DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 2: the Framework for Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 2: the Framework for Change CHAPTER TWO THE FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong 1984 2.1 In 1982, Britain initiated negotiations with the People's Republic of China on the status of Hong Kong. Despite the fact that the nineteenth century treaties1 were not recognised by China, Britain's adherence to them and to the legal framework they provided necessitated some settlement which would accommodate the shortening leases in the New Territories. Those leases were due to expire in 1997. What began as a limited exercise in seeking an administrative extension to the lease in the New Territories2 quickly developed into a consideration of the whole territory and the redressing of China's humiliations in the nineteenth century. 2.2 For Britain, the 'permanent territories' of Hong Kong island and the tip of the Kowloon Peninsula were not viable without the New Territories which contained the basic necessity of agriculture, the bulk of the industry, the power supply and the airport of Hong Kong. The negotiations lasted two years. The agreement was initialled by Britain and China on 26 September 1984, endorsed by the Legislative Council3 of Hong Kong on 18 October 1984, subsequently debated and approved by the British Parliament, and signed by Britain and China on 19 December 1984. It entered into force on 25 May 1985. On 12 June 1985 it was lodged with the United Nations as a treaty. 2.3 In China, 1982-84 was a period of reformist opening, relatively expansive in its embracing of the West. Deng Xiaoping himself took a special interest in the negotiations over Hong Kong and defined the principle of 'one country, two systems' as a way of allaying British and Hong Kong concerns about the transfer and of preserving the economic prosperity of Hong Kong which he recognised as being so valuable to China's development. 2.4 However, these negotiations were conducted in secret, without reference to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.4 China objected to the inclusion of Hong Kong representatives on the basis that they would create an unwieldy situation of a 'three legged stool'. The International Commission of Jurists has described the process as intolerable: [It was] ... intolerable for the British Government to transfer British citizens in Hong Kong to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of 1 See para 1.7. 2 Initially, in Britain's view, the New Territories was the only area under contention as the island of Hong Kong and Kowloon had been ceded in perpetuity. 3 At that time comprised entirely of the Governor's nominees. 4 See for example, Hong Kong Human Rights Commission, Submission, p. S66; Jayawickrama, Submission, p. S322; The Frontier, Submission, p. S207. See also para 1.1 and footnote 1 in Chapter 1. 11 China without their own consent and without any opportunity having been given to them to participate in deciding their own future.5 2.5 There was a process of post-agreement ratification conducted by the British authorities after the Joint Declaration was signed. In September 1984, the Government set up an Assessment Office which sought to explain the inevitability of the agreement and the protections built into it for the continued autonomy of Hong Kong post 1 July 1997 and, therefore, after the fact, to develop a consensus in support of it. In the period between 26 September and 19 December, the Assessment Office in Hong Kong canvassed the opinion of Hong Kong people on the acceptability of the agreement. The Government, however, attempted to control the result by narrowing the range of options available to respondents when it suggested that the only alternative to accepting the draft was a unilateral takeover by China in 1997 without an agreement. ... It is not surprising, therefore, that the Office reported that most people found the draft agreement acceptable.6 2.6 It is worth noting however that, when the Committee visited Hong Kong in January 1997, many of the groups which spoke to the members expressed regret and dismay at this lack of consultation on whether the transfer should take place at all. 2.7 The Joint Declaration states that, under Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong will be established as a Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). In the opening paragraph, it characterises its purpose as an agreement that was 'conducive to the maintenance of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong'. Section 3 of the Declaration outlines China's policies towards Hong Kong. It asserts the importance of Hong Kong to the 'national unity and territorial integrity' of China and states that Hong Kong will come 'directly under the authority of the Central People's Government (CPG) of the People's Republic of China'. Beyond these two statements, most of the rest of the Joint Declaration outlines the nature of and stresses the importance of the autonomy of Hong Kong. • Hong Kong will enjoy a 'high degree of autonomy', Article 3(2), and the policies agreed in the Joint Declaration will remain unchanged for 50 years, Article 3 (12); • it will be vested with 'executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication', Article 3 (3); • the 'laws currently in force7 will remain basically unchanged', Article 3 (3); • the government of the HKSAR is to be composed of locals, Article 3 (4); 5 Quoted in Jayawickrama, Submission, p. S323. 6 Exhibit No. 7(d), Martin, Dr B G, Hong Kong in Transition, Research Paper No. 9, 1994, Parliamentary Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library, p. 12. See also survey evidence in Footnote 1 in Chapter 1. 7 Presumably this applies to laws as at 1 July 1997 when all these changes take effect. See Article 2 of the Joint Declaration, in Appendix 6. 12 • the chief executive will be appointed by the CPG on the basis of elections or consultations, Article 3 (4); • there will be continuity of personnel in the police and the civil service, Article 3 (4); • the 'social and economic systems' and the 'life style' of Hong Kong will remain unchanged, Article 3 (5); • all rights and freedoms8 will be ensured by law, Article 3 (5); • Hong Kong will remain a free port and a separate customs territory, Article 3 (6), will have a separate currency, Article 3 (7), independent finances, including taxation, Article 3 (8), and independent economic and cultural relations with other states, regions or international organisations, Article 3 (10); • Hong Kong will issue its own passports, Article 3 (10); and • it will maintain its own police force, Article 3 (11).9 2.8 The Annexes to the Declaration, which elaborate on its principles, serve to reinforce this emphasis on autonomy. Annex 1 notes that the legislature shall be 'constituted by elections', that the courts shall exercise judicial power independently and 'free from any interference', and that 'all' public servants can remain in employment after the establishment of the HKSAR. Much of the detail of the Annexes is devoted to the financial independence of Hong Kong and its capacity to negotiate independently a wide range of international agreements - on shipping, aviation, trade, tourism, cultural and sporting matters. 2.9 The Joint Declaration affirms that, until 30 June 1997, the United Kingdom has ongoing responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong and for its economic prosperity and social stability and that, in this, China promises cooperation (Article 4). 2.10 Finally, the Joint Declaration set up a Joint Liaison Group (JLG) to consult, discuss and exchange information on the transition. It was to operate from the time that the Declaration entered into force (27 May 1985) until 1 January 2000. Both Britain and China were to appoint a senior representative, of ambassadorial rank, and four other members as well as 20 supporting staff. It is notable that Annex II specifically stated that the JLG was not an organ of power; it could play no part in the administration of Hong Kong or the HKSAR nor have any supervisory role over that administration. 2.11 The Joint Declaration is a liberal document which covers the essential elements of an open society, albeit in broad and general terms. The International Commission of Jurists had one major criticism of it; that it did not specify that the chief executive should be a democratically elected office.10 The Declaration does suggest the appointment on the basis of 8 The list is very comprehensive - person, speech, press, assembly, association, travel, movement, correspondence, strike, choice of occupation, academic research and religious belief. 9 Exhibit No. 1(f), Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong with Annexes, Beijing, December 1984. Reproduced as Appendix 6 to this report. 10 Exhibit No. 2. Countdown to 1997: Report of a Mission to Hong Kong, International Commission of Jurists, 1992, p. 14 and Chapter VIII. 13 'election or consultations'. A further criticism that has become significant in the last five years is that the Joint Liaison Group lacked an arbitration mechanism to settle dispute between Britain and China. The Impact of Tiananmen Square 1989 2.12 The Joint Declaration foreshadowed the need to promulgate a law to translate the policies agreed in the Declaration into a constitution for Hong Kong. In June 1985, the Standing Committee of the PRC appointed a Basic Law Drafting Committee (BLDC). It consisted of 59 members, of whom 23, a minority, were from Hong Kong. They were not authorised by the people of Hong Kong and, as their numbers were reduced by resignations, expulsions and deaths, they were not replaced.11 The first draft, presented for consultation in 1988, elicited little popular reaction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016
    Journal of US-China Public Administration, August 2016, Vol. 13, No. 8, 499-517 doi: 10.17265/1548-6591/2016.08.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016 Chung Fun Steven Hung The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong After direct elections were instituted in Hong Kong, politicization inevitably followed democratization. This paper intends to evaluate how political parties’ politics happened in Hong Kong’s recent history. The research was conducted through historical comparative analysis, with the context of Hong Kong during the sovereignty transition and the interim period of democratization being crucial. For the implementation of “one country, two systems”, political democratization was hindered and distinct political scenarios of Hong Kong’s transformation were made. The democratic forces had no alternative but to seek more radicalized politics, which caused a decisive fragmentation of the local political parties where the establishment camp was inevitable and the democratic blocs were split into many more small groups individually. It is harmful. It is not conducive to unity and for the common interests of the publics. This paper explores and evaluates the political history of Hong Kong and the ways in which the limited democratization hinders the progress of Hong Kong’s transformation. Keywords: election politics, historical comparative, ruling, democratization The democratizing element of the Hong Kong political system was bounded within the Legislative Council under the principle of the separation of powers of the three governing branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Popular elections for the Hong Kong legislature were introduced and implemented for 25 years (1991-2016) and there were eight terms of general elections for the Legislative Council.
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Sorry. Would Members Please Deal with One Piece of Business. It Is Now Eight O’Clock and Under Standing Order 8(2) This Council Should Now Adjourn
    4920 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 8.00 pm PRESIDENT: I am sorry. Would Members please deal with one piece of business. It is now eight o’clock and under Standing Order 8(2) this Council should now adjourn. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, with your consent, I move that Standing Order 8(2) should be suspended so as to allow the Council’s business this evening to be concluded. Question proposed, put and agreed to. Council went into Committee. CHAIRMAN: Council is now in Committee and is suspended until 15 minutes to nine o’clock. 8.56 pm CHAIRMAN: Committee will now resume. MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, thank you for adjourning the debate on my motion so that Members could have a supper break. I hope I can secure a greater chance of success if they listen to my speech after dining. Mr Chairman, on behalf of the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK), I move the amendments to clause 22 except item 12 of schedule 2. The amendments have already been set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members. Mr Chairman, before I make my speech, I would like to raise a point concerning Mr Jimmy McGREGOR because he was quite upset when he heard my previous speech. He hoped that I could clarify one point. In fact, I did not mean that all the people in the commercial sector had not supported democracy. If all the voters in the commercial sector had not supported democracy, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR would not have been returned in the 1988 and 1991 elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong's Endgame and the Rule of Law (Ii): the Battle Over "The People" and the Business Community in the Transition to Chinese Rule
    HONG KONG'S ENDGAME AND THE RULE OF LAW (II): THE BATTLE OVER "THE PEOPLE" AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN THE TRANSITION TO CHINESE RULE JACQUES DELISLE* & KEVIN P. LANE- 1. INTRODUCTION Transitional Hong Kong's endgame formally came to a close with the territory's reversion to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997. How- ever, a legal and institutional order and a "rule of law" for Chi- nese-ruled Hong Kong remain works in progress. They will surely bear the mark of the conflicts that dominated the final years pre- ceding Hong Kong's legal transition from British colony to Chinese Special Administrative Region ("S.A.R."). Those endgame conflicts reflected a struggle among adherents to rival conceptions of a rule of law and a set of laws and institutions that would be adequate and acceptable for Hong Kong. They unfolded in large part through battles over the attitudes and allegiance of "the Hong Kong people" and Hong Kong's business community. Hong Kong's Endgame and the Rule of Law (I): The Struggle over Institutions and Values in the Transition to Chinese Rule ("Endgame I") focused on the first aspect of this story. It examined the political struggle among members of two coherent, but not monolithic, camps, each bound together by a distinct vision of law and sover- t Special Series Reprint: Originally printed in 18 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 811 (1997). Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School. This Article is the second part of a two-part series. The first part appeared as Hong Kong's End- game and the Rule of Law (I): The Struggle over Institutions and Values in the Transition to Chinese Rule, 18 U.
    [Show full text]
  • OFFICIAL RECORD of PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 21
    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 21 December 2000 2261 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 21 December 2000 The Council met at Nine o'clock MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH TING WOO-SHOU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN IR DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, S.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LUI MING-WAH, J.P. 2262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 21 December 2000 THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG THE HONOURABLE HUI CHEUNG-CHING THE HONOURABLE CHAN KWOK-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN THE HONOURABLE BERNARD CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG THE HONOURABLE WONG YUNG-KAN THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 21 December 2000 2263 THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.S., J.P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong Kong: a Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 14 Number 2 Winter/Spring Article 4 May 2020 The Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong Kong: A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues Roda Mushkat Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Roda Mushkat, The Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong Kong: A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues, 14 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 171 (1986). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. The Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong Kong: A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues RODA MUSHKAT* I. INTRODUCTION Hong Kong has been a British colony since 1841 and as such has pursued a markedly different economic, legal, political and social path from that of China. While China has embraced communist ideology and practice, often in an extreme form, Hong Kong has unwaveringly main- tained its capitalist orientation and has remained an integral part of the Western world. The bulk of the colony's population has always been Chi- nese and its cultural roots lie deeply in Chinese soil. In most other re- spects, however, the two systems are almost completely at variance with each other. Despite the structural differences between Hong Kong and China, Hong Kong will shed its colonial status in 1997 and come under de facto Chinese sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong's Civil Disobedience Under China's Authoritarianism
    Emory International Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 2021 Hong Kong's Civil Disobedience Under China's Authoritarianism Shucheng Wang Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Recommended Citation Shucheng Wang, Hong Kong's Civil Disobedience Under China's Authoritarianism, 35 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 21 (2021). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol35/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WANG_2.9.21 2/10/2021 1:03 PM HONG KONG’S CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE UNDER CHINA’S AUTHORITARIANISM Shucheng Wang∗ ABSTRACT Acts of civil disobedience have significantly impacted Hong Kong’s liberal constitutional order, existing as it does under China’s authoritarian governance. Existing theories of civil disobedience have primarily paid attention to the situations of liberal democracies but find it difficult to explain the unique case of the semi-democracy of Hong Kong. Based on a descriptive analysis of the practice of civil disobedience in Hong Kong, taking the Occupy Central Movement (OCM) of 2014 and the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill (Anti-ELAB) movement of 2019 as examples, this Article explores the extent to which and how civil disobedience can be justified in Hong Kong’s rule of law- based order under China’s authoritarian system, and further aims to develop a conditional theory of civil disobedience for Hong Kong that goes beyond traditional liberal accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • HONG KONG: the PERILS of SEMIDEMOCRACY William H
    Overholt.new created saved from e-mail by JB on 7/2/01. (6682 words.) PRE created from NEW by SL on 7/ 18. TXT created from NEW w/ PJC edits on 8/1/01(5644 w/notes); JB edits to TXT entered 8/7, PJC (5683 wds. w/notes). PRE revised with TXT by SL on 8/7. MP changes to TXT by PJC on 8/9/01(5750 words w/ notes); Aas to TXT 8/16, PJC (6149 wds w/notes). PRE revised with TXT by SL on 8/24. PGS created from PRE by SL on 8/24. HONG KONG: THE PERILS OF SEMIDEMOCRACY William H. Overholt William H. Overholt is head of Asia strategy and economics for Nomura International, a Japan-based securities firm with offices in Hong Kong and around the world. He holds a doctorate in political science from Yale University and is the author of five books, including most recently The Rise of China: How Economic Reform Is Creating a New Superpower (1994). At the time of Hong Kong’s 1997 transition from British to Chinese rule, the world saw the city as a laissez-faire enclave that took care of itself, while an able but mostly hands-off civil service did minor maintenance. A successful transition would mean little more than a changing of the guard, with local functionaries replacing colonial functionaries. There was, in this widely held view, no need for any larger reform of the economy or polity. Beijing and London, together with the local business establishment, planned a government that they all hoped would combine representative deliberativeness with authoritarian decisiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT Rights and the Limitations of Law in Hong Kong
    William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice Volume 22 (2015-2016) Issue 2 William & Mary Journal of Women and Article 5 the Law February 2016 Inching Towards Equality: LGBT Rights and the Limitations of Law in Hong Kong Joy L. Chia Amy Barrow Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl Part of the Law and Gender Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Repository Citation Joy L. Chia and Amy Barrow, Inching Towards Equality: LGBT Rights and the Limitations of Law in Hong Kong, 22 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 303 (2016), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ wmjowl/vol22/iss2/5 Copyright c 2016 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl INCHING TOWARDS EQUALITY:LGBT RIGHTS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF LAW IN HONG KONG JOY L.CHIA & AMY BARROW* ABSTRACT Since legislative reform decriminalizing sodomy in 1991,the Hong Kong government has taken a passive role in the legal protec- tion of lesbian,gay,bisexual,and transgender (LGBT)individuals. Instead,LGBT rights advancements have occurred primarily through the workof the courts,resulting in piecemeal progress that has left unaddressed the daily discrimination experienced by LGBT people in Hong Kong.Despite increased pressure in recent years for anti- discrimination legislation,the Hong Kong government continues to assert that self-regulation and public education,rather than legisla- tion,are more appropriate tools for addressing discrimination based on sexual
    [Show full text]
  • ENCROACHMENTS on PRESS FREEDOM in HONG KONG Threatened Harbor Encroachments on Press Freedom in Hong Kong
    THREATENED HARBOR ENCROACHMENTS ON PRESS FREEDOM IN HONG KONG Threatened Harbor Encroachments on Press Freedom in Hong Kong January 16, 2015 © PEN American Center 2015 All rights reserved PEN American Center is the largest branch of PEN International, the world’s leading literary and human rights organization. PEN works in more than 100 countries to protect free expression and to defend writers and journalists who are imprisoned, threatened, persecuted, or attacked in the course of their profession. PEN America’s 3,700 members stand together with more than 20,000 PEN writers worldwide in international literary fellowship to carry on the achievements of such past members as James Baldwin, Robert Frost, Allen Ginsberg, Langston Hughes, Arthur Miller, Eugene O’Neill, Susan Sontag, and John Steinbeck. For more information, please visit www.pen.org. Cover photograph: © Gareth Hayes, Creative Commons CONTENTS Introduction 4 Report Framework and Methodology 6 Legal Framework 7 Challenges to Press Freedom in Hong Kong 9 Physical Assaults on Journalists 9 Attacks on and Obstruction of Media During the Pro-Democracy Protests 11 Threats to Free Expression Online 14 Politically Motivated Censorship and Removal of Media Figures 17 Politically Motivated Economic Pressures on Media Outlets 20 Recommendations 22 References 23 Appendix: Alleged Incidents of Violence Against Journalists During the 2014 Pro-Democracy Protests As Reported to the Hong Kong Journalists Association 23 INTRODUCTION Hong Kong has long enjoyed a vibrant, diverse, and independent passed in 1990 by the Chinese National People’s Congress, also media and a unique position as a window into mainland China. explicitly protects the rights of Hong Kong’s residents through Local and foreign correspondents make use of Hong Kong’s the year 2047, including the freedom of speech, freedom of unique geopolitical position, cosmopolitanism, and strong the press, and freedom of assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong: Preserving Human Rights and the Rule of Law
    American University International Law Review Volume 12 | Issue 3 Article 1 1997 Hong Kong: Preserving Human Rights and the Rule of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation American University International Law Review. "Hong Kong: Preserving Human Rights and the Rule of Law." American University International Law Review 12, no. 3 (1997): 361-508. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American University Washington College of Law Hbong IKong: Pireserving Human Rights and the Rule of Law A Conference Sponsored by The International Legal Studies Program of the Washington College of Law, Human Rights Watch/Asia, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights March 18-19, 1997 FORWARD Daniel D. Bradlow" The most direct impact of the reversion of Hong Kong to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997 will be on the people of Hong Kong. While the arrangement between the British and the Chinese governments concerning the reversion sought to preserve the unique nature of Hong Kong society, the people of Hong Kong are likely to experience a change in the nature of their system of governance after July 1, 1997. * Professor Daniel D. Bradlow is a Professor of Law and Director of the International Legal Studies Program at the American University Washington College of Law vhere he specializes in international economic law.
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Companies in Hong Kong
    Master’s Degree programme in Languages, Economics and Institutions of Asia and North Africa Second Cycle (D.M 270/2004) Final Thesis Italian companies in Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR as the ideal business hub to enter the Chinese market Supervisor Dr. Noemi Pace Assistant supervisor Dr. Paolo Magagnin Graduand Alice Salvadè Matriculation Number 846656 Academic Year 2017/2018 TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................... 6 前言 ........................................................................................................................ 9 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 11 1. HONG KONG – BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................ 14 2. HONG KONG ................................................................................................ 18 2.1 Current economic situation…………………………………………………….18 2.2 International agreements and relationship with mainland China…………..22 2.2.1 The Belt and Road Initiative………………………………………………26 2.3 Regulations for foreign investments…………………………………………..27 2.4 Business entities a foreign investor can establish in Hong Kong SAR……30 2.4.1 Private company limited by share………………..................................30 2.4.2 Sole-Proprietorship………………………………………………………..32 2.4.3 Partnership………………………………………...……………………….32 2.4.4 Joint Venture………………………………………...……………………..33 2.4.5 Representative Office……………………………………………………..35 2.4.6 Branch Office……………………………………………………………….35
    [Show full text]
  • One Country, Two Legal Systems (Crowley Report)
    ONE COUNTRY, TWO LEGAL SYSTEMS? TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 A. Overview .....................................................................................................................................3 I. PRESERVING THE RULE OF LAW.............................................................................................4 A. The Rule of Law..........................................................................................................................5 1. General International Standards...............................................................................................5 2. The Sino-British Joint Declaration ..........................................................................................7 B. Implementing International Commitments: Hong Kong and the Basic Law ............................8 C. The Right of Abode Decisions ..................................................................................................10 1. Background ............................................................................................................................10 2. The Court of Final Appeal’s Decisions .................................................................................12 a. Article 158: The Reference Issue......................................................................................12 b. Articles 22 and 24 of the Basic Law..................................................................................15
    [Show full text]