陳情廣告的法理脈絡

陳情廣告的法理脈絡

雖然北京在〈中英聯合聲明〉裡做出「在五十年內不變」具體宣誓，但在香港成為禁臠後，便以各種方式改變承諾。最新的奧步，是要求香港修改〈送中條例〉。

In 1982, Beijing solemnly vowed that "any Hong Kong’s previous capitalist and social-style shall remain unchanged for fifty years."  However, shortly after the sovereignty of Hong Kong restored to China, Beijing kept violating its commitment.  The latest trial is Beijing demanded the Hong Kong government to amend the deportation law, allowing the people in Hong Kong being deported to China under the "request" of Beijing.

北京不僅明顯違反〈基本法〉，更妄指〈中英聯合聲明〉為「歷史文件、不具約束力」，公然否定國際法效力。維吾爾族被集體關入集中營，觸發香港人對〈送中條例〉的深層恐懼，週週上街抗議。北京聯合黑道肆虐街頭還覺不夠，近日更鋪陳出動解放軍鎮壓的氛圍，八一或是時間點。而六四屠夫李鵬恰巧過世，使情勢更加詭譎。

Beijing denies the principle of international law further by asserting that the Sino-UK Joint Declaration of 1984 is a historical document, without binding force.  The fact that Beijing sent millions of Uyghur people to the concentration camps has triggered the deepest fear of Hongkongers.  They fear to become the next Uyghur.  Beijing does not only encourage local gangsters to hit the people who were joining the protests but also considered to instruct PLA to suppress the protests by mentioning the PLA Garrison Law.  The situation is even harsh: Li Peng, the late Chinese premier who won the title of the Butcher of Tiananmen, died on July 22, and August 1st, the 92nd anniversary of PLA.

此時有團體刊登「保衛台灣，重奪香港」廣告，強調台港間唇亡齒寒關係。

Meantime, standwithhk.org, a Hong Kong-based NGO, posted a petition on Liberty Times with the title “taking back Hong Kong to protect Taiwan.”

雖然香港景況令人擔憂與同情，但廣告無視台灣治理當局存在，漠視台灣自治領地位，僅以台灣「人」為訴求對象，其世界觀仍有大問題。

Although all the world is concerned about and relents on the developments in Hong Kong, the petition did not follow the rules of international law in calling for "Taiwanese people," while neglecting the Dominion status of Taiwan and the existence of the Governing Authorities on Taiwan.  The contents revealed the author knew less about the international legal issues. 

廣告第二段說：〈南京條約〉歷史原件在台灣，由「台灣人」繼承至今，英國理應將香港歸還「台灣人」。此種以信物證明主權，且以人為國際法唯一主體，顯然誤解國際法。

In the second paragraph, the author alleged that because "Taiwanese" holds the original copy of the Treaty of Nanjing of 1842, the UK government should return Hong Kong to "Taiwanese," not China.  The author further misinterpreted international law by saying that the "holding of the original copy" is the solid proof of the sovereignty, and the "people" who hold the copy are entitled to enjoy the sovereignty.

在「西發里亞體制」後，國家／政府的合法性早已轉為透過「相互承認」而成；近代民主化後，更奠基契約論，經由人民普遍選舉，賦予政府權力與合法性。今天若還有人否認此無形的權力／權利與授權，選擇迷戀實體信物，無異大開文明倒車。

After the establishment of the Westphalia system, the legitimacy of state/government has changed from the mandate of the Pope to the inter-recognition of the existing states.  In a modern democratic system, which based on John Locke’s social contract theory, the power and the legitimacy of the government/administration is mandated by the people through general elections.  Reverting to the ways of thinking and acting of a former time is nonsense if people still regard the physical copy or seal is the solid proof of legal right or power.

能進行領土主權移轉的主體，不是「一群人」，必須是合法政府，但廣告卻指「台灣人」繼承〈南京條約〉，且指源頭是李登輝總統。錯！為服務蔣家法統論，中英談判前ROC外交部早有研究並主張：條約原件在手，香港該歸ROC。

A group of people, even they have the original copy of legal documents, is NOT entitled to enjoy the sovereignty of Hong Kong.  It is also not correct saying that the former President Lee Teng-hui who is Taiwanese is the first stateman stating so. 

Before the talks between U.K. and China in 1982, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist government in Taiwan asserted that the U. K. should negotiate with KMT and return Hong Kong to the Nationalist government because the latter retained the original copy of the treaty.  It was an easy conclusion in compliance with the harsh political atmosphere then.

國家、政府、政權是不同層次的概念，但「政府」代表「國家」的簡單事實，卻被漢字給搞混了，唯有把「支那」（China音譯）拿出來用，才能正確理解：支那是「國家」；大清、ROC、PRC是前後相繼的「政府」；蔣李扁馬蔡是「政權」。

Chinese people tend to mix up "state, government, and administration."  They are confused with the idea "the government represents the state" because of the ambiguous expression of Chinese.  For example, in Chinese "China"(中國) is the "middle state"(中央國); while "the Republic of China(中華民國)," the government of China, the "popular middle state"(共和中央國).  State and government thus become identical in Chinese.  No wonder Chinese people is impossible to sense the difference between the two.  It is better to apply SHI-NA(支那), a transliteration of China, into Chinese.  Thus the concepts are clearer to Chinese people: SHI-NA(支那) is the state China; Qing, ROC, PRC is different governments of SHI-NA(支那政府); while Chiang, Lee, Chen, Ma, Tsai are various administrations of the government ROC.

不容否認，ROC確曾為支那合法政府，但1949年已死；PRC繼而被國際社會承認為支那合法政府。倫敦歸還新界（租借地）給支那合法政府，順便割讓香港與九龍給支那合法政府，是兩件事。前者是租約的明文義務；後者是聯合王國政府的政治判斷。

It is indisputable that ROC, extinguished in 1949, was once the legitimate government of SHI-NA.  PRC inherited and was recognized as the legitimate government of SHI-NA later soon.  London, the legitimate government of the United Kingdom, returned the New Territory, a leased territory, to SHI-NA's legitimate government PRC because the treaty stipulated so.  Returning New Territory is the treaty obligation of London.  However, it is London's political decision to cede Hong Kong and Kowloon to the legitimate government of SHI-NA, now PRC.  They are two different legal issues.

面對港人遭受凌虐，台灣人在警惕北京進逼之餘，仍應仔細辨明國際法理才好。

Facing the tragic fate of Hongkongers; still, Taiwanese people have to follow the theory of international law closely.

【姊妹文章】

〈保衛台灣．重奪香港〉廣告脈絡 有違國際法理