law may be an equally viable option for the court.

Keywords: civil disobedience, Sunflower movement, Umbrella movement, Taiwan, Hong Kong, rule of law, democracy

Suggested Citation

Hsu, Jimmy Chia-Shin and Cheung, Anne S. Y., The Ultimate Test of Fidelity: Judicial Responses to Civil Disobedience in Hong Kong and Taiwan (January 6, 2022). Democracy and Rule of Law in China's Shadow (Brian Christopher Jones ed., Hart Publishing, 2021) pp.33-63, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2022/04, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4002284

Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu (Contact Author)

Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica ( email )

128 Academia Sinica Rd., Sec. 2
Nankang
Taipei, 11529
Taiwan

Anne S. Y. Cheung

The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law ( email )

Pokfulam Road
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
China

HOME PAGE: http://hub.hku.hk/rp/rp01243

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
102
Abstract Views
797
Rank
520,255
PlumX Metrics