How can Occupy Movements, as a new part of the repertoire of contemporary social movements, be seen as reflecting various social meanings in relation to political and juridical systems? Scholars in this edited anthology offer a fresh perspective on this question through exploring the implications of the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan and the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong in 2014. As the title indicates, this volume highlights various tensions and dynamics between the legal and political arenas stirred up by these two movements, and also considers how these tensions and dynamics reveal fundamental issues related to Taiwan’s and Hong Kong’s relations with China.
The book is divided into four sections. The first two tackle the political and legal issues regarding the two movements, respectively. In Chapter 1, Brian Christopher Jones and Yen-tu Su provide an overview of Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement, and argue that the uniqueness of the movement lies in the dynamics between “confrontational contestation” and “democratic compromise.” In the following chapter, Wen-chen Chang delves into the legal status of the movement as a case of free assembly, analyzing the legal base of the right to free assembly in Taiwan (Chapter 2). Also offering an analysis of the legal aspects of the movement, Jiunn-rong Yeh proposes that it could serve as a potential example of “civic constitutionalism” – a solution to the pitfalls of representative democracy (Chapter 3).
In Chapter 4, Albert H. Y. Chen argues that the rise of the Umbrella Movement should be apprehended in the context of the historical development of the political system in Hong Kong. Fu Hualing then details the tensions between the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, arguing that the essence of the movement is not a pursuit for a more democratic system, but an appeal to maintain the current way of life (Chapter 5). Finally, Daniel Matthews offers a phenomenological inquiry related to an alternative normative interpretation of the movement (Chapter 6).
The third section of the book is intended to highlight several overlapping issues. These include the constitution of the Republic of China and the Basic Law of Hong Kong as “unpopular sovereignty” (Chapter 7), a quantitative analysis of the relationship between economic integration with China and the development of democracy in both Taiwan and Hong Kong (Chapter 9), a further analysis of the legal punishment for civic disobedience in Hong Kong (Chapter 8), and Chinese popular opinion towards the Umbrella Movement (Chapter 10). Finally, the two chapters in the fourth section of the book aim to provide syntheses and to bring in broader frameworks in which to situate these two movements. While Brad Roth discusses the “universal dilemmas of political obligation in the era of the modern state” (Chapter 11), Jacques Delisle offers an overview of the connections between legal and political aspects of these two movements (Chapter 12).
Indeed, observations concerning the dynamics between different types of political actions and various levels of legal restrictions or interventions may be the most important contribution of this volume. With the relatively independent legal system and highly sensitive political situation in both regimes, the two large-scale instances of civil disobedience provide unique cases with which to consider the boundary between the legal and the political system. Scholars in this volume have explored the dynamics at this boundary with such concepts as “civic constitutionalism,” “the right to free assembly,” “confrontational contestation” vis-à-vis “democratic compromise,” “nomos” as an alternative normative ordering, and (re/dis)constructing sovereignty. These concepts and frameworks provide rich interpretations of how boundaries between the legal and the political may be reshaped. Eventually, these analyses offer significant insights into how the self-determination of people could proceed and how political regimes may be transformed without destroying the existing legal system.
As distinct from the Occupy Movements in other regions of the world that focus mostly on social inequalities within a nation, the Sunflower Movement and the Umbrella Movement may be seen as collective actions to protect local identities from corrosion due to the external authority of China. On the one hand, several scholars in this collection have pointed out that interaction with China, regardless of economic interaction or political control, is a critical factor in relation to the rise of the Sunflower Movement and the Umbrella Movement. In the case of the Sunflower Movement, Jones and Su highlight that “the confrontational contestation as signified by the Sunflowers’ occupation is merely the beginning of this national soul-searching process” (p. 29). In other words, the rise of the movement could be recognized as social protection of Taiwanese society from the political intervention of China. Similarly, the Umbrella Movement directly challenges the Beijing government’s promise of “One Country, Two Systems.” As Chen notes, this movement unveils “[t]ensions behind, and the contradictions inherent in, the very concept and practice of ‘One China, Two Systems’” (p. 82).
On the other hand, scholars from Taiwan and Hong Kong also analyze how the two movements could have different legal-political dynamics based on their different social and historical connections with China. As Delisle argues, the Sunflower Movement “still bloom[s] in Taiwan,” but the Umbrella Movement is “needed to shield against the storm of criticism and rejection from Beijing” (pp. 223–4). This difference further highlights how Taiwan and Hong Kong differently develop their strategies in order to face the threat coming from Beijing.
In August 2017, Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal sentenced three protesters in the Umbrella Movement to six- to eight-month jail terms. In contrast, in Taiwan, most of the legal cases relating to the Sunflower Movement have resulted in “Not Guilty” verdicts. Of the few found guilty, none was required to serve jail time. Judging from the evolving political tensions between China and Taiwan or Hong Kong, the legacies of these two movements may persist and are worthy of further investigation. This volume provides an indispensable starting point for exploring not only the diverse legal meanings of Occupy Movements, but also how this diversity could reflect different political relations with China under different social and historical contexts.
