About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


21 U. Pa. Asian L. Rev. 1 (2026)

handle is hein.journals/etalr21 and id is 1 raw text is: COLONIAL LAW AND CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITARIANISM: SECTION 144 AND MYANMAR MILITARY JUNTA Yuyan (Nicole) Zhang* Abstract Repressive colonial laws-originally designed to entrench imperial domination over indigenous populations-continue to empower authoritarian regimes in many postcolonial states. This Article examines Myanmar as a case study, focusing on the military junta's strategic deployment of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898-a colonial-era emergency law-as a legal tool to suppress dissent and consolidate autocratic rule. Since the 2021 coup, the junta has invoked Section 144 in a wide array of contexts, from declaring martial law during the nationwide Spring Revolution to imposing curfews and shoot-on-sight orders during minor local protests. These applications have subjected violators to military tribunals and punishments as severe as life imprisonment or death penalty. This continuity in legal repression reflects Section 144's colonial genealogy. Under the British rule in Burma, authorities frequently invoked Section 144 to regulate matters as mundane as food safety and private nuisance, all while enabling police to use excessive force to quash resistance. Drawing on extensive archival sources-including the original Code of Criminal Procedure, colonial-era jurisprudence, official investigative reports, and treatises authored by the Code's drafters-this Article reconstructs the evolution of Section 144 and its enduring function as an DOI: https://doi.org/10.58112/alr.21-1.1 * Duke University School of Law, J.D./LL.M., expected 2026; Peking University, LL.B. 2023. This Article received the 2025 Phanor J. Eder Prize from the Young Comparativists Committee (YCC) of the American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL). I am deeply grateful to Professor Shitong Qiao at Duke Law for his invaluable mentorship, Professor Mara Revkin at Duke Law and Professor Dian A.H. Shah at National University of Singapore Faculty of Law for their thoughtful feedback, and Professor Xiaohang Chen at Peking University Law School for his insightful research guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Alec Duncan at McGill University Faculty of Law and Professor Clare Ryan at the University of Alabama School of Law for their valuable comments during the YCC section of the 2025 ASCL annual meeting. Their guidance immensely improved the quality of this Article.