民主二分法:将2019年香港街头抗议活动视为对不连贯的宪制道德的合法性反诉

Q4 Social Sciences
James Greenwood-Reeves
{"title":"民主二分法:将2019年香港街头抗议活动视为对不连贯的宪制道德的合法性反诉","authors":"James Greenwood-Reeves","doi":"10.1163/15718158-02101003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates the 2019 street protests in Hong Kong following the proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, in light of the constitutional settlement of the region. Firstly, it examines the ‘constitutional morality’ of Hong Kong, that is, the moral principles underlying its foundational claims to moral authority. Secondly it analyses whether the Administration’s ‘legitimacy claims’ – its rational-normative arguments for obedience to law – follow from these constitutional moral principles. Concluding that the legitimacy claims of the Administration pursuant to the Bill proved morally unintelligible, this research finds that protest action by citizens was a logical and rational response to a perceived legitimacy claim failure. It suggests that similar protests are likely to occur for the foreseeable future given the instability of the region’s constitutional morality.","PeriodicalId":35216,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718158-02101003","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Democracy Dichotomy: Framing the Hong Kong 2019 Street Protests as Legitimacy Counterclaims against an Incoherent Constitutional Morality\",\"authors\":\"James Greenwood-Reeves\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718158-02101003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article evaluates the 2019 street protests in Hong Kong following the proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, in light of the constitutional settlement of the region. Firstly, it examines the ‘constitutional morality’ of Hong Kong, that is, the moral principles underlying its foundational claims to moral authority. Secondly it analyses whether the Administration’s ‘legitimacy claims’ – its rational-normative arguments for obedience to law – follow from these constitutional moral principles. Concluding that the legitimacy claims of the Administration pursuant to the Bill proved morally unintelligible, this research finds that protest action by citizens was a logical and rational response to a perceived legitimacy claim failure. It suggests that similar protests are likely to occur for the foreseeable future given the instability of the region’s constitutional morality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718158-02101003\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-02101003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-02101003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文结合香港的宪制解决方案,对《2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律协助立法(修订)条例草案》提出后2019年香港街头抗议活动进行了评价。首先,本文探讨香港的“宪制道德”,即香港对道德权威的基本要求所依据的道德原则。其次,它分析了政府的“合法性主张”——其服从法律的理性规范论证——是否遵循这些宪法道德原则。结论是行政当局根据该法案提出的合法性主张在道德上是不可理解的,本研究发现,公民的抗议行动是对合法性主张失败的合乎逻辑和理性的反应。这表明,鉴于该地区宪法道德的不稳定,在可预见的未来,类似的抗议活动可能会发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Democracy Dichotomy: Framing the Hong Kong 2019 Street Protests as Legitimacy Counterclaims against an Incoherent Constitutional Morality
This article evaluates the 2019 street protests in Hong Kong following the proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, in light of the constitutional settlement of the region. Firstly, it examines the ‘constitutional morality’ of Hong Kong, that is, the moral principles underlying its foundational claims to moral authority. Secondly it analyses whether the Administration’s ‘legitimacy claims’ – its rational-normative arguments for obedience to law – follow from these constitutional moral principles. Concluding that the legitimacy claims of the Administration pursuant to the Bill proved morally unintelligible, this research finds that protest action by citizens was a logical and rational response to a perceived legitimacy claim failure. It suggests that similar protests are likely to occur for the foreseeable future given the instability of the region’s constitutional morality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is the world’s only law journal offering scholars a forum in which to present comparative, international and national research dealing specifically with issues of law and human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. Neither a lobby group nor tied to any particular ideology, the Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is a scientific journal dedicated to responding to the need for a periodical publication dealing with the legal challenges of human rights issues in one of the world’s most diverse and dynamic regions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信