Skip to main content

《展拓香港界址專條》只係一份歷史文件，不再具有任何現實意義

最近追緊套動畫番背景係九龍寨城。所以就多手望下啲相關嘅無聊嘢。

由於唔熟書，啱啱先知道原來九龍寨城雖然本身係俾清政府駐軍，但好似屁股未坐熱就俾英軍趕走咗。我仲以為駐守咗一段時期𠻹。

再查落去就開始有少少得意，乜唔係《展拓香港界址專條》寫明個地方留俾清政府㗎咩？點解可以趕人走？

睇返啲條文就覺得件事真係十分之on9。條約係咁寫：

"... within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong."

另外有一段

"It is further understood that there will be no expropriation or expulsion of the inhabitants of the district included within the extension, and that if land is required for public offices, fortifications, or the like official purposes, it shall be bought at a fair price."

之後冇幾耐 (過咗一年)，英方就話清兵喺度駐守有礙香港防務，趕晒佢哋走。然後就有個 order in council 話將九龍寨城當係一般英殖香港領土：

"The City of Kowloon shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, for the term of the lease in the said Convention mentioned, part and parcel of Her Majesty's Colony of Hong Kong, in like manner and for all intents and purposes as if it had originally formed part of the said Colony." -- Kowloon City Order in Council (1899)

呢件事最後好似冇發生，真係令人感慨英國果然係法治國家。據中文維基所述，李鴻章向當時港督據理力爭，話你點可以違反簽好咗嘅條約。港英政府最後放棄喺九龍寨城實施管治權。由於條約寫明英方唔可以侵佔或驅趕居民，最後九龍寨城就發展成咁。而清政府後來冇再派人去九龍，相信都係想避免英方再次話清駐軍「唔符合香港防衛的軍事需求」。「唔派員駐守就阻唔到你啦？咁你就冇籍口攞咗佢嚟用。」（設計對白）

作為「歷史文件」嚟講，成件事都真係好膠。法治大法真好。


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump v. CASA, Inc. et al.

The recent Trump case was one of the most eye-opening and confusing judgments I've read. For context, Trump signed an executive order to re-interpret "birthright" citizenship limiting it to children born in USA by at least one parent with US citizenship. A couple district courts ordered preliminary injunctions against its enforcement. The government eventually argued to the Supreme Court that the preliminary injunctions were too broad in scope. The court with an apparently 6:3 majority decided that the lower courts had no right to award "universal injunctions" beyond the scope of the plaintiffs seeking the injunction. Federal courts' power to issue injunctions apparently stems from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits... in equity". This is nothing exciting, except that the USSC then declares that the scope of "equity" is basically the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery in Engla...
Post a Comment
Read more

Reconciling apparent inconsistencies within the Basic Law -- what is the proper approach?

What happens when two different pieces of legislation contradict each other? In common law, one could apply the principle of "implied repeal", where the subsequent legislation would be considered to have repealed the earlier one. But the Basic Law has not undergone amendments since its promulgation in 1990, so this does not apply. Another common way to resolve apparent contradictions is to consider that the more general provision be qualified by the more specific one. Yet in cases where fundamental rights are at issue, courts may instead adopt a " generous interpretation ", restricting the scope of those provisions that appear to restrict fundamental rights. Indeed, this was the approach laid out by the Court of Final Appeal in 1999 in Ng Ka Ling : The courts should give a generous interpretation to the provisions in Chapter III that contain these constitutional guarantees in order to give to Hong Kong residents the full measure of fundamental rights and freedoms so...
Post a Comment
Read more