English in Hong Kong

PMLA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 131 (5) ◽  
pp. 1527-1530
Author(s):  
Sharanya Jayawickrama
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
Government Service ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
Mainland Chinese ◽  
Legislative Council ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
People's Congress

As 2016 Draws to a Close, the Most Hotly Debated Topic in Hong Kong is the Controversial Behavior of Two Newly elected legislators of a localist political party during their oath taking at the Legislative Council earlier this year. The proindependence advocates roused anger among mainland Chinese and local Hong Kong officials and citizens alike when they declared allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and pronounced “China” in a way that painfully echoed for many the derogatory pronunciation used by the Japanese forces that occupied Hong Kong in World War II. Ironically, in their attempts to lobby for the Hong Kong people's interests and right to self-determination, the legislators were accused of ignoring Hong Kong's history and disrespecting those who had perished during or survived those dark days. Subsequently, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) issued an interpretation of Hong Kong's Basic Law that disqualified the pair from government service and preempted any ruling by a local Hong Kong court. This decision prompted thirteen thousand Hong Kong people to take to the streets in protest against what is widely perceived as the mainland's tightening of control over its special administrative region.

The Politics of the Debate over the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong

2000 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 221-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lo Shiu Hing
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Special Administrative Region ◽  
State Council ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
Legal Scholar ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
People's Congress

Before the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty from Britain to the People's Republic of China (PRC) on 1 July 1997, the politics of interpreting the Basic Law had already become apparent. This article aims to use the debate over the Court of Final Appeal (COFA), which was set up in July 1997 to replace the Privy Council in Britain as the court of final adjudication in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), to analyse how the Basic Law had already been interpreted by PRC officials, their British counterparts and the Hong Kong people. The interpretation of the Basic Law involves many people from both Hong Kong and China. As one legal scholar writes: “In one sense all kinds of people [in the HKSAR] will have to interpret the Basic Law: civil servants and other administrators and lawyers in their day-today work, legislators to ensure that their legislation and motions are consistent with it, the State Council [in the PRC], the National People's Congress Standing Committee, even private parties since some provisions affect private acts.” The debate over the COFA may also help towards an understanding of the ongoing interpretation of various provisions of the Basic Law, which serves as the mini-constitution of the HKSAR.

Constitutional Competition Between the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Chinese National People's Congress Standing Committee: A Game Theory Perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (04) ◽  
pp. 824-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric C. Ip
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
British Rule ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One ◽  
People's Congress

The competition between the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, a cosmopolitan common law supreme court, and the Chinese National People's Congress Standing Committee, a Leninist parliamentary body, over the “proper meaning” of the Hong Kong Basic Law constituted a very important facet of the territory's constitutional history since the end of British rule in 1997. This article applies the insights of game theory to explain why constitutional stability, in the sense that the two players have never entered into an open collision with each other despite the ambiguity of the Basic Law and the “One Country, Two Systems” formula, endured until the present day. It is argued that successful coordination between the two resulted from the strong aversion of the Court and the Standing Committee to constitutional crises, as well as from the fact that neither entity was capable of credibly signaling its commitment to an aggressive strategy all the time.

Trusteeship Council

2008 ◽  
pp. 148-159
Author(s):  
Ralph Wilde
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Latin America ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
The Caribbean

This article examines the Trusteeship Council, a principal organ whose work was essential to the settlement arising from World War II. It involved establishing procedures for the independence of the defeated powers' colonies. This article details the pioneering efforts of the UN at facilitating the decolonization of trust territories. This is part of the world organization's contribution to the processes of self-determination for peoples in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. It also reveals that the work of the Trusteeship Council was linked to what may have been the most important political change of the twentieth century.

Integration or Disintegration

2018 ◽  
pp. 127-161
Author(s):  
Malinda Maynor Lowery
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
School Integration ◽  
Court Case ◽  
World War ◽  
State College ◽  
Federal Recognition ◽  
Robeson County ◽  
Heritage Building ◽  
The Town

For Robeson County Indians, choosing the tribal name “Lumbee” for themselves was a monumental act of self-determination. The “Lumbee” bill in 1956 granted the Robeson County a form of official, yet limited, federal acknowledgement. In Robeson County, World War II sparked exposure, awareness, and change. At its zenith as an Indian place in the 1950s, the town of Pembroke was remarkable in the otherwise biracial South as its Indian residents continuously found new ways to make the place more their own. Some Indians opposed school integration because it meant sacrificing their distinct independence, control over their identity, and the primary institution—the schools—that had sustained the recognition of that identity for a century. Indians expressed pride in their heritage through their actions and words. With the court case Maynor v. Morton, Tuscaroras defied the federal government’s insistence that they were not deserving of federal recognition. The legal victory against double voting showed that Indians would not be silenced at the ballot box. Rebuilding the Old Main heritage building at Pembroke State College, creating Lumbee Homecoming, and opening Lumbee Guaranty Bank showed that Indians would continue asserting control over their own affairs and celebrating themselves.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document