7 ms·

Given that China has unilaterally decided that the joint declaration on Hong Kong no longer has meaning (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary

Given that China has unilaterally decided that the joint declaration on Hong Kong no longer has meaning (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-china-idUSKBN19L1J1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-chin...) why doesn’t the international community just consider the agreement to be fully not in force, and treat Hong Kong as being back under British control once again? Right now China is issuing threats even over Britain offering visas to Hong Kong residents (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/china-accuses-uk-of-gross-interference-over-hong-kong-citizenship-offer https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/china-accuses-...), and I don’t see why the entire free world doesn’t just band together to issue sanctions at this point. As an aside, I’ve seen zero action from the current administration with respect to managing China. Maybe they’re still figuring out their plan but as valuable time passes I feel they’re going to spinelessly let China bully Hong Kong and the world. Do we need to start emailing and calling representatives to see action? Any other ideas from this community?

Bud 5y ago
Have you thought this through? Countries are going to think twice before applying serious sanctions to China, given that China can shut off their supply chain for, well, basically everything.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Why not just let them? If an appropriate coalition is formed, China won’t risk it. Even if they do, it’ll motivate everyone else to build up and hedge against them, which will be incredibly damaging to China in the long term.
  - skissane 5y ago
    The UK could try pursuing international legal action against China over violations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration – in the ICJ, PCA, etc. I'm not sure how easy that would be – jurisdictional issues for international courts are insanely complex – and even if the Court accepted the case, China is just going to ignore the outcome if they lose. But a Chinese loss would damage to China's international prestige. Another option seriously worth considering is to start withdrawing the special privileges which Western countries give to Hong Kong, and start treating it as just another part of the Mainland. If Beijing has no respect for Hong Kong's autonomy, why should anyone else respect it either?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      it wouldnt really work. China negotiated a clause in the Joint Declaration giving them total control over national security matters, and sadly the argument that Apple Daily collided with foreign elements making it a national security matter is simply too strong. Even if it wasn't, the international courts have no power to compel any judgement. But I don't think it would even get there.
      - skissane 5y ago
        > it wouldnt really work. China negotiated a clause in the Joint Declaration giving them total control over national security matters, and sadly the argument that Apple Daily collided with foreign elements making it a national security matter is simply too strong. I doubt it would work, not because of national security, but because of jurisdiction. Unlike some other countries, China has not accepted the general jurisdiction of the ICJ. That greatly limits the ability to get a case against China before the ICJ. A case could be brought with China's consent, but obviously in this case China will not consent. The Joint Declaration itself has no dispute resolution clause. I think the UK's only hope is to find some other treaty it has with China (or maybe even Hong Kong SAR) which does have a dispute resolution clause, and use that to try to backdoor the issue of the Joint Declaration into an international court (ICJ, PCA, etc). That's not impossible, because there are actually some treaties to which both the UK and China are parties with mandatory ICJ jurisdiction. However, these treaties are on seemingly unrelated topics like racial discrimination or health. Trying to squeeze the dispute about the Joint Declaration into a dispute about some other such treaty is going to be legally rather difficult, and the odds are against the UK succeeding if they tried, but I don't think we can rule it out as completely impossible–lawyers can be very inventive. If we assume the UK manages, against the odds, to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle, and some international court accepts the case – I'm not convinced they'd give China as much deference on the "national security" issue as you think. If "national security" means whatever China wants it to mean, it turns other provisions of the Joint Declaration (such as the guarantee of freedom of the press) into a nullity. > Even if it wasn't, the international courts have no power to compel any judgement That's true. If an international court rules against Beijing, Beijing will just condemn the court and ignore the judgement. International legal action against China has no hope of making any difference on the ground in Hong Kong. But it does have some hope of infuriating Beijing and causing them to lose face. That's not much, but it isn't nothing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
justicezyx 5y ago
> the international community just consider the agreement to be fully not in force, treat Hong Kong as being back under British control once again? The first part of this is nonsense. But I am particularly amused by this statement. The international community you are referring certainly has equal or less population than China mainland alone. On which ground it gives the superior name of “the international communicaty”. Note: I am not in any means say China is right or wrong. But first thing first. Everyone needs to understand who are the everyone. Don't pretend some group automatically represent the voice of the all or majority.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Well, this is true. In general when Western media says "the international community" they really means Western Europe and North America. The international community includes China, Russia, all of the African countries whose capital you probably don't know, and more, and they never agree, so you can never say "the international community" meaningfully. It's always a borderline supremacist equivocation. And in the case, probably the majority of the actual international community would agree with China. That doesn't mean that they're right, it's just how the world actually works.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be valid? It’s like a breach of contract from my perspective - it invalidates the whole.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Their point was that the "international community" is non-sense. As far as deciding that the whole agreement is no longer in force, I don't see how that's an issue with the Chinese take. Without the agreement, the facts on the ground is that HK is under Chinese control, and the UK has no recourse but to invade it again. It's not like British control of HK was based on anything else before the agreement.
sudosysgen 5y ago
the Sino-British joint declaration has very specific wording on issues of national security that means thy China almost definitely gets away with this. Indeed, the Declaration gives the mainland full authority over national security matters, and as much as one wouldn't like it to be true, the Apple Daily does have/had direct links to the US government which just categorized the PRC as a security threat. From that point of view its hard to argue this isn't a national security matter. Certainly that doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected, in the best of words as long as they are clear with their biases media should be allowed to have such affiliations, but that doesn't make it less of a national security matter. Methinks China gets away with it even as a matter of legality wrt the Joint Declaration.

Bud 5y ago

Have you thought this through? Countries are going to think twice before applying serious sanctions to China, given that China can shut off their supply chain for, well, basically everything.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Why not just let them? If an appropriate coalition is formed, China won’t risk it. Even if they do, it’ll motivate everyone else to build up and hedge against them, which will be incredibly damaging to China in the long term.
- skissane 5y ago
  The UK could try pursuing international legal action against China over violations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration – in the ICJ, PCA, etc. I'm not sure how easy that would be – jurisdictional issues for international courts are insanely complex – and even if the Court accepted the case, China is just going to ignore the outcome if they lose. But a Chinese loss would damage to China's international prestige. Another option seriously worth considering is to start withdrawing the special privileges which Western countries give to Hong Kong, and start treating it as just another part of the Mainland. If Beijing has no respect for Hong Kong's autonomy, why should anyone else respect it either?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    it wouldnt really work. China negotiated a clause in the Joint Declaration giving them total control over national security matters, and sadly the argument that Apple Daily collided with foreign elements making it a national security matter is simply too strong. Even if it wasn't, the international courts have no power to compel any judgement. But I don't think it would even get there.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > it wouldnt really work. China negotiated a clause in the Joint Declaration giving them total control over national security matters, and sadly the argument that Apple Daily collided with foreign elements making it a national security matter is simply too strong. I doubt it would work, not because of national security, but because of jurisdiction. Unlike some other countries, China has not accepted the general jurisdiction of the ICJ. That greatly limits the ability to get a case against China before the ICJ. A case could be brought with China's consent, but obviously in this case China will not consent. The Joint Declaration itself has no dispute resolution clause. I think the UK's only hope is to find some other treaty it has with China (or maybe even Hong Kong SAR) which does have a dispute resolution clause, and use that to try to backdoor the issue of the Joint Declaration into an international court (ICJ, PCA, etc). That's not impossible, because there are actually some treaties to which both the UK and China are parties with mandatory ICJ jurisdiction. However, these treaties are on seemingly unrelated topics like racial discrimination or health. Trying to squeeze the dispute about the Joint Declaration into a dispute about some other such treaty is going to be legally rather difficult, and the odds are against the UK succeeding if they tried, but I don't think we can rule it out as completely impossible–lawyers can be very inventive. If we assume the UK manages, against the odds, to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle, and some international court accepts the case – I'm not convinced they'd give China as much deference on the "national security" issue as you think. If "national security" means whatever China wants it to mean, it turns other provisions of the Joint Declaration (such as the guarantee of freedom of the press) into a nullity. > Even if it wasn't, the international courts have no power to compel any judgement That's true. If an international court rules against Beijing, Beijing will just condemn the court and ignore the judgement. International legal action against China has no hope of making any difference on the ground in Hong Kong. But it does have some hope of infuriating Beijing and causing them to lose face. That's not much, but it isn't nothing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

justicezyx 5y ago

> the international community just consider the agreement to be fully not in force, treat Hong Kong as being back under British control once again? The first part of this is nonsense. But I am particularly amused by this statement. The international community you are referring certainly has equal or less population than China mainland alone. On which ground it gives the superior name of “the international communicaty”. Note: I am not in any means say China is right or wrong. But first thing first. Everyone needs to understand who are the everyone. Don't pretend some group automatically represent the voice of the all or majority.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Well, this is true. In general when Western media says "the international community" they really means Western Europe and North America. The international community includes China, Russia, all of the African countries whose capital you probably don't know, and more, and they never agree, so you can never say "the international community" meaningfully. It's always a borderline supremacist equivocation. And in the case, probably the majority of the actual international community would agree with China. That doesn't mean that they're right, it's just how the world actually works.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be valid? It’s like a breach of contract from my perspective - it invalidates the whole.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Their point was that the "international community" is non-sense. As far as deciding that the whole agreement is no longer in force, I don't see how that's an issue with the Chinese take. Without the agreement, the facts on the ground is that HK is under Chinese control, and the UK has no recourse but to invade it again. It's not like British control of HK was based on anything else before the agreement.

sudosysgen 5y ago

the Sino-British joint declaration has very specific wording on issues of national security that means thy China almost definitely gets away with this. Indeed, the Declaration gives the mainland full authority over national security matters, and as much as one wouldn't like it to be true, the Apple Daily does have/had direct links to the US government which just categorized the PRC as a security threat. From that point of view its hard to argue this isn't a national security matter. Certainly that doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected, in the best of words as long as they are clear with their biases media should be allowed to have such affiliations, but that doesn't make it less of a national security matter. Methinks China gets away with it even as a matter of legality wrt the Joint Declaration.