China Daily:

In some people's eyes, the latest protest is in an effort to express rational political appeals by infringing the laws. It has been interpreted as "civil disobedience and achieving justice by violating the laws." What do you think about it?

He Junzhi:

We have noted that some people used the concept of "achieving justice by violating the laws" to describe the movement, and this is not the only concept they have adopted to label their violence as legal conduct.

The concept is in no way supported by real and standardized academic principles. Personally, I wonder why some people believe in the things that proved groundless. I have two points to share with you for reference in this regard:

First, based on my research, similar concepts emerged as early as 2011 when some theorists attempted to propose them, including what was later known as "civil disobedience," and "achieving justice by violating the laws" just as you mentioned. Moreover, the effect of those concepts was tested in the illegal "Occupy Central" movement in 2014. Therefore, there are probably some who have been involved in sketching out these theories and making pre-stage rehearsals. However, here is a question -- why do some people buy the concept that obviously contradicts the nature of morality? Therefore, another reason is that the concept that can be easily associated with some authentic theories of "civil disobedience," is proving alluring to some people, who believe they are engaged in a movement based on proven theories. However, if we take a look at the concept of "civil disobedience" in a serious way, the theory is highly conditional with a slew of prerequisites. The two fundamental conditions, which I don't plan to elaborate on here, are, first, the theory should be only targeted at existing illegitimate laws and policies, and second, it should involve only peaceful and non-violent demonstrations. Now, let's analyze this concept. The concept obviously distorts the meaning by taking violence as "violation of laws," which is actually stimulating the emergence of violence.

Let's take a look at examples from previous years. Theoretically speaking, the concept is not accepted in the international academic world or in Hong Kong's own major academic field. Moreover, I have noted a verdict made by a HKSAR court in terms of "achieving justice by violating the laws," based on the two conditions I mentioned before. First, it should be targeted at illegitimate laws and policies, and, second, it should develop in peaceful and non-violent ways. As [the present unrest] fails to reach both of these standards, it is theoretically invalid. The concept has also been vetoed by Hong Kong's judicial practitioners. Therefore, the attempt to give credibility to the concept is theoretically null and pragmatically vetoed. The violence today is obviously influenced by a concept. Therefore, we need to clarify the underlying theories.

Second, I couldn't agree more with all of other speakers. We should only solve questions by resorting to the rule of law.