Thinking about Joshua Wong’s additional sentence: Rule of Law and Rule by Law in Hong Kong
On January 17, a Hong Kong court sentenced Joshua Wong, one of the leaders behind the Umbrella Revolution, an additional 3 months imprisonment term. The reason for this was a failure to vacate when prompted, the commercial district of Mong Kok, which allegedly had “adversely affected” the normal pursuit of activities for normal citizens. The sentence, given by Andrew Chan of the High Court, was but one of many affecting the leadership of the Umbrella Movement, a student-prompted mass movement in protest of democratic restrictions on Hong Kong, mandated by the Beijing Authority.
The ex-colony had enjoyed special status since is cession, stipulated under …show more content…
Such positivist notion of rule of law comes from a vision that every person is subject to it, and for such may challenge it, but has the imperative of following the consequences of such action. Using Justice Fortas’ words: “It is not merely government that must live under law. Each of us must live under law.” One must acknowledge, however, that such concept is just a facet of what is intended by the rule of law, and that in this particular interpretation ought to include the behavior of the police under its scrutiny.
Moreover, the center of the challenge during the protest implied a different understanding of rule of law, a right-based notion similar to Montesquieu’s (individual protection from state aggression) or Dicey’s (historically based procedural conservation). The right to fully democratic leadership appointments was at stake in this case. The conflict between these two different conceptions, one of legal positivism and abidance, the other of individual rights and cultural protection, becomes particularly convoluted when noting that both appeals are distinct and incompatible, given their autocratic and democratic
On January 17, a Hong Kong court sentenced Joshua Wong, one of the leaders behind the Umbrella Revolution, an additional 3 months imprisonment term. The reason for this was a failure to vacate when prompted, the commercial district of Mong Kok, which allegedly had “adversely affected” the normal pursuit of activities for normal citizens. The sentence, given by Andrew Chan of the High Court, was but one of many affecting the leadership of the Umbrella Movement, a student-prompted mass movement in protest of democratic restrictions on Hong Kong, mandated by the Beijing Authority.
The ex-colony had enjoyed special status since is cession, stipulated under …show more content…
Such positivist notion of rule of law comes from a vision that every person is subject to it, and for such may challenge it, but has the imperative of following the consequences of such action. Using Justice Fortas’ words: “It is not merely government that must live under law. Each of us must live under law.” One must acknowledge, however, that such concept is just a facet of what is intended by the rule of law, and that in this particular interpretation ought to include the behavior of the police under its scrutiny.
Moreover, the center of the challenge during the protest implied a different understanding of rule of law, a right-based notion similar to Montesquieu’s (individual protection from state aggression) or Dicey’s (historically based procedural conservation). The right to fully democratic leadership appointments was at stake in this case. The conflict between these two different conceptions, one of legal positivism and abidance, the other of individual rights and cultural protection, becomes particularly convoluted when noting that both appeals are distinct and incompatible, given their autocratic and democratic