The unfinished handover: strategic ambiguity, ‘one country, two systems,’ and the evolution of Hong Kong’s judiciary
Aidan L
‘ The bedrock, the bedrock of your way of life is the rule of law that guarantees fair and equitable treatment for everyone. You have an independent Judiciary in which every individual can have confidence. Because no one is above the law. No politician, no business leader, no citizen, no Governor.’ – Governor Chris Patten’s Inaugural Speech, 9 July 1992 Introduction Hong Kong’s judiciary is an institution shaped by colonialism and defined by its contradictions. What began as a fishing village of 5,000 inhabitants in 1841 became, through British rule, a Common Law jurisdiction and the world’s third largest financial hub. Sun Yat-Sen’s observation in 1923 that ‘foreigners could do such things as they had done, for example, with the barren rock of Hong Kong, within 70 or 80 years, while China, in 4,000 years, had no places like Hong Kong’ captures one legacy of this transformation. Yet the legal system that enabled Hong Kong’s ascent also marginalized the Chinese majority: ninety-eight percent of the population spoke Cantonese, yet English was the sole language of law and court proceedings throughout the colonial era. (Chan, 1997) The colonial legal system thus produced both prosperity and exclusion simultaneously. This essay argues that the 1984 Joint Declaration created a constitutional paradox: it preserved Hong Kong’s legal autonomy while continuing colonial laws yet prompted a ‘second handover’ with the National Security Laws. A recurring pattern of ‘strategic ambiguity’ – from the 1844 Supreme Court Ordinance’s ‘inapplicable’ clause to the Joint Declaration’s promise that laws would remain ‘basically unchanged’ – granted successive powers discretion over what the law permits, with profound consequences for the native population and businesses. Through the judiciary, this essay traces how British legal transplantation, the unresolved conflict between Common Law and Chinese Customary Law, and the post-handover constitutional order determined Hong Kong's political and economic trajectory. Hong Kong’s legal foundations: transplantation and ambiguity Before Britain raised its flag on 1 February 1841, Hong Kong’s inhabitants lived under the Da Qing Lü Li – the Code of the Qing Dynasty – alongside local customs dictated by clans and villages. (Tay, 1962) State presence was minimal. (Lau, 1997) Captain Elliot’s proclamation on 2 February 1841 initially established legal pluralism: British Law for British nationals, Chinese Law for Chinese nationals. Chan (1997) characterizes British laws as ‘alien in origin’ to inhabitants, and this pragmatic dualism acknowledged that imposing a foreign legal system wholesale upon a Chinese population risked immediate resistance. Yet the pluralism was short-lived.
Three years later, the Supreme Court Ordinance 1844 consolidated English legal authority. Governor Pottinger declared that ‘the law of England shall be in full force in the said Colony of Hongkong, except where the same shall be inapplicable to the local circumstances of the said Colony, or of its inhabitants.’
283
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting