a reply to: RAY1990
That's not how "law" works. Law is based on using words to convince people of certain things. There is no "reality" in law, it's all fiction and
basically you just believe whatever story sounds best.
Because HK is in a "gray area" of "autonomy", and is "transitional", than I am at complete liberty to use legal language to paint this picture the way
I want to see it. And that's completely legitimate in "law". If it weren't legitimate, than we wouldn't have lawyers arguing multiple "views" and
having a judge make "decisions" on what side of the story he believes the most. Also we wouldn't have appeals and higher courts, challenges and
objections, etc. So not only is the judge's decisions up for dispute, but anything and everything can be disputed multiple times and "our views" can
change and shift as the years pass by.
It is completely mutable and nothing is ever set in stone until all's said and done.
With that said, I'm saying that HK is not only not part of the PRC, but that it's in the perfect position to declare itself independent based on the
legal principles of self-determination and that the PRC violates human rights systematically. The ICCPR is a good starting point for them being able
to go forward with the process of creating barriers to the PRC and making it difficult for them to do anything unless they use military force to
Most people in HK not only identify as "Hong Kongers", but the vast majority of them do not identify as "Chinese" and dislike the entire concept of
ever having to identify as "Chinese".
Taiwan is a good example of a region that used the gray area of legalese to stonewall China's attempts at controlling it directly. The scales tip back
and forth a lot but the situation is similar in various ways.
Point being, if and when the PRC moves it's military in and starts disappearing and killing HK citizens claiming "they are terrorists/rebels/etc" I
will be here telling you that's not true, and that the PRC is tyrannical oppressive and psychopathic, and that their only method of control is "might
is right" and that this is illegal under international law and a war crime.
I could go on about this for hours, and I've said a lot of stuff in this and other threads, and my thinking is developing as time is progressing. But
basically I'm going to continue saying HK is not only not part of China, but that it's in the perfect position to declare independence and/or claim
that it's rightfully part of the Nationalist "Republic of China" govt (the one that existed before the Commies took over).
I mean really think about it. The ROC could still be considered completely legitimate here as rightful owners of HK, and we could say that the PRC is
a "terrorist" entity, or "illegitimate" in whatever legalese we can devise.
For example read this:
History of Taiwan since 1945
Today, only 17 UN member states (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Paraguay, Swaziland, Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and Palau) and the Holy See maintain relations with the
The Holy See still recognizes it, and as any good conspiracy theorist knows, they are one of the most important voices politically in the world. Heck,
some people think they rule the world in conjunction with London and DC.
Even the PRC grudgingly recognizes the ROC's political legitimacy:
On 7 November 2015, a meeting was held by ROC president Ma Ying-jeou and Communist Party's General Secretary Xi Jinping in Singapore.
So I'd even go so far as to say that the ROC is the rightful govt of all of China, despite being in exile, and that they are the rightful owners of HK
and that any treaties made between the UK and the PRC are null and void on their face because the PRC never had a legitimate claim to HK to begin
So let's see the pro PRC people argue against that and build a more convincing legal claim. I know they can easily just drive a bunch of tanks in and
kill anyone who disagrees and just take the island by force, but that's illegal and a war crime so it doesn't make their claims legitimate by
international law or the principles and theories of law.