scholarly journals Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong

Author(s):  
Ngok Ma

The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (HKSAR) was established in 1997 when China recovered sovereignty over Hong Kong following the terms set out in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Chinese government promised to adopt “One Country, Two Systems,” keeping the capitalist system and lifestyle of Hong Kong “fifty years unchanged.” Hong Kong was promised a high level of autonomy, with civil liberties, rule of law, and judicial independence guaranteed in the Basic Law, the mini-constitution. With universal suffrage elections promised in the Basic Law but never delivered, the struggle over democratization has been the top item on the political agenda for decades. The issue of democratization defines the major political cleavage, with the democrats seeing a democratic government as key to defending Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law, and civil rights. The study of politics in the HKSAR mostly centers around several themes: the struggle over democratization, China–Hong Kong relations, the perennial governing crisis of the HKSAR government, and state-business and state-society relations. Knowledge of colonial politics and governance and the social and political changes since the transition period (1984–1997) is vital for understanding present-day Hong Kong politics. The gist of the promise of “One Country, Two Systems” was a continuation of the status quo beyond 1997. The political formula and governing philosophy under the colonial regime were seen as major reasons for the “stability and prosperity” of Hong Kong. The conventional wisdom was that Hong Kong’s success was due to a minimalist state. In-depth studies of colonial politics revealed a more complicated state-business and state-society relationship. The roles of state and political configurations have also undergone a lot of changes since the 1980s. Yet business dominance/hegemony and state-business alliance remain common conceptual tools to understand the post-1997 politics of Hong Kong. Recent studies on Hong Kong politics tend to cast Hong Kong in the light of “hybrid regimes.” With more control and intervention from China, the focus is on to what extent the autonomy and freedom of Hong Kong can be maintained, and how Hong Kong people resist a democratic recession or fight for reform. The rise of new social movements, massive mobilizations, the birth of a new political identity, and value changes in recent years all contributed to the historic 2014 Umbrella Movement. The 2014 Movement brought about a new stage of self-determination currents and more intervention from China.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Liao ◽  
Li Meng

The basic meaning of "patriots ruling Hong Kong" is that Hong Kong people who love China and love Hong Kong govern Hong Kong society to ensure the smooth implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" system and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong and maintain the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong society.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-384
Author(s):  
Chung Fun Steven Hung

Purpose After direct elections were instituted in Hong Kong and the sovereignty was transferred from Britain to China, politicization inevitably followed democratization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the pro-democratic political parties’ politics in Hong Kong in recent history. Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted through a historical comparative analysis, within the context of Hong Kong after the sovereignty handover and the interim period of crucial democratization. Findings With the implementation of “One country, Two systems,” political democratization was hindered in Hong Kong’s transformation. The democratic forces have no alternative but to seek more radicalized politics, which has caused a decisive and ineluctable fragmentation of the local political parties. Originality/value This paper explores and evaluates the political history of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under “One country, Two systems” and the ways in which the limited democratization hinders the progress of Hong Kong’s transformation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Selig ◽  
Bridget Gagne ◽  
Nick MacDonald

Since 1997 Hong Kong has operated as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China under a policy known as “One Country, Two Systems.” An analysis of the critical period of 1997-2020 (which came to a close with the 2020 National Security Law) demonstrates the ways in which the People’s Republic of China has used its influence to limit the democratic autonomy and ideological independence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. By breaking down China’s actions into three distinct sections of politics, media, and education this review addresses the many layers and facets of Chinese encroachment on the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. In the political sector, China has worked to limit democratic representation in Hong Kong via interference in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Hong Kong’s government. In the field of media, China has used direct and indirect editorial action as well as economic influence to limit negative perceptions of Beijing. In the education system, China has taken a top-down approach to instill Chinese patriotism in Hong Kong’s curriculum to expand the support for China in Hong Kong’s youth. Tracking these violations of Hong Kong’s autonomy and also the people’s response demonstrates that although China continues to push the “One Country” aspect of the “One Country, Two Systems” policy, the people of Hong Kong will continue to fight for their freedoms as long as they have a voice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 79-89
Author(s):  
Vesna Ćorić ◽  
Jankov Fernandez

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was passed in June 2020 provoking the global outcry. The aim of this paper is to assess the compliance of the said law with the sources of international law, which are most relevant for the assessment of the problematic points of new legislation. In providing the analysis, the paper will not be focused only on the sources of international law, which are currently applicable. Instead, the previous relevant legal framework will also be taken into consideration where appropriate.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert H.Y. CHEN

AbstractPost-1997 Hong Kong under the constitutional framework of “One Country Two Systems” has a political system that may be characterized as a “semi-democracy.” Hong Kong’s constitutional instrument—the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China—provides that the ultimate goal of the evolution of Hong Kong’s political system is the election of its Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Since 2003, a democracy movement has developed in Hong Kong that campaigned for the speedy introduction of such universal suffrage. In 2007, the Chinese government announced that universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong may be introduced in 2017. In 2014, the Chinese government announced further details of the electoral model. The model was rejected by Hong Kong’s Legislative Council in 2015, with the result that the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 would not materialize. This article seeks to tell this story of Hong Kong’s quest for democratization, focusing particularly on the context and background of the “Occupy Central” Movement that emerged in 2013 and its aftermath. It suggests that the struggle for universal suffrage in the election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive in 2017 and the obstacles it faced reveal the underlying tensions behind, and the contradictions inherent in, the concept and practice of “One Country, Two Systems,” particularly the conflict between the Communist Party-led socialist political system in mainland China and the aspirations towards Western-style liberal democracy on the part of “pan-democrats” and their supporters in Hong Kong.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Simon N.M. Young

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL) was passed on June 30, 2020 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). It did not have immediate direct effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). After consulting the Committee for the Basic Law of the HKSAR (BLC) and the Government of the HKSAR (HKSARG), the NPCSC added the NSL to Annex III of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) before the Chief Executive of the HKSAR (Chief Executive) promulgated the NSL for local application. All this happened on June 30, enabling the NSL to enter into force at 11 p.m., just ahead of the twenty-third anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR on July 1, 2020.


2021 ◽  
pp. 112-117
Author(s):  
B.M. Cheskidov

In article the interrelation of current political crisis in the Special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China Siangtan (Hong Kong) with change of its importance for transit of the capital from continental China in offshore jurisdictions and its return as part of transformation of a situation in the People’s Republic of China is considered. The conclusion about the serious financial reasons for development of crisis in the direction of strengthening of separatist sentiments in Hong Kong is drawn and related aggravation of a military-political situation.


Author(s):  
Natalie Wong

China is one of the largest e-waste dumping sites in the world, and Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous territory in China, is also affected by illegal e-waste disposal and transfer. While the Chinese government implemented a waste import ban in January 2018, Hong Kong has not enforced Chinese policies under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Drawing on a policy network approach, this paper provides an explanatory framework for e-waste governance in Hong Kong and China, and identifies the major obstacles to shaping effective transboundary e-waste control and prevention. The paper argues that institutional arrangements play a dominant role in governing e-waste policy networks at the local level of governance in Hong Kong and China; however, a lack of accountability and capacity at the transboundary level can explain the different waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management strategies in these two places.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document