Contesting the Legitimacy of Law

The purpose of this article is to use the intense public debates of two legal issues - the right of abode case and the Public Order Ordinance - as examples to show how the legitimacy of law has been contested in Hong Kong. Adopting an approach that separates "law" into four components - legislative decisions, judicial decisions, legislative process, and judicial process - the article argues that the legitimacies of these components are interrelated. A number of discourses employed in the debates which may have general significance and be redeployed in future events will be identified, and how and why they were adopted will be explained. It will be shown that a host of factors unique to the post-colonial setting of Hong Kong - the Special Administrative Region government and the Provisional Legislative Council's perceived lack of legitimacy and the resultant "colonial nostalgia", the common law's symbolism for the autonomy of Hong Kong, an Occidentalist inclination of viewing the West as the ideal Other, and a perceived need of maintaining a Westernised legal system to attract foreign investments - along with the more universal emphases on human rights and legality, have affected, and been reflected in, the discourses adopted in the debates.