scholarly journals Protests Decentralised: How technology enabled civil disobedience by Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protesters

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janis Wong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
Closing The Gap ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters

The proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assis- tance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例(修訂)條例草 案) (FOMLA) by the Hong Kong government, aimed at closing the gap for extradition to Taiwan, Macau, and Mainland China, sparked dozens of city-wide protests as demonstrators feared it would erode Hong Kong’s legal system, including rights to privacy and data protection, under the Hong Kong Basic Law (HKBL).Facilitated by technology, the leaderless, decentralised demonstrations furthered the anti-extradition bill protests by establishing legitimacy, participation, trust, and privacy be- tween citizens under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ frame- work. Based on these themes, this paper assesses how Hong Kong protesters found novel uses of technology such as Tele- gram, Apple Airdrop, cash and untraceable transactions, LIHKG Forum, and protest livestreams to self-organise, demon- strate their support for the movement, and maintain its mo- mentum. The protesters’ use of technology also shaped Twit- ter, Facebook, and Youtube policies, removing bot accounts and state-sponsored disinformation from their platforms.Learning from the city’s past protests, arrests, and convic- tions, this paper illustrates how Hong Kong protesters trans- formed their use of technology as a means to protect their personal identities, preserve their rights enshrined under the HKBL, and strive for democratic freedoms.

Jie Huang: Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tan Lee Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
The Us ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One

AbstractReview of “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments” by Professor Jie Huang (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014) which analyses the status quo of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ regime. The book also presents a comparative study of the interregional recognition and enforcement of judgments in the US and EU.

Jie Huang: Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments, Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2014, 352 pp. Hardcover £65/€84.50

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 381-385
Author(s):  
Tan Lee Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
The Us ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One

AbstractReview of “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments” by Professor Jie Huang (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014) which analyses the status quo of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ regime. The book also presents a comparative study of the interregional recognition and enforcement of judgments in the US and EU.

The emergence and transformation of self-determination claims in Hong Kong and Catalonia: A historical institutionalist perspective

Ethnicities ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Lecours ◽  
Jean-François Dupré
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
1997 Handover ◽  
The One

Using a historical institutionalist framework emphasizing the importance of transformative events, this paper seeks to explain the sudden emergence of self-determination claims in Hong Kong and their transformation into separatist ones in Catalonia. The paper argues that the inflexibility of the state in addressing moderate demands for regional autonomy has played a major role in the emergence and radicalization of these demands. In Hong Kong, the 1997 Handover from British to Chinese sovereignty was originally presented as an opportunity for self-governance under the principle of “Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong” and the “One Country, Two Systems” formula. If Hong Kong nationalism was practically unheard of in the early years of the Handover, the unconciliatory attitude of the central government towards moderate demands for the actualization of the autonomy and democratization frameworks vested in Hong Kong’s Basic Law has directly contributed to the formation of today’s emerging self-determination movement. In Catalonia, the 2010 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court to annul some articles of the reform to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and to interpret others narrowly represented a transformative event that took Catalonia onto the pathway of secessionist politics. The secessionist turn was then further fed by the on-going refusal of the central government to negotiate with the Catalan government, notably on the notion of a popular consultation on the political future of the Autonomous Community.

One Country, Two Systems

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
The State ◽  
Deng Xiaoping ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
The People ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One

Deng Xiaoping (b. 1903–d. 1997) secured power and launched a policy program of economic reforms and an opening to the external world at the end of 1978. He also initiated a peace offensive toward Taiwan, and had to face a new challenge in China’s Hong Kong policy. In January 1979, the Chinese authorities announced a nine-point proposal for solving the Taiwan issue and guaranteed that after reunification, the existing economic and social systems, as well as the way of life, would remain unchanged. Subsequently, the new Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in December 1982 contains a new provision; Article 31 states, “The state may establish special administrative regions (SAR) when necessary” (available online). In March 1979, Sir Murray MacLehose (b. 1917–d. 2000), then Governor of Hong Kong, visited Beijing. He met Deng Xiaoping and formally raised “the New Territories lease” question. Chinese leaders gradually began to understand that the Hong Kong future issue could no longer be delayed. The view of recovery gained a distinct edge; Liao Chengzhi (b. 1908–d. 1983), head of the newly established Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, was given the responsibility of planning for the recovery of the territory. In April 1981, he proposed the “one country, two systems” model policy, which demonstrated the Chinese leadership’s liberation in thinking at that time. The leadership was eager to show the world that China could govern Hong Kong better than the British colonial administration; it wanted the Hong Kong model to have a significant demonstration effect on Taiwan. The policy played a key role in maintaining the confidence of Hong Kong people, and facilitated Chinese leaders’ success in the Sino-British negotiations on the territory’s future. In the decade and a half since Hong Kong’s return to China, the “one country, two systems” model has been working quite well. Stability and prosperity have been maintained; the rule of law and the freedoms enjoyed by the people have been largely intact. Hong Kong’s relative international economic competitiveness has been in slow decline, and the economy has become increasingly dependent on that of Mainland China.

scholarly journals What model for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China? A comparison between the 2019 (withdrawn) amendment to Hong Kong extradition law and the European Arrest Warrant

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 504-523
Author(s):  
Yanhong Yin ◽  
Irene Wieczorek
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One ◽  
International Systems

This article provides an analysis of the bill proposed in 2019 to amend Hong Kong Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO), Hong Kong domestic legislation on extradition. The FOO Amendment Bill introduced the possibility of, and detailed the conditions for, surrendering fugitives from Hong Kong to other regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), among which, controversially, mainland China. After multiple protests, the proposal was withdrawn. It nonetheless represents the first attempt of introducing a legal basis for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China, and it is thus deserving of close scrutiny. The article describes the unique constitutional setting in which this amendment was proposed, Hong Kong and mainland China being two regions of the same sovereign country which have two radically different legal systems under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. It compares the proposed system for extradition between these two regions with the rules regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third states, and with international systems for surrender, including the European Arrest Warrant and the UN Model Extradition Treaty. It shows that the FOO Amendment Bill would have put in place a surrender system in some respects less advanced and subject to more obstacles than standard international extradition Treaties and than the system regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third countries. This is the case, for instance, for the rules on penalty thresholds and on double criminality. Conversely, in other respects, it would have been even more advanced (and with fewer obstacles) than the European Arrest Warrant, one of the most advanced systems of international surrender. This is notably the case for the rules regulating extradition of Hong Kong residents to other parts of the PRC. These latter were, however, among the more controversial aspects of the proposal. The article also discusses the challenges that reintroducing a similar proposal would face in the future, including in light of current political and legal developments – notably the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’s July 2020 adoption of the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’. It suggests that one avenue to smoothen surrender proceedings between Hong Kong and mainland China would be taking a procedural rather than a substantive approach, namely by increasing the role of courts and decreasing the role of executive bodies in the extradition procedures.

Prototype Constitutional Supervision in China: The Lessons of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric C. IP
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One ◽  
Party State

AbstractRecurrent proposals to establish a constitutional supervisory committee have been pertinaciously rejected in spite of widespread recognition of the Chinese Constitution’s ineffectiveness. And yet, the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee has long epitomized in practice a prototypic form of constitutional supervision. Vested with quasi-judicial competences, the Committee seemed destined for a central role under the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement. The tight secrecy imposed on its proceedings and the suppression of its potential to act consistently and with a distinct identity have fatally undermined the Committee’s ability to modulate constitutional tensions by way of coordinating expectations of the Basic Law’s proper meaning. The experience of the Basic Law Committee reveals the recalcitrance of the Party-state toward constitutional interpretation by any specialized body, even one whose powers are heavily circumscribed and whose membership is tightly controlled.

scholarly journals Higher Education Restructuring and Academic Freedom in Hong Kong

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 589-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole J. Petersen ◽  
Jan Currie
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
British Colony ◽  
Publicly Supported ◽  
The One ◽  
National Governments

A former British colony, Hong Kong was reunited with the People's Republic of China in 1997 under the ‘one country two systems’ model. The Hong Kong Basic Law contains detailed provisions for academic freedom, ensuring that local academics enjoy far greater freedom than their counterparts in mainland China. Hong Kong academics and the broader community have also publicly supported academic freedom when they perceived it to be under threat. The authors argue, however, that the recent restructuring of Hong Kong's universities may ultimately pose a greater threat than any explicit interference from the local or national governments.

scholarly journals Judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau. Through the lens of “one country, two systems” and the surrender of fugitives to Mainland China

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 737
Author(s):  
Miguel Manero de Lemos ◽  
Teresa Lancry Robalo
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
Criminal Matters

Este artigo divide-se em três partes. A Parte I (O sistema constitucional das Regiões Administrativas Especiais de Hong Kong e Macau) fornece o enquadramento histórico das Regiões Administrativas Especiais de Hong Kong e Macau e introduz as ordens constitucionais das Regiões Administrativas Especiais de Hong Kong e Macau da República Democrática da China existentes à luz do princípio “um país, dois sistemas”. É feita uma referência aos principais desenvolvimentos constitucionais ocorridos nas primeiras décadas de existências dessas regiões administrativas especiais. A Parte II (Cooperação judicial em matéria criminal nas Regiões Administrativas Especiais) explica como é que as referidas ordens constitucionais influenciam o quadro jurídico existente relativo à cooperação judicial em matéria criminal, o qual se aplica à cooperação com outros Estados ou territórios, mas não à cooperação entre as várias jurisdições existentes na China, cooperação esta para a qual não existem regras positivadas atualmente em vigor. Examinam-se as regras em vigor em Hong Kong e em Macau sobre a entrega de fugitivos para outros países. A parte III (A entrega de fugitivos à China continental) lida particularmente com a questão da detenção e entrega de cidadãos chineses de Hong Kong e Macau à China continental. Fornece uma visão geral dos casos vindos a público e do dilema jurídico criado pela falta de regras específicas relativas à entrega de fugitivos dentro do “um país”.

One Country, Two Nationalisms: Center-Periphery Relations between Mainland China and Hong Kong, 1997–2016

Modern China ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 523-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. H. Fong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Joint Declaration ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
Twentieth Anniversary ◽  
City State ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
High Degree

According to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law, Hong Kong was to exercise a high degree of autonomy under the framework of “one country, two systems” after the British handover of its sovereignty to China in 1997. In the initial post-handover period, Beijing adopted a policy of nonintervention in Hong Kong, but the outbreak of the July 1, 2003 protest triggered a subsequent change of policy. Since then, Beijing has embarked on state-building nationalism, adopting incorporation strategies so as to subject Hong Kong to greater central control over the political, economic, and ideological arenas. Ironically, instead of successfully assimilating Hongkongese into one Chinese nation, Beijing’s incorporation strategies are leading to a rise of peripheral nationalism in the city-state and waves of counter-mobilization. This article analyzes mainland–Hong Kong relations on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of the handover and offers insights from an emerging case study that builds upon the nationalism literature.

scholarly journals "Patriots Governing Hong Kong" and the Innovation of Practice Path to Cultivate the Chinese National Community Consciousness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Liao ◽  
Li Meng
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Special Administrative Region ◽  
National Community ◽  
Administrative Region ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Basic Meaning ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The One

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document