Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 11 - Aftermath

  • from Part III - 2014–2021
  • C. L. Lim, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • Book:
    Treaty for a Lost City
    Published online:
    28 July 2022
    Print publication:
    11 August 2022, pp 239-263

  • Summary

    US, Finland and Ireland, in response to China’s National Security Law, suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong. France stated that it would not be ratifying an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. These suspensions ostensibly were intended to safeguard the rights of nationals (and others) in the suspending States. In some cases such as the UK the same act could constitute retorsion, meaning that it could have been intended as a patently lawful (albeit less than friendly) reaction to the National Security Law. Thus, a foreign State – albeit apparently not the UK which, as a party to the Sino–British Joint Declaration, had declared a breach of the Sino–British treaty – could still treat the National Security Law as Beijing’s lawful prerogative, or in any case may have no clear legal right to press, yet still react with a perfectly lawful act of its own to show its displeasure.