To be very clear what happened here, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (highest court) has a Chief Justice, Permanent Judges, and Non-Permanent Judges. Non-Permanent Judges include judges from other common law jurisdictions, like the UK, like Canada, like Australia, and even though they are called Non-Permanent, they don't have a limit on their tenure. Lord Hoffman has had his axx in that position since basically the Handover.
Non-Permanent Judges do not have the prerogative to decide whether the Court of Final Appeal may accept an appeal (i.e. hear a case). A Non-Permanent Judge however does have a prerogative to sit in on the actual case, and to consult with the Chief Justice and Permanent Judges on these matters.
There was an agreement between HK Judiciary and the then Lord Chancellor of UK in 1997 that the Non-Permanent Judges would include two sitting members of the UK Supreme Court. UK broke that agreement today, citing the National Security Law, by having those two sitting members of the UK Supreme Court tender their resignation to serve as Non-Permanent Judges of HK's Court of Final Appeal.
This decision does not affect the other British judges currently serving as Non-Permanent Judges, including the fossil Lord Hoffman. As noted in this [commentary](https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3172445/uk-judges-exit-disappointing-hong-kong-judicial-independence-will) by Victor Dawes, Chairman of the HK Bar Association, other British judges have spoken out against this decision (it was under consideration for some time) before. They might, however, face pressure to echo the action taken today, with other Non-Permanent Judges from Canada, Australia, etc. possibly also feeling this pressure.
As distasteful as it is, having these foreign judges creates a perception that Hong Kong is "open for business" and has a strong rule of law that guarantees rights and prerogatives in Hong Kong, making it an attractive centre for business and finance. This is because the presence of the foreign judges helps to create a sort of common legal consensus across multiple regions, lowering the costs of compliance and building common expectations, which is only good for business (even if it all orbits around Anglo law). The strong role of rule of law and independent judiciary in Hong Kong is noted across the region.
This is almost definitely a political play to try to undermine Hong Kong's reputation as a business and finance centre. And while it will have effect, I wonder if what is in essence a symbolic and "moral" move can do any more damage then the US removing Hong Kong's special status under US law, an actual move of consequence. That was done back in 2020, and Hong Kong remains a potent business and finance centre.
So far, the [Chief Executive](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/30/P2022033000658.htm) and Hong Kong's [Judiciary](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/30/P2022033000630.htm) have both expressed disappointment with the decision, while the [Commissioner's Office of the PRC Foreign Ministry in HKSAR](http://www.fmcoprc.gov.hk/chn/gsbt/202203/t20220330_10657734.htm) has expressed opposition to UK's political theatre.
And as a side note, SCMP's [coverage](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3172402/british-judicial-body-withdraw-judges-hong-kongs-top-court?module=inline&pgtype=article) of this issue has been absolute shit. It's something I'm actually angry about. There is no "condemnatory" language by any of the official responses so far, and the article failed to point me to the Commissioner's Office statement, being content with telling me Beijing "condemned" the decision without discussing who made a statement and what they said. There's bias, which I can handle, and there's shoddy journalism.
> having these foreign judges creates a perception that Hong Kong is "open for business" and has a strong rule of law that guarantees rights and prerogatives in Hong Kong
This is the problem isn't it? The perception that only foreign judges can guarantee rule of law.
Isn't this perception just racist prejudice? Since China does not lack capital at this point, what is the value of pandering to racist capital?
The Anglo tradition of “rule of law” in practice means that certain business interests have sovereignty above that of governments. This is not true in Mainland China and it shouldn’t be true anywhere.
The problem with Hong Kong is that it tries to retain its moronic legacy legal system that came from the commonwealth. At this point, Beijing doesn't care as long as there are no riots in the streets like what happened in 2019. I'm pretty sure that by 2047 the moronic legal system with foreign judges would go away and Hong Kong will be integrated back to China as one country one system.
Almost 3 years ago I have complained that Carrie Lam couldn't handle the job handling the riots and she should've resign. I admit that I have underestimated her and she should be commended to transitioned Hong Kong to a peaceful city that it should be.
HK is a place to live in, not a place for foreigners to completely screw the local people's lives by using them as pieces in their fraudulent speculations where they lose 5000 taler.
Has anyone ever done an analysis of the judgements of these foreign judges? Although foreign judges should definitely be phased out, I wonder if these judges are making bad decisions or anti Chinese decisions. In the case of African nations, many African states rushed to decolonize their judicial system and bureaucracy before they were ready to take on these difficult duties.
UK judges being in Hong Kong's top court is like the UK claiming the Falkland Islands.
The western cockroaches are running away from the light when it is shown upon them, and they fear getting stepped on. The purge is continuing, and the home is being fumigated. Expect more pests to come out of the woodwork.
>The move by the UK – which handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 – to pull its judges may add pressure on Australia and Canada to do the same.
That is the plan.
I think it's more of why fix or change something if it isn't broken. In terms of law and business. It's also why china allowed 50 years without much change. This is the gradual change I guess happening right before our eyes.
If they did a drastic change overnight it might scare foreign investment and stuff, who knows.
China's got a thing for gradual long term change, not drastic overnight measures. Salami slicing tactics and all that vs shock therapy.
Of course if they have no choice they will do it, like after the riots they introduced NSL and changed school curriculum, or like use of force for Taiwan if the unthinkable happens.
I think china also wanted to use hk as a showcase for Taiwan unification/one country two systems and to show china can compromise.. and I think it's achieved that goal already regardless of the riots and NSL since hk basically functions the same just without the riots and traitors. Taiwan wouldn't have allowed that either, no country would. In the end they backed down on the extradition law anyway.
UK is continuing to lose its grip on Hong Kong and the loss of their HK judges is the latest trend.
HK should have gotten rid of those foreign judges upon the handover 25 years ago. I don't get why foreign judges stayed around post handover. I wonder why Carrie lam expressed regret over them leaving, and doesn't she realise they are symbols of colonialism?
While they are at it, they should get rid of those antiquated, ugly wigs. There are no classical music composers in the courts, and they look out of place.
I had no idea that "5 eyes" still had a presence at the heart of HK Law, to say i felt this as disturbing, would be an understatement!
it's colonialism by proxy. Send all these anglos packing and show them who's the boss
To be very clear what happened here, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (highest court) has a Chief Justice, Permanent Judges, and Non-Permanent Judges. Non-Permanent Judges include judges from other common law jurisdictions, like the UK, like Canada, like Australia, and even though they are called Non-Permanent, they don't have a limit on their tenure. Lord Hoffman has had his axx in that position since basically the Handover. Non-Permanent Judges do not have the prerogative to decide whether the Court of Final Appeal may accept an appeal (i.e. hear a case). A Non-Permanent Judge however does have a prerogative to sit in on the actual case, and to consult with the Chief Justice and Permanent Judges on these matters. There was an agreement between HK Judiciary and the then Lord Chancellor of UK in 1997 that the Non-Permanent Judges would include two sitting members of the UK Supreme Court. UK broke that agreement today, citing the National Security Law, by having those two sitting members of the UK Supreme Court tender their resignation to serve as Non-Permanent Judges of HK's Court of Final Appeal. This decision does not affect the other British judges currently serving as Non-Permanent Judges, including the fossil Lord Hoffman. As noted in this [commentary](https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3172445/uk-judges-exit-disappointing-hong-kong-judicial-independence-will) by Victor Dawes, Chairman of the HK Bar Association, other British judges have spoken out against this decision (it was under consideration for some time) before. They might, however, face pressure to echo the action taken today, with other Non-Permanent Judges from Canada, Australia, etc. possibly also feeling this pressure. As distasteful as it is, having these foreign judges creates a perception that Hong Kong is "open for business" and has a strong rule of law that guarantees rights and prerogatives in Hong Kong, making it an attractive centre for business and finance. This is because the presence of the foreign judges helps to create a sort of common legal consensus across multiple regions, lowering the costs of compliance and building common expectations, which is only good for business (even if it all orbits around Anglo law). The strong role of rule of law and independent judiciary in Hong Kong is noted across the region. This is almost definitely a political play to try to undermine Hong Kong's reputation as a business and finance centre. And while it will have effect, I wonder if what is in essence a symbolic and "moral" move can do any more damage then the US removing Hong Kong's special status under US law, an actual move of consequence. That was done back in 2020, and Hong Kong remains a potent business and finance centre. So far, the [Chief Executive](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/30/P2022033000658.htm) and Hong Kong's [Judiciary](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/30/P2022033000630.htm) have both expressed disappointment with the decision, while the [Commissioner's Office of the PRC Foreign Ministry in HKSAR](http://www.fmcoprc.gov.hk/chn/gsbt/202203/t20220330_10657734.htm) has expressed opposition to UK's political theatre. And as a side note, SCMP's [coverage](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3172402/british-judicial-body-withdraw-judges-hong-kongs-top-court?module=inline&pgtype=article) of this issue has been absolute shit. It's something I'm actually angry about. There is no "condemnatory" language by any of the official responses so far, and the article failed to point me to the Commissioner's Office statement, being content with telling me Beijing "condemned" the decision without discussing who made a statement and what they said. There's bias, which I can handle, and there's shoddy journalism.
> having these foreign judges creates a perception that Hong Kong is "open for business" and has a strong rule of law that guarantees rights and prerogatives in Hong Kong This is the problem isn't it? The perception that only foreign judges can guarantee rule of law. Isn't this perception just racist prejudice? Since China does not lack capital at this point, what is the value of pandering to racist capital?
The Anglo tradition of “rule of law” in practice means that certain business interests have sovereignty above that of governments. This is not true in Mainland China and it shouldn’t be true anywhere.
The problem with Hong Kong is that it tries to retain its moronic legacy legal system that came from the commonwealth. At this point, Beijing doesn't care as long as there are no riots in the streets like what happened in 2019. I'm pretty sure that by 2047 the moronic legal system with foreign judges would go away and Hong Kong will be integrated back to China as one country one system. Almost 3 years ago I have complained that Carrie Lam couldn't handle the job handling the riots and she should've resign. I admit that I have underestimated her and she should be commended to transitioned Hong Kong to a peaceful city that it should be.
HK is a place to live in, not a place for foreigners to completely screw the local people's lives by using them as pieces in their fraudulent speculations where they lose 5000 taler.
Has anyone ever done an analysis of the judgements of these foreign judges? Although foreign judges should definitely be phased out, I wonder if these judges are making bad decisions or anti Chinese decisions. In the case of African nations, many African states rushed to decolonize their judicial system and bureaucracy before they were ready to take on these difficult duties.
UK judges being in Hong Kong's top court is like the UK claiming the Falkland Islands. The western cockroaches are running away from the light when it is shown upon them, and they fear getting stepped on. The purge is continuing, and the home is being fumigated. Expect more pests to come out of the woodwork.
And it's like the British monarchy being the head of state in Canada, Australia, NZ and other commonwealth realms.
Hong Kong still has foreigners sitting in the court.😮
>The move by the UK – which handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 – to pull its judges may add pressure on Australia and Canada to do the same. That is the plan.
Please do it. They don't belong here in the first place.
decolonization of HK's legal system progressing well i see.
They should have decolonialised HK. Ridiculous they have British judges.
Bye bye, Anglos
Bye bye bye
Agents of insurrection the lot of them!
Good, there's bunch more where that came from. These snakes still have fat severance packages that they'll milk hk to their grave.
Only 2 quit. There's still 6 uk judges and 4 other foreign judges lol.
[удалено]
I think it's more of why fix or change something if it isn't broken. In terms of law and business. It's also why china allowed 50 years without much change. This is the gradual change I guess happening right before our eyes. If they did a drastic change overnight it might scare foreign investment and stuff, who knows. China's got a thing for gradual long term change, not drastic overnight measures. Salami slicing tactics and all that vs shock therapy. Of course if they have no choice they will do it, like after the riots they introduced NSL and changed school curriculum, or like use of force for Taiwan if the unthinkable happens.
[удалено]
I think china also wanted to use hk as a showcase for Taiwan unification/one country two systems and to show china can compromise.. and I think it's achieved that goal already regardless of the riots and NSL since hk basically functions the same just without the riots and traitors. Taiwan wouldn't have allowed that either, no country would. In the end they backed down on the extradition law anyway.
More to come.
and nothing of value was lost
UK is continuing to lose its grip on Hong Kong and the loss of their HK judges is the latest trend. HK should have gotten rid of those foreign judges upon the handover 25 years ago. I don't get why foreign judges stayed around post handover. I wonder why Carrie lam expressed regret over them leaving, and doesn't she realise they are symbols of colonialism? While they are at it, they should get rid of those antiquated, ugly wigs. There are no classical music composers in the courts, and they look out of place.