2019年9月8日，示威者遊行呼籲美國國會在中國香港通過《香港人權與民主法》。圖片來源：路透社

2019年9月25日，美國參眾兩院外交委員會通過了《香港人權與民主法案》，對香港事務進行更為直接、具體及深入的干預。以目前的中美關係惡化情勢、貿易談判僵局以及香港牌的獨特政治效用來看，該法案預期會最終通過。特朗普行政當局對法案執行有較大的政策裁量權，這就為中美政治博弈及利益協調留下了一定空間。

該法案既是美國戰略鷹派的傑作，也是香港反對派極力遊說的產物。與此同時，美國也在極力推動“台北法案”，以全力維護台灣的“邦交國秩序”，確保台灣具有最低限度的國際地位與影響力。美國傾盡國家立法資源和全球性戰略資源而支持香港反對派及台獨勢力，是一種典型的對他國國內事務的長臂管轄。這一干預對中國國家主權利益以及國際法原則構成了直接損害。

香港法案的主要內容本屬美國外交政策範疇，但卻被制定成國會法律，這是其“政策法律化”的治理習慣使然。從法案歸屬的部門法體系及制度功能來看，香港法案是對1992年《香港政策法》的修訂和升級。《香港政策法》制定於中國改革轉型的特殊時間點，基本背景包括：其一，美國因應《中英聯合聲明》及香港回歸帶來的香港地位與港美關係變化，從法律技術而言有確認和調整新的港美經貿關係的立法需要，美國同期也制定了《澳門政策法》；其二，1989事件後香港民主派對美加強遊說以及美國鷹派對華制裁力量的推動，造成《香港政策法》越過單純的經貿議題而觸及對所謂香港人權與民主的保障問題。2019年的香港法案則屬於1992年法案中對香港人權與民主保障條款的細化與系統化，因應回歸22年來尤其是十八大以來中央“積極治港”帶來的香港治權結構及對外關係上的若干變化。

美國將香港經貿地位與香港自治地位（主要是人權與民主狀況）掛鉤，將香港嚴格識別為區別於內地的單獨關稅區、司法管轄區甚至政治實體。美國的香港政策法及最新法案將香港的經貿獨立性混同於政治獨立性，對香港人權與民主事務進行超常規干預，嚴重違反了“一國兩制”與基本法秩序。法案條款主要進行了如下方面的規制：其一，對香港憲制基礎及香港人權與民主的認知與保障；其二，對香港自治地位與經貿地位的年度評估；其三，對香港抗爭人士的優待與保護；其四，對侵害香港人自由權利的執法者的制裁；其五，對香港遵守美國出口管制情況的調查與制裁；其六，對美國在港公民與利益的保護。從國際法理而言，這些保護類別通常都應當在中國憲法和基本法下進行，但美國直接繞開中國法律而訴諸自身國內法進行保護及採取相應制裁措施，是對中國司法主權與香港高度自治地位的法律侵害與挑戰。美國要求中國政府尊重香港高度自治地位，自身卻直接通過國內法侵害香港自治地位，其行為邏輯存在法理上的嚴重混亂和錯位。

法案的諸多細節存在法理錯誤甚至事實錯誤，這表明美國國會立法倉促成形，政治挂帥，未能審慎調查和確認有關法律背景及事實，因而即便法案通過，美國行政當局對於操作性不強及政治性過於凸顯的這部法案，至少是其中部分條款，顯然也是難以執行的。美國既往的政策性、干預性立法也存在相當比例的“啞巴法律”情形，即法律生效，但法律難以執行。不過，鑒於美國當前對華遏制戰略的全面性和深刻性，這部法案的部分條款顯然會被選擇性執行及人為放大，甚至可能遭到濫用。

法案細節的錯誤包括但不限於：其一，對香港普選時間表的設定完全不具有可操作性，如法案規定香港應不遲於2020年實現雙普選，這是完全不符合基本法特別是“八三一決定”相關法律規定的輕率言論，如果不是蓄謀已久（比如2015年政改失敗後即準備此法案），就是法盲本質；其二，對香港抗爭者權利提供無保留的支持，而對香港執法者要求過嚴，嚴重不公，變相支持香港暴亂持續進行；其三，對香港執法者的制裁威脅嚴重損害香港法治和民主程序，嚴重損害香港高度自治權力，嚴重破壞基本法秩序，為本土分離及港獨勢力的大發展提供超強政治支持，是極端不負責任的“顏色革命”行為；其四，法案對香港經貿地位的威脅是對美國在港利益的誤判和忽視，未能充分評估香港平台對美國商業利益的巨大價值及中國以“一國兩制”框架維繫這一平台的多方共贏本質；其五，法案對大灣區技術創新中的香港角色估計過高，對中國的技術冷戰思維太過凸顯；其六，法案對香港憲制基礎存在法理認知錯誤，將“聯合聲明”與“基本法”並列，抬高“聯合聲明”的憲制地位，這是對中國憲法與基本法共同作為香港憲制基礎的規範性扭曲，可能進一步誘導香港示威者進行極限化的分離抗爭及去國家化。

總之，美國涉港新法案是其長臂管轄和干預主義立法的再次展現，對“一國兩制”與基本法秩序構成直接危害，向暴力示威者提供極限保護和鼓動，對本次運動的止暴制亂與恢復法治構成直接的阻撓與對沖。該法案也將為中美新一輪貿易談判及中美關係的宏觀風險控制製造難題與障礙，是美國外交政策與國際政治行為缺乏自信和責任感的體現。

Protesters march to call for the United States Congress to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in Hong Kong, China September 8, 2019.Source:Reuters

On Oct. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 — a blatant and direct interference in Hong Kong affairs. If it becomes law, the Trump administration will have wide discretionary power in enforcing the act, leaving much room for political games and interest bargaining with China.

The act was a product of the China hawks in the U.S. and something desperately sought by the Hong Kong opposition. Meanwhile, legislators in the United States were also attempting to adopt the Taipei Act, which was intended to retain Taiwan's diplomatic allies and help Taiwan maintain minimal international standing and influence. When the U.S. deploys its legislative and global strategic resources to rub shoulders with Hong Kong's opposition and Taiwan separatists, it shows its typical desire to exert “long-arm jurisdiction” over others' internal affairs. Such interference constitutes a direct infringement of China's sovereignty and interests, as well as principles of international law.

The content of the Hong Kong act should have fallen into the category of diplomacy, but it was made into a bill by the U.S. Congress, as is its habitual practice. The act is a sort of amendment or upgrade of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which was enacted at a special point during China's reform process against the following background:First, the U.S., in reaction to changes in Hong Kong's status and in Hong Kong-U.S. relations after the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the region's return to the motherland, had the legislative need to set forth and adjust its economic and trade relations with Hong Kong. It enacted a similar policy for Macao.Second, because of the intensified lobbying by democracy advocates in Hong Kong and hawkish forces in the U.S. calling for sanctions on China following the 1989 incident, the Hong Kong Policy Act no longer focused solely on economic and trade issues. It had expanded to include the so-called issues of Hong Kong's human rights and democracy. The 2019 act is actually an expansion and detailed upgrade of the 1992 policy as to clauses relating to human rights and democracy in Hong Kong. It is an attempt to respond to changes in Hong Kong's governance structure and external relations that have taken place in the 22 years since its return.

The Hong Kong Policy Act and the latest update both try to conflate Hong Kong's independent economic and trade status with political independence, and attempt to interfere in issues of human rights and democracy. This seriously violates the “one country, two systems” principle and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.The latest act contains the following elements: a discussion of Hong Kong's constitutional basis and its protection of human rights and democracy; an annual assessment of Hong Kong's autonomy and economic and trade status; provisions for favorable treatment and protection of protesters in Hong Kong; the imposition of sanctions on law enforcement officers who infringe upon the rights or freedoms of the Hong Kong people; an assessment of whether Hong Kong has adequately enforced the U.S. export control laws and sanctions; and the protection of U.S. citizens and American interests in Hong Kong.According to international jurisprudence, such protections should have been enforced under the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law. The U.S., however, simply ignored the Chinese laws and directly applied its own domestic laws to such protections and took corresponding measures and sanctions, which constitute legal prejudice and a challenge both to China's judicial sovereignty and to Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy. The U.S., while demanding that China's central government respect Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, directly infringed upon the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong by resorting to its domestic laws. Its de jure logic was seriously confusing and ill-founded.

The act is erroneous in terms of both jurisprudence and facts, providing proof that the U.S. Congress introduced the politics-driven bill hastily and failed to exercise due diligence or verify the relevant legal background and facts. Therefore, even when the act is eventually adopted by the full House, the Trump administration will find it difficult to implement this politically charged law, or at least some of its clauses.In the past, the U.S. had similar politically motivated and interference-focused legislation, statutes that were considered “dummy laws,” a term used to describe laws that have taken effect but cannot be enforced. However, because of the fact that the U.S. containment strategy against China is comprehensive and profoundly far-reaching, some clauses of the act might be selectively enforced, and could even be overused or abused.

Errors in the act include a time frame for universal suffrage in Hong Kong that is totally inapplicable. The act stipulates that Hong Kong voters should freely enjoy the right to elect the chief executive and all members of the Legislative Council through universal suffrage by 2020. This is irresponsible and indiscreet because it is not in compliance with the Basic Law and relevant laws.It also provides unconditional support for Hong Kong protesters while setting strict and unfair requirements on law enforcement — a sort of disguised endorsement of violence.In addition, its threat to impose sanctions related to law enforcement would seriously encroach on the rule of law and democratic process, blatantly damage the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong, and seriously undermine the Basic Law. It aims to provide unprecedented political support for local opposition forces, and even Hong Kong independence forces, and the irresponsible behavior that foments “color revolution”.The act's threat about Hong Kong's economic and trade status is a kind of misjudgment and neglect of American interests in the city, and it fails to adequately assess the enormous value of Hong Kong as a platform for American commercial interests and the win-win nature of that platform under the “one country, two systems” framework.The act obviously overestimated the role of Hong Kong in the Greater Bay Area as a national technology and innovation center, and exposed the U.S. as still harboring a Cold War mentality toward China in the field of technology.Finally, the act fails to clearly understand (and intentionally misunderstands) Hong Kong's constitutional basis, and deliberately lists the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law on equal footings to elevate its constitutional status. This is an intentional distortion of Hong Kong's constitutional basis, which was created under the Chinese Constitution and Hong Kong's Basic Law, and it will likely further encourage protesters in Hong Kong to continue their radical violence and separatist activities.

This latest act by the U.S. House is another example of “long arm” and interventionist legislation. It poses a direct challenge to the “one country, two systems” principle and the Basic Law by implicitly condoning violent protesters. It is a direct obstruction and offset to current efforts to curb violence and restore law and order in Hong Kong.The act will also be an obstacle in the new round of China-U.S. trade talks and will increase the risk in China-U.S. relations. It is an example of the lack of confidence and responsibility the U.S. has shown in its foreign policy and behavior in international politics.