2019年9月8日，示威者游行呼吁美国国会在中国香港通过《香港人权与民主法》。图片来源：路透社

2019年9月25日，美国参众两院外交委员会通过了《香港人权与民主法案》，对香港事务进行更为直接、具体及深入的干预。以目前的中美关系恶化情势、贸易谈判僵局以及香港牌的独特政治效用来看，该法案预期会最终通过。特朗普行政当局对法案执行有较大的政策裁量权，这就为中美政治博弈及利益协调留下了一定空间。

该法案既是美国战略鹰派的杰作，也是香港反对派极力游说的产物。与此同时，美国也在极力推动“台北法案”，以全力维护台湾的“邦交国秩序”，确保台湾具有最低限度的国际地位与影响力。美国倾尽国家立法资源和全球性战略资源而支持香港反对派及台独势力，是一种典型的对他国国内事务的长臂管辖。这一干预对中国国家主权利益以及国际法原则构成了直接损害。

香港法案的主要内容本属美国外交政策范畴，但却被制定成国会法律，这是其“政策法律化”的治理习惯使然。从法案归属的部门法体系及制度功能来看，香港法案是对1992年《香港政策法》的修订和升级。《香港政策法》制定于中国改革转型的特殊时间点，基本背景包括：其一，美国因应《中英联合声明》及香港回归带来的香港地位与港美关系变化，从法律技术而言有确认和调整新的港美经贸关系的立法需要，美国同期也制定了《澳门政策法》；其二，1989事件后香港民主派对美加强游说以及美国鹰派对华制裁力量的推动，造成《香港政策法》越过单纯的经贸议题而触及对所谓香港人权与民主的保障问题。2019年的香港法案则属于1992年法案中对香港人权与民主保障条款的细化与系统化，因应回归22年来尤其是十八大以来中央“积极治港”带来的香港治权结构及对外关系上的若干变化。

美国将香港经贸地位与香港自治地位（主要是人权与民主状况）挂钩，将香港严格识别为区别于内地的单独关税区、司法管辖区甚至政治实体。美国的香港政策法及最新法案将香港的经贸独立性混同于政治独立性，对香港人权与民主事务进行超常规干预，严重违反了“一国两制”与基本法秩序。法案条款主要进行了如下方面的规制：其一，对香港宪制基础及香港人权与民主的认知与保障；其二，对香港自治地位与经贸地位的年度评估；其三，对香港抗争人士的优待与保护；其四，对侵害香港人自由权利的执法者的制裁；其五，对香港遵守美国出口管制情况的调查与制裁；其六，对美国在港公民与利益的保护。从国际法理而言，这些保护类别通常都应当在中国宪法和基本法下进行，但美国直接绕开中国法律而诉诸自身国内法进行保护及采取相应制裁措施，是对中国司法主权与香港高度自治地位的法律侵害与挑战。美国要求中国政府尊重香港高度自治地位，自身却直接通过国内法侵害香港自治地位，其行为逻辑存在法理上的严重混乱和错位。

法案的诸多细节存在法理错误甚至事实错误，这表明美国国会立法仓促成形，政治挂帅，未能审慎调查和确认有关法律背景及事实，因而即便法案通过，美国行政当局对于操作性不强及政治性过于凸显的这部法案，至少是其中部分条款，显然也是难以执行的。美国既往的政策性、干预性立法也存在相当比例的“哑巴法律”情形，即法律生效，但法律难以执行。不过，鉴于美国当前对华遏制战略的全面性和深刻性，这部法案的部分条款显然会被选择性执行及人为放大，甚至可能遭到滥用。

法案细节的错误包括但不限于：其一，对香港普选时间表的设定完全不具有可操作性，如法案规定香港应不迟于2020年实现双普选，这是完全不符合基本法特别是“八三一决定”相关法律规定的轻率言论，如果不是蓄谋已久（比如2015年政改失败后即准备此法案），就是法盲本质；其二，对香港抗争者权利提供无保留的支持，而对香港执法者要求过严，严重不公，变相支持香港暴乱持续进行；其三，对香港执法者的制裁威胁严重损害香港法治和民主程序，严重损害香港高度自治权力，严重破坏基本法秩序，为本土分离及港独势力的大发展提供超强政治支持，是极端不负责任的“颜色革命”行为；其四，法案对香港经贸地位的威胁是对美国在港利益的误判和忽视，未能充分评估香港平台对美国商业利益的巨大价值及中国以“一国两制”框架维系这一平台的多方共赢本质；其五，法案对大湾区技术创新中的香港角色估计过高，对中国的技术冷战思维太过凸显；其六，法案对香港宪制基础存在法理认知错误，将“联合声明”与“基本法”并列，抬高“联合声明”的宪制地位，这是对中国宪法与基本法共同作为香港宪制基础的规范性扭曲，可能进一步诱导香港示威者进行极限化的分离抗争及去国家化。

总之，美国涉港新法案是其长臂管辖和干预主义立法的再次展现，对“一国两制”与基本法秩序构成直接危害，向暴力示威者提供极限保护和鼓动，对本次运动的止暴制乱与恢复法治构成直接的阻挠与对冲。该法案也将为中美新一轮贸易谈判及中美关系的宏观风险控制制造难题与障碍，是美国外交政策与国际政治行为缺乏自信和责任感的体现。

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.