Protest Law & Public Order Policing in Hybrid Regimes Pat Niyomsilp Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Law University of East Anglia September 2019 This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. i Abstract Hybrid regimes are those in which only the formalities of representative electoral politics are observed. Consequently, political legitimacy is determined on the basis of whether the incumbent political leaders have the backing of non-representative political ‘guardians’ (such as the monarchy and the military) rather than through the popular vote exclusively. The incumbents need to win elections. They stay in power by manipulating the political sphere to gain unfair advantages over their political competitors. Individuals in hybrid regimes do not enjoy freedom of assembly in the same way as individuals in consolidated democracies. This thesis highlights how hybrid regimes in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand) use legal mechanisms governing public assemblies to thwart the effective realisation of the freedom of assembly stipulated by international human rights law. Such legal factors are often overlooked by scholars in political science and social movement studies in seeking to explain both regime resilience and the repression of opposition protest movements. While hybrid regimes may appear to adopt international human rights standards on public assemblies, these are inconsistently implemented in practice. The resulting gap – between an apparent commitment to international standards and the reality ‘on the ground’ – can partly be explained by the fact that human rights standards are themselves primarily oriented to facilitating and protecting public assemblies as a part of the democratic process. In contrast, legal frameworks and public order policing in hybrid regimes serve a different purpose than to enable a democratic process. In particular, in the absence of mechanisms of accountability, hybrid regime incumbents manipulate legal rules – and the discretion conferred on law enforcement officials – so as to secure their continued dominance. The thesis thus illustrates how such rule by law is used to strengthen and ‘street-proof’ hybrid regimes. ii Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... viii List of Key Legislation: ..................................................................................................... xi List of Cases: ................................................................................................................... xiv 1. Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 22 Background and motivation .................................................................................. 22 Justification for the research ................................................................................. 27 Research problem and questions ........................................................................... 29 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 30 Parameters of the research .................................................................................... 31 Thesis outline ........................................................................................................ 33 Chapter 2 International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Assembly .......... 37 Is international human rights law relevant? .......................................................... 38 2.1.1 Image of a democratic society under IHRL .................................................. 39 2.1.1.1 A democratic society must uphold pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness....................................................................................................... 40 2.1.1.2 A democratic society is not required to tolerate violent or anti-democratic behaviour................................................................................................................... 41 2.1.2 The constraints upon international judicial organs: the margin of appreciation and doctrine of subsidiarity ........................................................................................... 43 The scope of the right to freedom of assembly under IHRL ................................. 45 2.2.1 Positive obligations to facilitate and protect peaceful assemblies ................ 47 2.2.2 The meaning of ‘assembly’: organisers, participants and manner ................ 53 2.2.2.1 Organisers and participants ....................................................................... 53 2.2.2.2 Manner of an assembly ............................................................................. 56 2.2.3 Right to choose time, place, and manner ...................................................... 57 Grounds for any interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly ................. 61 2.3.1 Impermissibility of content-based restrictions .............................................. 63 iii 2.3.2 Presumptive disproportionality of blanket-bans ........................................... 64 2.3.3 Notification and authorisation ....................................................................... 66 2.3.3.1 Not all assemblies need notification – and the challenge of ‘horizontalism’… ...................................................................................................... 67 2.3.3.2 Spontaneous assemblies should be exempted from a notification procedure…............................................................................................................... 69 2.3.3.3 A failure to comply with a notification requirement does not justify dispersal as long as the assembly remains peaceful. ................................................. 71 Public order policing ............................................................................................. 72 2.4.1 General duties of the police: facilitation and protection ............................... 73 2.4.1.1 Facilitation ................................................................................................ 73 2.4.1.2 Protection .................................................................................................. 74 2.4.2 Surveillance and identity checks ................................................................... 76 2.4.3 Arrest and detention ...................................................................................... 78 2.4.4 Dispersal and use of force ............................................................................. 81 2.4.5 Derogation ..................................................................................................... 83 2.4.6 Effective judicial review ............................................................................... 84 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 86 Chapter 3 Protest in Hybrid Regimes ....................................................................... 89 Freedom of assembly is a political tool for marginalized individuals .................. 90 Contentious politics and legal factors ................................................................... 93 3.2.1 The concept of ‘repertoires of contention’ overlooks legal factors .............. 95 3.2.2 Democratisation, protest cycles, and standardisation of collective actions .. 97 3.2.2.1 Protest cycles as parts of a political process ............................................. 98 3.2.2.2 Standardisation of collective actions to sustain the democratic process through legal frameworks ....................................................................................... 100 Robertson’s theory on the politics of protest in hybrid regimes ......................... 101 3.3.1 The politics of protest in hybrid regimes .................................................... 101 iv 3.3.1.1 A new perspective in social movement theories ..................................... 102 3.3.1.2 Robertson’s three variables affecting protest patterns ............................ 103 3.3.1.3 How do regime types affect the pattern of contention? .......................... 105 3.3.1.4 Protest presents a dilemma in hybrid regimes......................................... 107 3.3.2 How do hybrid regimes manage street protests? ......................................... 108 3.3.3 Implications of Robertson’s theory in Thailand, Malaysia, and Cambodia 111 3.3.3.1 Thailand .................................................................................................. 111 3.3.3.2 Malaysia .................................................................................................. 112 3.3.3.3 Cambodia ................................................................................................ 113 Looking at Robertson’s theory from a legal perspective .................................... 115 3.4.1 Unexplored areas in Robertson’s politics of protest in hybrid regimes ...... 115 3.4.2 What can we learn from Robertson’s theory on the politics of protest in hybrid regimes?.. ...................................................................................................................