Jerome Cohen on China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the ICCPR (Video of HKU Seminar)

Professor Jerome Cohen of NYU Law School and Faculty Director of the US-Asian Law Institute recently delivered a lecture at the Centre for Chinese Law, HKU Faculty of Law, on 12 January 2017. The lecture was chaired by Professor Cohen's former student, Cheng Chan Yue Professor in Constitutional Law, Professor Albert Chen.  The abstract for the speech is as follows:

On the 50th anniversary of the creation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I will discuss China’s relevance to the UN’s quest for universal ratification of this major human rights treaty. In view of the ICCPR’s guarantees of freedoms of expression and religion, the restrictions that it imposes on the power of governments to punish people arbitrarily, and its strong support for the right to self-determination of all peoples, why did the People’s Republic sign the Covenant in 1998? Why then has it failed to ratify the ICCPR and what are the prospects? I will compare Beijing’s record with the very different position of the Republic of China on Taiwan and also refer to the unusual situation of Hong Kong (and Macao), a special administrative region of the People’s Republic that is protected by the ICCPR even in the absence of ratification by the central government.

Tony Carty on Hong Kong's Electoral Standoff

"Hong Kong's electoral standoff: the bigger picture"
Tony Carty
South China Morning Post
13 May 2015

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that every citizen shall have the right to stand for election and to vote without unreasonable restrictions. In the case of Hong Kong, there is an original UK reservation to the applicability of the article to the territory, continued by Beijing.

     The arguments around the legal effectiveness of this reservation are well known and complex. What has still to be recalled is that international law, of which the covenant is a part, remains the law among sovereign states. It regulates the relations of states on a consensual basis.

     Generally, this law does not try to regulate the birth or constitution of states or their internal affairs, simply because this is beyond the physical capacity and also outside the interest of most states. At the same time, there is no international judicial authority or legal sanctioning framework, whereby states impose on one another legal duties with respect to one another's internal affairs...  Click here to read the full article.

Davis: HK Government Must Face Up to Human Rights Responsibilities

"Hong Kong government must face up to responsibilities on human rights"

Hiding behind court orders and power of police won't make calls for universal suffrage go away

South China Morning Post

2 December 2014

Michael Davis

As court orders, followed by more aggressive police tactics, seek to clear the streets in Mong Kok and Admiralty, the non-violent civil disobedience campaign in Hong Kong has reached a climax.  For two months, the protesters have impressed the world with their peaceful sit-ins. Allegations that they are undermining the rule of law have met with scepticism.  In this moment of difficulty, we should not lose sight of the fact that primary responsibility for maintaining the rule of law rests with the government. The administration cannot simply hide behind civil court orders and police powers in exercising its responsibility. How it tackles the many problems with the underlying reform process will be crucial.  Click here to read the full article.

Professor Davis also wrote a short piece on "Assessing the 'Umbrella Movement' in Hong Kong" for the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute Blog on 1 December 2014.  He argues that it is "facile" to believe the Occupy protests have achieved nothing.  Going forwards the regional and central governments need public support to govern, and "only the Hong Kong Government is in a position to restore confidence in governance".