D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 1 在前政务司司长陈方安生和民主党创党主席李柱铭访英“唱衰”中央和香港前夕，别称
“漆咸楼”(Chatham House)的英国极具权威智库皇家国际事务研究所(The Royal
Institute of International Affairs)发表评论报告，指出《“一国两制”在香港特
别行政区的实践》白皮书并无显示北京对港政策有变，“全面管治权”的概念无僭越中
英联合声明和基本法，香港大律师公会忽视了基本法是全国性法律，北京拥有最终解释
权。报告又分析，近月香港政治升温，并非由于白皮书内容有问题，而是某些人基于企
图越过基本法条文，另闢蹊径普选。
早于陈方安生和李柱铭于本月13日动身前往英国，皇家国际事务研究所的驻港高级
顾问研究员Tim Summers在11日发表一篇评论报告，题为《白皮书没有显示北京对香港
政策有变》“White Paper Does Not Mark Major Shift on Hong Kong”，结论是北京
政府发表白皮书，只是重申长久以来有关“一国两制”的官方政策，对港政策并无改变。
全面管治权非僭越
报告分析，白皮书在香港引发强烈反应，并非是白皮书内容本身有问题，而是政治
因素使然。报告续指，白皮书已被一些人利用，以越过基本法条文，另闢蹊径落实普选
“the White Paper has been seized upon by those who wish to push the centre
to go beyond Basic Law provisions on the road to universal suffrage”。
报告提到，白皮书指中央对港拥“全面管治权”，有人解读为北京改变1984年《中
英联合声明》的承诺和基本法。但报告认为，“全面管治权”的说法，是直接跟随和重
申《联合声明》对香港的讲法：“直辖于中央人民政府”，亦是对单一制国家性质的一
种解释。报告又引述白皮书指，“‘全面管治权’包括中央直接行使的权力，及对授权
香港行使高度自治”，因此有关说法没有僭越中英联合声明和基本法所订明的权力。
最终释法权在北京
对于大律师公会反驳白皮书要求治港者“正确理解基本法”，理由是普通法下法律
不存在绝对的正确意思，报告指出，本地法庭确实可以在香港自治范围内解释基本法，
但大律师公会忽略了基本法是全国性的中国法律，而中国其他地方并非採用普通法，基
本法的最终解释权在北京，而非香港法院。
至于大律师公会不满法官被指是“治港者”，担心司法独立受影响。报告认为，虽
然白皮书英文版用管理“administrate”一词形容法官，但中文版原文并无将法官视为
行政管理者，而是根据“港人治港”的理念，视法官为“治港者”，这并无问题。
陈方安生和李柱铭日前在伦敦会见英国议会外交事务委员会时，大肆抹黑白皮书，
又“唱衰”中央和香港，要求英国干预香港事务云云。但多位英国议员质疑陈李二人对
香港的现况及白皮书的说法，并提到根据他们自己掌握的资料，不认为北京对港政策有
任何实质性的改变。据了解，英国议员亦是根据有关权威智库报告回应陈李二人。 | D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 2 英文版
A new White Paper published by Beijing has provoked strong reactions in Hong
Kong for its perceived shift on the policy of the Special Administrative
Region's autonomy. But it is primarily politics, not the text of the paper
itself, driving the reaction.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
In early June, the information office of the Chinese central government
published a White Paper on ‘One Country Two Systems’. This is the
settlement put in place after Hong Kong was handed over by the United
Kingdom to become a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic
of China in 1997, part of China while retaining its separate system.
In the context of high octane local politics and a fierce debate on
constitutional development, local reaction to the White Paper has been
dominated by concern that it signaled a shift to a more assertive approach
to Hong Kong from the central government, and by specific references in the
White Paper to Hong Kong’s judiciary.
The White Paper begins relatively benignly by stating that ‘One Country Two
Systems’ is China’s ‘basic state policy’ towards Hong Kong. It then
outlines the history and development of this policy, including the roles of
the central authorities and the areas in which Hong Kong enjoys a high
degree of autonomy, and ‘efforts made by the central government to ensure
the prosperity and development’ of Hong Kong.
The controversies have arisen over parts of the final section of the paper,
on ‘fully and accurately understanding and implementing [One Country Two
Systems]’.
First, statements that, ‘as a unitary state, China’s central government
has comprehensive jurisdiction [over Hong Kong]’ and that Hong Kong’s ‘
high degree of autonomy… is not an inherent power, but one that comes
solely from the authorization by the central leadership’ have been read by
some as marking a change from commitments made in the 1984 Sino-British
Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the Chinese law which is in effect Hong
Kong’s constitution.
These statements immediately follow a reiteration of a phrase from the Joint
Declaration, namely that Hong Kong ‘will be [is] directly under the
authority of the central people’s government’. And as ‘authorization’ is
the term used in the Basic Law, most critics have focused on the argument
that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ adds a new and worrying element.
In context, the obvious reading of this phrase is as an explanation of the
nature of a unitary state. The phrase also appears in section II of the
paper (translated in the English version as ‘overall jurisdiction’), where
it is explained as referring to the ‘powers directly exercised by the
central government, and the powers delegated to [Hong Kong] to enable it to
exercise a high degree of autonomy…’ This is nothing here to support the
reading that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ goes beyond understandings set
out in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.
A second set of concerns, around the legal and judicial implications of the
paper, have been set out by the Hong Kong Bar Association.
They begin by discussing the White Paper statement that the ‘power of
interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law [is] vested in the National
People’s Congress and its Standing Committee’. This is the standard
constitutional position and the Bar Association does not take issue with it,
but highlights the point – also included in the White Paper – that Hong
Kong’s courts can interpret Basic Law provisions ‘within the limits of [
Hong Kong’s] autonomy’.
Related to this, the Bar Association challenges a statement in the White
Paper about ‘correctly understanding… the Basic Law’ by pointing out that
in common law jurisdictions there is no definitive ‘correct’ meaning of
legislation. This is fair as far as the Basic Law is to be interpreted by
local courts within the limits of Hong Kong’s autonomy. But it misses the
point that the Basic Law is a national Chinese law (the rest of China does
not follow common law) and as such its interpretation is ultimately
something for Beijing, not the Hong Kong courts.
In between these two concerns, the Bar Association picks up on language
which lists the judiciary along with the government and legislature in a
section on patriotic requirements for ‘Hong Kong people running Hong Kong’
. The Bar Association says that ‘Judges and judicial officers… are not to
be regarded as part of ‘Hong Kong’s administrators’ or part of the
governance team upon whom a political requirement is imposed’, but without
directly criticizing the White Paper. Others, however, have picked up on
this to argue that the White Paper suggests that the central government sees
judges as being part of Hong Kong’s administration, and that this
undermines judicial independence.
However, the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
Although the English translation says judges ‘administrate’ [sic], the
Chinese word thus translated is the same as in ‘Hong Kong people running
Hong Kong’. The text is therefore including judges among those that ‘run
Hong Kong’, hardly controversial. At the very least, in its original
language the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
These conclusions are consistent with an interpretation of the central
government’s intention in publishing the White Paper being to be restate
long-standing official policy on ‘One Country Two Systems’, and not to
redefine Beijing’s policy towards Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, the political reality remains that people in Hong Kong have not
interpreted it this way, and the White Paper has been seized upon by those
who wish to push the centre to go beyond Basic Law provisions on the road to
universal suffrage. The political situation is complex, but it is politics
and not the text of the White Paper which is behind the last month’s rise
in political temperature in Hong Kong.
To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback
- See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140#sthash.eSiCkg9K.dpuf
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 在前政务司司长陈方安生和民主党创党主席李柱铭访英“唱衰”中央和香港前夕，别称
: “漆咸楼”(Chatham House)的英国极具权威智库皇家国际事务研究所(The Royal
: Institute of International Affairs)发表评论报告，指出《“一国两制”在香港特
: 别行政区的实践》白皮书并无显示北京对港政策有变，“全面管治权”的概念无僭越中
: 英联合声明和基本法，香港大律师公会忽视了基本法是全国性法律，北京拥有最终解释
: 权。报告又分析，近月香港政治升温，并非由于白皮书内容有问题，而是某些人基于企
: 图越过基本法条文，另闢蹊径普选。
: 早于陈方安生和李柱铭于本月13日动身前往英国，皇家国际事务研究所的驻港高级
: 顾问研究员Tim Summers在11日发表一篇评论报告，题为《白皮书没有显示北京对香港
: 政策有变》“White Paper Does Not Mark Major Shift on Hong Kong”，结论是北京
| D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 3 我早说过了，香港这帮法官律师的脑子就那个水平，自己脑子傻了，还
希望别人比他们更傻。
不过香港政坛最好玩的一件事情是某次中联办抗议，泛民宣称54000人参加
结果一报社记者恰好从高楼拍下了全景照片，回来数人头，只有2500人。
泛民最傻逼的就是天天说香港自由倒退，自由真倒退了还有他们折腾的空间？
李柱铭和陈方安生号称香港自由倒退，拿出来的都是些幼稚园级别的例子，什么
汇丰渣打不在苹果日报做广告，直接被英国委员会的议员反驳。
Hong
black
black
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 英文版
: A new White Paper published by Beijing has provoked strong reactions in Hong
: Kong for its perceived shift on the policy of the Special Administrative
: Region's autonomy. But it is primarily politics, not the text of the paper
: itself, driving the reaction.
: Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
: and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
: Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
: Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
: and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
| D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 4 哈哈，今天报纸登载的证据显示从2005年起大企业就开始撤离苹果日报的广告
这帮人到13年才开始说事。
真普联的头是个澳大利亚人，过去一直隐瞒国籍，
学民思潮都是一群18岁不到的中学生，
乌合之众，莫过如此
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 我早说过了，香港这帮法官律师的脑子就那个水平，自己脑子傻了，还
: 希望别人比他们更傻。
: 不过香港政坛最好玩的一件事情是某次中联办抗议，泛民宣称54000人参加
: 结果一报社记者恰好从高楼拍下了全景照片，回来数人头，只有2500人。
: 泛民最傻逼的就是天天说香港自由倒退，自由真倒退了还有他们折腾的空间？
: 李柱铭和陈方安生号称香港自由倒退，拿出来的都是些幼稚园级别的例子，什么
: 汇丰渣打不在苹果日报做广告，直接被英国委员会的议员反驳。
:
: Hong
: black
|
|
