Comparative Study On Policing Mass Activities Of Police Power

Policing mass activities is one of the most important functions on policing public order ofpolice. Public order problems caused by mass activities actually promoted the developmentsof police law and police power. This thesis shows and analyzes different law systems,backgrounds, legal traditions and police systems among the UK, Germany and ChineseTaiwan through a comparative perspective, and then gets the extract the same nature, policelaw systems of police functions of policing public order. Nowadays, Anglo-American policepower mode and European continental police power mode have learned from each other andformed a new uniform police power mode on policing public order. The new mode seemsmeet the needs of the ideal of rechtsstaat. This thesis aimed to find and research how policepower evolved with the development of mass activities, analyze how different police powersystems evolved toward convergence, what the same stages experienced and the reasons ofthem. On the basis above, this chapter concludes the nature, key components, and legal valuesof police law and police power. The study on three samples shows that, the law systems ofpolice power on policing public order have been found the mode of “responsive law” systems.It can be clear that the way of police law and the function of policing public order areuniqueness, timeliness and inevitability. Except for the introduction and conclusion parts, thisthesis contains five chapters.ChapterⅠ is the part of “Mass activities and police power on policing public order”.This chapter defines the range of study by defining the concepts of “mass activities” and“police power on policing public order”.This chapter defines the two of basic concepts above with the help of the concept of“general public activities” first, and limited the scope of “mass activities” to assembly,demonstrations, strike, collective bargaining and riots caused by these actions. That is, the“mass activities” are the actions with the aspirations of expressing demands, except for thegeneral public actions without the demands of political rights, economic rights and social rights. In the process of explanation, this chapter emphasizes legislative and using habitreasons of choosing this concept, defines the differences and relations among the concepts ofmass activities, protest, general public actions, indoor mass activities, public security casesand mass disturbance. After that, this chapter clarifies the concept through aspects of nature,appeals and subjective dynamic; discuss the complexity of it and the objective requirement ofpolice law systems and police power on policing public order.For this reason, this chapter then defines the scope and nature of police power on policingmass activities; prove the nature of optimal position on human rights, balance of freedom andpublic order in it. Police power of policing public order has to comply with the statutoryprinciples in order to ensure the authority of the constitutions. So the study of this topic mustanalyze laws, regulations, administrative rules, judicial precedent and public law principlesoverall. More over, the rules of police power on policing mass activities contain the rule ofdiscretions. Police power on policing public order includes the rules and practice of policediscretions. All above are the scopes of the study in this thesis.This chapter summarizes the functional, characteristics of transformations of massactivities and the effects on police power and law systems. As the link of that, this part notonly expresses the kind of police power shaped by policing mass activities, but also expressesthe nature and position of police power on policing mass activities.Chapter Ⅱ is the part of “the comparative study on police power on policing massactivities mode”. This chapter adopts the historical comparative method and induction methodto illustrate how different origins, traditions, rules of police power developed, and theirnatures and characteristics behind them. On this basis, this part analyzes the periodicprocesses of police power transformations since modern times. The conclusion aftercomparisons is, the two traditional modes are trending to a same new mode. But we need tounderstand and study how they chose the same road from different origins, needs, andconsiderations in order to reveal the reasons for the trend they chose. The three samples’police power in this thesis all experienced the stages from authoritarianism to democracy, and shows the objectivity of the connotation changes of it. At the end of this chapter, this partanalyzes and summarizes the nature and features on constitutionality of police power which isdiffer from before, emphasizes the principle of constitutionality, principle of proportionality,principle of consultation and mutual trust.Chapter Ⅲ is the part of functional comparisons of police power on policing massactivities. This is the first step on studying the rules of it. The research now only discusses thegeneral function bodies roughly; actually, police power on policing mass activities and publicorder needs to be separated meticulously in order to meet the needs of principles ofconstitutionality, proportionality, and enforcement rationality, so that to realize the preventionfunctions of police through the path of protecting legal rights, punishing illegal actions, andsanction against violence. These three samples on this aspect show the generalities on above.The generalities first show on the statutes of police power separations. They all have the trendto central unifying features, no matter centralism police power system and dispersive policepower systems. Nowadays, local police authorities are the police main body on policing massactivities and public order, complemented with “central” police authorities. Police laws allstrictly rule the exclusive jurisdiction and assistant functions of central police authorities.Function orientations, starting conditions and nature of Central police authorities in the fieldof assistant jurisdictions are the same for the three samples, which is worth observing andstudying. In the field of “central police forces”, separate powers of riots police and criminalpolice on controlling the protest and other mass activities and juridical principle behind themshows a general intercommunity among the three samples. This chapter exhibits the statutesand natures of police laws, then shows and analyzes the generalities on separations of powersof public order and security police, riots police, and criminal police. The separations ofpowers are the reflections of proportion principle.Chapter Ⅳ is the part of procedural law comparisons of police forces on policing massactivities. The police enforcement procedures should reflect the principle of proportionalityand constitutionality. According to the layout of the statues, this chapter will follow a certain order from general public order law, special public order law, assembly and parade act,procedural law of police, to public order rules in common law to discuss. The general publicorder law system has the functions of regulating the illegal behaviors; the special public orderlaw system has the functions of building special prohibitive regulations. Besides the publicorder law, Assembly and Parade Act and police enforcement processes law systems are themost important police enforcement procedures rules, which should be carry on the generalprinciple of protecting legal rights and interests, punishing illegal practice, and attackingviolence. In the preventing procedures, mass demonstrations such as assembly and paradehave to obtain the permission or put on records to police bureaus. In this stage, activitiesparticipants have corresponding responsibilities; have to act under prohibiting weapons andviolence principle. In the process of mass demonstrations, police has the prohibition power,dissolution power and restriction power, but those of these powers are all following theexception banned principle, balancing freedom and order values principle and case disposalprinciples. Police enforcement should be on the basis of sufficient evidences, in order toobtain the legality and validity. Controlling police systems play the roles of police procedurelaws in practice. Constitutional review and legitimacy review of jurisdiction makes up for thedeficiencies of legal text for confirming the indefinite legal concepts and play an importantrole of judging the behaviors of activities participants and police power enforcement.Administrative power systems set up the dependant supervision mechanisms, enhancehigh-level control efforts in order to control the police power and its enforcement. Above all,legislative, administrative and judicial subjects form a strict supervision mechanism together.Chapter Ⅴ is the part of “discretions comparison of police forces on policing massactivities”. Police discretion power is the most important part to practice the legal principle.But it is difficult to balance the fundamental rights of citizens and social public order. Todaythere is a deviation in understanding discretions of police forces. Actually, the discretion ofthe police contains two aspects, the one is legal discretion rules, and the other is policediscretion enforcement. Differ from the legal rules and procedures above; discretion power of police has a spatial dimension, shows out with the form of police administrative law andprinciple of policing public order rules, and has a tendency to form statute rules. On thecomposition of it, police discretion consists of two parts, one is general provision of police,and the other is concrete discretion principles. The functions of general provision of policeforces is framing the police enforcement boundary, but have the declare meaning. The realpolice powers depend on law authorized expressly. This chapter explains the generalprovision of police force, and summarizes its characteristics, nature of police functions andawards the power of dealing with emergency. Police systems should be neutral in the lawenforcement. Because of the professional techniques of it, police enforcement systems areauthorized to discharge their duties under discretion principle. Discretion principle containsthe principles of obligation and natural purposiveness, the principle of proportionality, theprinciple of suitability and necessity in it, minimal force principle, consultations principle,communication principle and mutual trust principle, which have been raised to the level oflegal procedures, and existed widely in every step of police enforcement procedures.Discretion of police systems constitutes police legal systems with other elements above. Thefactors above constitute the “responsive law” of police on policing mass activities and publicorder together; meet the needs of constitutional law and spirit in it.