Hong Kong’s Strict Immigration Control: The Family as the Unit of Non-Protection and Deprivation of Human Rights Protection

P. Lo
{"title":"Hong Kong’s Strict Immigration Control: The Family as the Unit of Non-Protection and Deprivation of Human Rights Protection","authors":"P. Lo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3507902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) provides in Article 39 the continuing in force of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR) “as applied in Hong Kong” and the implementation of those provisions through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Yet, the HKSAR courts have, in a series of cases, interpreted Article 39 to provide for the domestication of the treaty reservation of immigration legislation and its application in Hong Kong in respect of persons who are subject to immigration control to the effect that the administration of strict immigration control policy by the HKSAR Government is not subject to judicial scrutiny for compliance with fundamental human rights protected under the Basic Law and international human rights instruments applicable to Hong Kong. In April 2019, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal held in its judgment in the Comilang case that the Director of Immigration was not required to take into account the enjoyment of family rights in Hong Kong when the Director makes a decision on whether a foreign national parent should be permitted to remain to take care of her minor child and live in Hong Kong as a family. This judgment turned the recognition in international human rights law of the family as the fundamental group unit of society for protection on its head. This Paper critiques this judgment. and concludes with observations on its domestic and international implications.","PeriodicalId":108281,"journal":{"name":"Women & Law eJournal","volume":"75 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women & Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3507902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) provides in Article 39 the continuing in force of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR) “as applied in Hong Kong” and the implementation of those provisions through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Yet, the HKSAR courts have, in a series of cases, interpreted Article 39 to provide for the domestication of the treaty reservation of immigration legislation and its application in Hong Kong in respect of persons who are subject to immigration control to the effect that the administration of strict immigration control policy by the HKSAR Government is not subject to judicial scrutiny for compliance with fundamental human rights protected under the Basic Law and international human rights instruments applicable to Hong Kong. In April 2019, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal held in its judgment in the Comilang case that the Director of Immigration was not required to take into account the enjoyment of family rights in Hong Kong when the Director makes a decision on whether a foreign national parent should be permitted to remain to take care of her minor child and live in Hong Kong as a family. This judgment turned the recognition in international human rights law of the family as the fundamental group unit of society for protection on its head. This Paper critiques this judgment. and concludes with observations on its domestic and international implications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
香港严格的移民管制:以家庭为单位的不保护与剥夺人权保障
《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》(《基本法》)第三十九条规定,《公民政治权利国际公约》(《公民政治权利国际公约》)“适用于香港”的条款继续有效,并通过香港特别行政区的法律予以实施。然而,香港特别行政区法院在一系列案件中,解释《基本法》第39条,规定将入境法例的条约保留条款归化,并将其适用于受入境管制的人士,以使香港特别行政区政府执行严格的入境管制政策不受司法审查,以遵守《基本法》和适用于香港的国际人权文书所保障的基本人权。2019年4月,香港终审法院在科美朗案的判决中裁定,入境事务处处长在决定是否应允许外籍父母留港照顾未成年子女并以家庭身份在香港生活时,无须考虑在香港享有的家庭权利。这一判决颠覆了国际人权法对家庭作为社会保护的基本群体单位的承认。本文对这一判断进行了批判。最后对其国内和国际影响进行了评述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Where White Men Rule: How the Secretive System of Forced Arbitration Hurts Women and Minorities Conflict as Catalyst: The Role of Conflict in Creating Political Space for Women How Intra-Household Bargaining Power Affects Female Entrepreneurship? Capping Motherhood: An Equality-Based Analysis of the UK Benefit Cap Cases The Practices and Challenges Faced by Girls / Womens of India Regarding Menstrual Hygiene, Management, and Waste Disposal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1