Two Views of Hong Kong's Basic Law: But Hong Kong Should Seek A Better Way
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the nearly nine years since Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China, one curious aspect of the relationship is more clear than ever: Hong Kong’s primary political and legal difficulties in maintaining as much autonomy as possible stem, most of all, from an “insufficiency of One Country.” \n \nIn the debates about Hong Kong’s post-1997 relationship with Beijing, “One Country” usually signifies (depending on where one stands in the debates) either: (a) the need to adhere to the primacy of the PRC in the One Country, Two Systems (OCTS) formula; or (b) excessive Beijing dominance, directly or indirectly, of political life in the HKSAR. However, there is quite another way of looking at One Country. When one considers the wide range of other jurisdictions with powerful regional governments and identities (Canada, Switzerland and the USA, for example) almost always there is basic agreement on the central-regional, legal relationship within one country. This is, too often, still not the case regarding the relationship between Hong Kong and Beijing. If we did have fundamental agreement on the detail of the political-legal relationship within One Country, we would be far better placed. That, indeed, is what both sides should be working towards. \n \nThis paper sets out to explain why this is so, under three main headings: \n \n1. The constitutional position of the HKSAR within the Chinese constitutional structure. \n2. The lack of adequate institutional arrangements to facilitate negotiations and settle disputes between Hong Kong and Beijing. \n3. The relative success of cross-border, Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) measures - which highlight the direction of possible reform by demonstrating what can be achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".