Language and law : a critical-semantic approach to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chui-chi Lui
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.


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 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swati JHAVERI

AbstractThe question of whether constitutional law can protect, consolidate, and advance democracy has been considered extensively in multiple jurisdictions. The issue has not yet been considered in the context of one of the most problematic contemporary democratic transitions: Hong Kong’s, from an externally governed colonial outpost to a self-governed suffrage-based special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. The Basic Law of Hong Kong proposes the eventual election of the Legislative Council and Chief Executive of Hong Kong by some form of universal suffrage. These provisions are at the core of the ‘democratic constitution’ of Hong Kong. Achieving this goal requires consensus between the executive in Hong Kong, members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, and the legislative body of the People’s Republic of China. Although not a formal constitutional requirement, any democratization efforts will also require popular buy-in from Hong Kong residents in order to function effectively. However, it is increasingly clear that the views of all concerned do not converge on how and when these constitutional aspirations should be realized. In addition, all parties have started moving outside of this constitutional framework when deliberating issues of political reform. This article looks at the problems in the constitutional design of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that have resulted in this political deadlock. The article will then look at one solution to mitigate the effect of these design issues and to move forward again on the issue of reform: ‘litigating’ the democratic constitution in the courts. The article discusses the advantages of the courts in the process: primarily the capacity of the courts toreconstitutionalizepolitical debate on electoral issues. This article evaluates the largely unsuccessful use of the courts thus far by Hong Kong residents to correct and advance political reform. It considers possible reasons for the high failure rate in courts and proposes alternative litigation strategies that can better utilize the position of the courts to re-orient all parties to the Basic Law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document