One Country, Two Systems

One Country, Two Systems is a constitutional principle devised to manage the return of Hong Kong and Macau to the People's Republic of China while preserving their pre-existing Common law and civil law systems, economic structures, and social arrangements. Proposed by Deng Xiaoping and formalized through agreements such as the Joint Declaration (Sino-British) and the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, it created distinct administrative arrangements embodied in the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Basic Law of Macau. The framework has been central to debates involving Beijing, Central People's Government (PRC), local administrations, and international actors including United Kingdom, Portugal, United States, European Union, and United Nations.

Background and Legal Framework

The principle originated in the early 1980s when negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom over the future of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories led to the 1984 Joint Declaration (Sino-British). Simultaneously, talks between Beijing and Lisbon produced the 1987 Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration concerning Macau. The legal architecture relied on instruments such as the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Basic Law of Macau, promulgated by the National People's Congress under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Key legal concepts included high degree of autonomy, the maintenance of common law in Hong Kong and civil law traditions in Macau, protection of rights under documents like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its application status, and specific arrangements for currency (Hong Kong dollar, Macanese pataca), immigration and customs via bodies like the Hong Kong Immigration Department and Macao Customs Service. Implementation timelines and the "50 years" principle referenced the year 2047 for Hong Kong and 2049 for Macau in public discourse.

Implementation in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, the policy was operationalized through the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region established on 1 July 1997, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong office, the Executive Council of Hong Kong, and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. The judiciary, including the Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong) and the High Court (Hong Kong), continued common law practices, while economic institutions like the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and Hong Kong Monetary Authority preserved market-oriented structures. Tensions emerged involving the roles of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and mechanisms such as Article 23 of the Basic Law and Article 45 of the Basic Law concerning universal suffrage. High-profile events and movements—2003 Hong Kong protests, Umbrella Movement, 2014 Hong Kong protests, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests—involved actors like Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong), Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong), Legislative Council of Hong Kong, and civil society organizations including Hong Kong Federation of Students and Civic Party. Responses included legislation such as the National Security Law (Hong Kong) enacted in 2020 by the National People's Congress Standing Committee and changes in electoral rules overseen by bodies like the Election Committee (Hong Kong).

Implementation in Macau

Macau's transition on 20 December 1999 established the Macao Special Administrative Region with institutions such as the Chief Executive of Macau, the Executive Council of Macau, and the Legislative Assembly of Macau. Macau retained its Portuguese legal tradition and a civil law system administered by courts like the Court of Final Appeal (Macao). Economic links centered on the gaming industry with operators including Sands China, SJM Holdings, and regulatory oversight from the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau. Social and cultural accommodations involved entities such as the Macao Basic Law Drafting Committee and ties to Portuguese-speaking countries coordinated via the Forum for Economic and Trade Co-operation Between China and Portuguese-speaking Countries. Macau's governance experienced fewer large-scale protests than Hong Kong, with political dynamics involving the Macau Federation of Trade Unions and pro-establishment parties.

Political and Social Impacts

The principle affected political institutions like the National People's Congress, local Legislative Council of Hong Kong, Legislative Assembly of Macau, and regional bodies such as the Hong Kong Bar Association and Macau Lawyers Association. Socially, it influenced civil rights debates involving the Freedom of Speech in Hong Kong, Freedom of Assembly, press organizations including the South China Morning Post, Apple Daily, Ming Pao, and international media such as BBC, The New York Times, and The Guardian. Economically, interactions with entities like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and multinational firms such as HSBC and Bank of China (Hong Kong) shaped market confidence. Cross-border issues involved Mainland Chinese migration, Greater Bay Area initiatives, and infrastructure projects like the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge and Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link, prompting debate among groups such as Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

Legal and International Responses

International responses engaged diplomatic actors including the United Kingdom, Portugal, United States Department of State, European Union External Action Service, and multilateral forums like the United Nations Human Rights Council. Legal challenges arose in courts such as the Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong), and international legal commentary referenced instruments like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Sanctions and policy shifts involved entities like the United States Congress, Hong Kong Policy Act, and visa policies from national governments. Debates over extradition, judicial independence, and the scope of autonomy engaged scholars affiliated with institutions like Harvard Law School, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and University of Macau, as well as NGOs including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Category:Politics of China