Rule of Law Political Legitimacy and Civil Disobedience in China: A Reply

Abstract

In responding to the commentaries of Professors Zhu and Pils on my article and the plenum more generally, it is important to clarify the purpose of my piece and the use of certain ideas from Lon Fuller and H.L.A. Hart in order to avoid some basic misunderstandings. My goal was to explain the context for the plenum, highlighting the key issues that have arisen during the last 35 years since legal reforms began, and the reasons why the CCP felt a plenum on rule of law was needed at this juncture in the reform process. I suggested there were three main goals. Professor Zhu rightfully calls attention to a potentially significant fourth goal: to enhance the role of the constitution. I invoked the notions of the inner morality of law and internal point of view to help explain one of the goals of the plenum: to promote the norms and practices of a rule of law culture for officials and citizens alike. In her commentary, Professor Pils uses Fuller and Hart for a different purpose: to raise questions regardingregime legitimacy and the relationship between law and morality, and more specifically to raise the issue of the authority of the law and the obligation to obey it. This is a perfectly legitimate use of Fuller and Hart, and these are important issues. As such, they deserve a