One great fallacy in the study of law in authoritarian countries is to treat legality as the rule of law, and to then assume a linear development from the rule of law to democracy. In reality, we have seen jurisdictions with a high level of the rule of law but without democracy, as well as authoritarian regimes that resort to legality for strategic purposes but treat legality as a mere tool to strengthen authoritarian rule. In other words, legality without the rule of law, and the rule of law without democracy, are common. This is particularly true in Asia, where authoritarian regimes embracing the idea of the rule of law usually enjoy sufficient levels of legitimacy in that the majority of the population in the respective countries view the political system as appropriate or that it should not be opposed. As such, “authoritarian legality” constitutes a conceptual space where legality, authoritarianism, democracy, and legitimacy are intertwined and cause a great deal of ambiguity, coupled with divided views and competing evaluations of its operation.