If China can unilaterally declare the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong a “historical document”, why should countries continue to recognize even older “historical documents” on Taiwan?
Thank you for raising this point. After checking with my colleagues, I can confirm that the idea that China unilaterally declare the Sino-British Joint Declaration irrelevant is actually a misunderstanding. The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s remarks in 2017 were responding to the UK government’s claim on Hong Kong.
In 2021, Beijing explicitly invoked the UK’s failure to honor aspects of the Declaration, an indication that China clearly acknowledges the Declaration’s existence and legal validity.
The primary purpose of the Joint Declaration was to set out the arrangements between China and the United Kingdom regarding the return of Hong Kong. Once Hong Kong was returned in 1997, that purpose was fulfilled. After 1997, Hong Kong’s governance has operated under the Basic Law and falls entirely within China’s internal affairs. Under this framework, any attempt by the UK to invoke the Joint Declaration as a pretext to interfere in Hong Kong’s post-return affairs is not justified nor legitimate. When the Chinese Foreign Ministry referred to the Declaration as a “historical document,” it was in this specific context.
And btw, the four political documents between China and Japan have been repetitively affirmed by the two country’s leadership these years. Their natures are different from the China-Britain one.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand the distinction you're making.
To me there have been some new interpretations in recent years. With regards to Hong Kong in particular, the Joint Declaration isn't just about handover logistics, Article 3.5 states that these provisions were meant to operate for 50 years after the handover. Acknowledging Chris Patten's violation of the treaty decades ago or that the UK no longer has a supervisory role after the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group ceased operation doesn’t change this.
I was a proud resident of Hong Kong and I'm not impressed that the treaty and Basic Law were recently reinterpreted.
I hope China can return to a proper implementation of the Basic Law in Hong Kong. I might then return as a proud resident.
As of now internationally, Deng Xiaoping's hopes that Hong Kong would be a beacon for Taiwan unification have been totally defeated.
I would encourage you to read the following paper. Thank you.
If China can unilaterally declare the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong a “historical document”, why should countries continue to recognize even older “historical documents” on Taiwan?
Thank you for raising this point. After checking with my colleagues, I can confirm that the idea that China unilaterally declare the Sino-British Joint Declaration irrelevant is actually a misunderstanding. The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s remarks in 2017 were responding to the UK government’s claim on Hong Kong.
In 2021, Beijing explicitly invoked the UK’s failure to honor aspects of the Declaration, an indication that China clearly acknowledges the Declaration’s existence and legal validity.
The primary purpose of the Joint Declaration was to set out the arrangements between China and the United Kingdom regarding the return of Hong Kong. Once Hong Kong was returned in 1997, that purpose was fulfilled. After 1997, Hong Kong’s governance has operated under the Basic Law and falls entirely within China’s internal affairs. Under this framework, any attempt by the UK to invoke the Joint Declaration as a pretext to interfere in Hong Kong’s post-return affairs is not justified nor legitimate. When the Chinese Foreign Ministry referred to the Declaration as a “historical document,” it was in this specific context.
And btw, the four political documents between China and Japan have been repetitively affirmed by the two country’s leadership these years. Their natures are different from the China-Britain one.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand the distinction you're making.
To me there have been some new interpretations in recent years. With regards to Hong Kong in particular, the Joint Declaration isn't just about handover logistics, Article 3.5 states that these provisions were meant to operate for 50 years after the handover. Acknowledging Chris Patten's violation of the treaty decades ago or that the UK no longer has a supervisory role after the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group ceased operation doesn’t change this.
I was a proud resident of Hong Kong and I'm not impressed that the treaty and Basic Law were recently reinterpreted.
I hope China can return to a proper implementation of the Basic Law in Hong Kong. I might then return as a proud resident.
As of now internationally, Deng Xiaoping's hopes that Hong Kong would be a beacon for Taiwan unification have been totally defeated.
I would encourage you to read the following paper. Thank you.
https://rajawali.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/12/overholt_hong_kong_paper_final.pdf