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.

This paper explores how in the United Kingdom, traffic regulatory systems, cars, and our culture of automobility have been subsumed within a security agenda. Scholars have begun to examine the overlaps between mobilities and security studies, particularly in the context of topics such as migration and terrorism, framing security as a prerequisite to automobility. But little securitymobility research explores how drivers, and the population at large, are themselves securitised through institutions of automobility. The paper details how "surveillant automobility" has manifested in the seemingly mundane traffic systems of the UK, and the deficient transparency and accountability these systems afford. This paper uses government statistics and industry data to support an interdisciplinary theoretical approach, combining mobilities, security, regulatory and Foucauldian approaches.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract